Anyone following this? Man with suicide fetish is found in the wrong

Miscellaneous Current Events
1

Nurse William Melchert-Dinkel had ‘suicide fetish,’ went online to provoke two people’s deaths:

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/10/17/2009-10-17_nurse_william_melchertdinkel_had_suicide_fetish_went_online_to_provoke_two_peopl.html#ixzz0pKoWjxFV

MINNEAPOLIS — A nurse who authorities say got his kicks by visiting Internet suicide chat rooms and encouraging depressed people to kill themselves is under investigation in at least two deaths and could face criminal charges that could test the limits of the First Amendment.

Investigators said William Melchert-Dinkel, 47, feigned compassion for those he chatted with, while offering step-by-step instructions on how to take their lives.

“Most importatn is the placement of the noose on the neck … Knot behind the left ear and rope across the carotid is very important for instant unconciousness and death,” he allegedly wrote in one Web chat.

He is under investigation in the suicides of Mark Drybrough, 32, who hanged himself at his home in Coventry, England, in 2005, and Nadia Kajouji, an 18-year-old from Brampton, Ontario, who drowned in a river in Ottawa, where she was studying at Carleton University.

While the victims’ families are frustrated that no charges have been filed, legal experts said prosecuting such a case would be difficult because Melchert-Dinkel didn’t physically help kill them. In the meantime, he has been stripped of his nursing license.

“Nothing is going to come of it,” Melchert-Dinkel said of the allegations during a brief interview with The Associated Press. “I’ve moved on with my life, and that’s it.”

The case came to the attention of Minnesota authorities in March 2008 when an anti-suicide activist in Britain alerted them that someone in the state was using the Internet to manipulate people into killing themselves.

Last May, a Minnesota task force on Internet crimes searched Melchert-Dinkel’s computer and found a Web chat between him and the young Canadian woman describing the best way to tie knots. In their search warrant, investigators said Melchert-Dinkel “admitted he has asked persons to watch their suicide via webcam but has not done so.”

Authorities said he used such online aliases as “Li Dao,” ''Cami" and “Falcon Girl.”

The Minnesota Board of Nursing, which revoked his license in June, said he encouraged numerous people to commit suicide and told at least one person that his job as a nurse made him an expert on the most effective way to do it.

The report also said Melchert-Dinkel checked himself into a hospital in January. A nurse’s assessment said he had a “suicide fetish” and had formed suicide pacts online that he didn’t intend to carry out.

In excerpts of a Web chat between Kajouji and Melchert-Dinkel, provided by Kajouji’s mother, he allegedly gave the young woman both emotional support and technical advice on hanging.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/10/17/2009-10-17_nurse_william_melchertdinkel_had_suicide_fetish_went_online_to_provoke_two_peopl.html#ixzz0pKoNyc1W

2

bump

3

I read the article. People definitely have the right to kill themselves, and the right to say what they want on internet chat rooms. But do they have the right to manipulate a vulnerable, depressed person into killing themselves? This seems like a form of aggression into the mind of another person, resulting in the physical aggression of suicide. I’m trying to figure out what Rothbard would say, but it’s not coming to me right now.

4

The public and police are confusing what is detestable with what is criminal. I see no agression here.

5

I have to agree with Jeremiah here. While I see why we’d want to somehow argue that it was a form of aggression, doing so would set a precedent for counting any verbal communication as a form of aggression. It might be argued that “we” wouldn’t go as far to claim that any verbal insult/abuse/ect. is a form of aggression, but what about “others”? Regardless, I doubt this fellow is going to be making many friends. I can’t imagine he’ll be able to find work for some time at least. There is as such little need to actually file a prosecute.

6

Yeah - the difference between justice and morality. On the other hand, take this situation:

Smith (a man with a “suicide fetish”) and Jones (a teenager who is depressed and contemplating suicide) are neighbors, but are talking online with pseudonyms. Smith is trying to convince Jones to kill himself, and is explaining how to do so in the most efficient manner. Then Jones’ mother looks over his shoulder and sees the conversation. She has been on the same chat room, and knows that her son is really talking to Smith next door. Worried for her son’s life, she breaks into Smith’s house and unplugs his computer. Then she steals her son’s laptop to protect him.

In this case, only the mother is a criminal?

The point is that defense is appropriate given clear and present danger of coercion. By inciting people to kill themselves, Smith is perhaps a clear and immediate threat to life, like someone raising a gun to shoot.

7

The Heresy of Prudence by Murray Rothbard:

“Would I never punish speech under any circumstances? Only when this speech is a direct threat of criminal action. In short, if I walk over to someone menacingly and say that I will kill him unless he hands me his wallet, I am committing a direct threat of crime, and this is properly punishable by a jury.”

The problem is that this guy doesn’t use direct threats. He just encourages people to kill themselves and then explains how to tie the knot on the noose.

8

Regardless, I doubt this fellow is going to be making many friends. I can’t imagine he’ll be able to find work for some time at least. There is as such little need to actually file a prosecute.

