Poll: murder or suicide?

[Akytalusia]

imagine a serial murderer who's a master of psychological manipulation, and kills people by convincing them kill themselves, but otherwise doesn't physically interact with them at all. is the killer responsible for their suggestions, or are the killed responsible for their decisions? legally and objectively.

 

[shootthebandit]

imagine a serial murderer who's a master of psychological manipulation, and kills people by convincing them kill themselves, but otherwise doesn't physically interact with them at all. is the killer responsible for their suggestions, or are the killed responsible for their decisions? legally and objectively.

Youve basically described jigsaw from the saw series. Im pretty sure the police tried to stop him

 

[Akytalusia]

imagine a serial murderer who's a master of psychological manipulation, and kills people by convincing them kill themselves, but otherwise doesn't physically interact with them at all. is the killer responsible for their suggestions, or are the killed responsible for their decisions? legally and objectively.

Youve basically described jigsaw from the saw series. Im pretty sure the police tried to stop him

not even. jigsaw used timers within which you they had to make a decision to save themselves or die. there's a huge difference between an ultimatum and a mere decision. the killer in my scenario isn't forcing himself or his ideas on the victims. just using suggestion and taking advantage of psychology to undermine weaker mental foundations in the victims.
jigsaw on the other hand, did force himself on the victims if they didn't choose life within his time limit. his victims didn't choose death.

 

[madwarper]

So, it's The Poet.

Yea, he's a murderous bastard. Though he'll probably get away at first, he'll eventually drown in the LA river.

 

[IllumInaTIma]

So you're talking about that guy from first episode of Sherlock?

 

[Kae]

So you're talking about that guy from first episode of Sherlock?

It's what I was thinking, obviously he goes to jail.

 

[HardkorSB]

imagine a serial murderer who's a master of psychological manipulation, and kills people by convincing them kill themselves, but otherwise doesn't physically interact with them at all. is the killer responsible for their suggestions, or are the killed responsible for their decisions? legally and objectively.

Well, you can say that every government who sends soldiers to risk their lives by fighting people they don't know is doing just that.
Also, those Middle Eastern extremist organizations are guilty of it. The higher-ups never fight or blow themselves up, they convince their naive followers to do that.
Let's not forget to mention the countless cases where bullying, even just the verbal/emotional one, caused the person being bullied to commit suicide.

Yes, they are responsible.

 

[shootthebandit]

imagine a serial murderer who's a master of psychological manipulation, and kills people by convincing them kill themselves, but otherwise doesn't physically interact with them at all. is the killer responsible for their suggestions, or are the killed responsible for their decisions? legally and objectively.

Youve basically described jigsaw from the saw series. Im pretty sure the police tried to stop him

not even. jigsaw used timers within which you they had to make a decision to save themselves or die. there's a huge difference between an ultimatum and a mere decision. the killer in my scenario isn't forcing himself or his ideas on the victims. just using suggestion and taking advantage of psychology to undermine weaker mental foundations in the victims.
jigsaw on the other hand, did force himself on the victims if they didn't choose life within his time limit. his victims didn't choose death.

Yeah good point but when jigsaw pits two people against one another would the survivor be classed as a murderer or would jigsaw take blame as he has "forced" them to do it?

 

[KOMega]

I would say that the "killer" is in the wrong but those who have been broken with words still hold responsibility for their own actions.

Willpower against psychological attacks (not including tricking them into doing something that would result in death, ex: turning an unknown valve that unknown to the victim filled the room with poison gas.) is kinda like having an immune system, except some people's are a lot stronger than others and it isn't their fault if they didn't have enough. But I would say it'd be rather unhealthy and irresponsible to not build up willpower against some form of psychological attack.

The killer would technically not be responsible, but if you count "using words with the intent to kill", in some way then you probably can.

 

[Akytalusia]

imagine a serial murderer who's a master of psychological manipulation, and kills people by convincing them kill themselves, but otherwise doesn't physically interact with them at all. is the killer responsible for their suggestions, or are the killed responsible for their decisions? legally and objectively.

Well, you can say that every government who sends soldiers to risk their lives by fighting people they don't know is doing just that.
Also, those Middle Eastern extremist organizations are guilty of it. The higher-ups never fight or blow themselves up, they convince their naive followers to do that.
Let's not forget to mention the countless cases where bullying, even just the verbal/emotional one, caused the person being bullied to commit suicide.

Yes, they are responsible.

that is a very valid comparison. they're exactly the same. kind of reminds me of that adage; "Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god." basically, the more people who's fate you control, the less evil your actions are considered when your subjects die. at least if you win. >.> you're still be considered evil if you lose to a higher power. leads to another adage, "History is written by the victor."

 

[DoPo]

the killer in my scenario isn't forcing himself or his ideas on the victims.

Ummm...erm...

imagine a serial murderer who's a master of psychological manipulation, and kills people by convincing them kill themselves

just using suggestion and taking advantage of psychology to undermine weaker mental foundations in the victims.

No, that's definitely forcing his ideas. It's his idea for the victim to kill themselves. He is using methods to bring about and realise these ideas through other people. It's forcing ideas.

 

[Voulan]

Are we saying punishment as in through what the actual legal system says? In which case, he'd be viewed as nothing more than an immoral troll. And if this is a bizarrely magical situation as you've described it, there's no evidence that he's actually involved at all. In which case, I voted that the killer is the one at fault morally, but cannot be punished, either through the legal definition and also because his actions did not dictate theirs.

 

[thesilentman]

Er, the killer? He is forcing them, be it through psychological complusion rather than actually doing some stabs.

 

[PBMcNair]

Killer is responsible in my book, but I'm not 100% sure what they'd have him on. Is there any kind of evidence left behind, any witness's ? I'm assuming that if the this is a moral/ethical question, and not an "is this a perfect crime" question, the police would have something. There is probably some law somewhere covering situations similar to this, but would it apply here? I don't know. But its only a matter of time, given the cyber-bullying inspired suicides that have occurred over the past few years.

 

[Dismal purple]

I think that the question is is it possible to convince someone to commit suicide who otherwise wouldn't.

 

[Olas]

erm...
Why isn't "both" an option? I'd say the victim is at least partially to blame, while the murderer is completely to blame.
I guess if I had to choose one I'd say the murderer.

As to whether you can punish him