This may be true, but you probably wouldn’t be saying this if you were the mother of that girl. Is there justice in just letting this guy perfect the art of manipulating people into killing themselves?

BTW, this reminds me of the end of And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie.

9

Apparently, the law in Minnesota is:

Subdivision 1.Aiding suicide.

Whoever intentionally advises, encourages, or assists another in taking the other’s own life may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both.

I found a Supreme Court case from 1997, Washington v Glucksberg, that directly relates to this. The Court ruled:

An examination of our Nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices demonstrates that Anglo American common law has punished or otherwise disapproved of assisting suicide for over 700 years; that rendering such assistance is still a crime in almost every State; that such prohibitions have never contained exceptions for those who were near death; that the prohibitions have in recent years been reexamined and, for the most part, reaffirmed in a number of States; and that the President recently signed the Federal Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997, which prohibits the use of federal funds in support of physician assisted suicide. Pp. 5-15.(b) In light of that history, this Court’s decisions lead to the conclusion that respondents’ asserted “right” to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.215

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-110.ZS.html

Sounds like there might be a solid case against him.

10

Alright, I can’t seem to get the formatting to work, sorry it’s so hard to read, the first link is to the minnesota law and the second is the link to Washington v Glucksberg

11

For Rothbard, this situation would probably fall into the “inciting a riot” scenario which he clearly distinguishes (in For a New Liberty) between the verbal action of inciting violence and the actual perpetuation of violence.

Though I know this is kind of sloppy speech and subject to “what it” comments, but, we can’t get into the habit of punishing speech when the speaker has the-right-to-property from which they speak.

12

@ LeeO

In regards to your mother example, why doesn’t the mother simply pull the plug of her own son’s computer? Unlike the Rothbard example with the gun, there is no immediate threat there is only advice on how to perform an action, if indeed you wish to perform that action. Though for the record, I’m not sure if I even agree with the immediate threat of action as a justification for violence. After all, we are simply talking about threat-probabilities under subjective valuations

13

For Rothbard, this situation would probably fall into the “inciting a riot” scenario which he clearly distinguishes (in For a New Liberty) between the verbal action of inciting violence and the actual perpetuation of violence.

Yes, that’s it I think.

Though I know this is kind of sloppy speech and subject to “what it” comments, but, we can’t get into the habit of punishing speech when the speaker has the-right-to-property from which they speak.

I agree. This just an extra sticky situation, so the “what if” comments are tempting.

14

In regards to your mother example, why doesn’t the mother simply pull the plug of her own son’s computer? Unlike the Rothbard example with the gun, there is no immediate threat there is only advice on how to perform an action, if indeed you wish to perform that action. Though for the record, I’m not sure if I even agree with the immediate threat of action as a justification for violence. After all, we are simply talking about threat-probabilities under subjective valuations

Yeah, good point. That guy is such a jerk I think I just felt like figuring out why he should be punished.

15

Though for the record, I’m not sure if I even agree with the immediate threat of action as a justification for violence.

If someone raises a gun to shoot me, I think it’s okay to knock the gun out of his hand and make sure he can’t pick it up again. If I have a gun, I even think it’s okay to shoot him before he shoots me. These actions are clearly in self-defense.

16

Wait- is the Mother suicidal as well? Or why has she been to the same chat room beforehand?

As for your example, yes the mother would be a criminal in so far as she intruded on the neighbor’s property. Unlike the classic gun scenario she had several other non-criminal actions that she could partake to remedy the situation. The man wouldn’t be a crmininal under a libertarian court, al though it seems he would be in a state court in Minnesota. Truth be told though I couldn’t see a court or PDA/police helping the aforementioned man in his claims against the mother.

17

Wait- is the Mother suicidal as well?

No, but she likes to go to the chat room and and help people stay alive :slight_smile:

In the end, it wasn’t a very good example and I agree with your conclusion. I’m still getting used to the idea of libertarian law, and guys like this being innocent in terms of non-aggression. It’s the same with bribery and libel - it’s perfectly fine to bribe someone and to lie about people in a libertarian society.

18

LeeO: A strict propertarian analysis leads directly to the conclusion that there were no rights violations here. However, I do not think that propertarian analysis is a sufficient basis for law (though I think it provides an extremely powerful framework for constructing well-founded legal ideas). As far as libertarian law (market law) goes, this matter should be handled as a suit or suits between the families of the suicidals and this suicide-proponent guy. The long and short of it is that being an a-hole and doing things that make people want to sue you - even if you are vindicated in the end - would be an expensive habit in a market-law society and would not occur very much.

Clayton -

19

Thanks, Clayton. That makes sense, and makes me feel better!

20

In short: Why people want to suicide in the first place? That’s the real question. I think if one wants to put a blame on someone, he should blame “victim’s” parents. They probably damaged their kid. Also he can put a blame on governement which doesn’t allow free association (I mean hear public schools especially).

My fast thoughts on this issue.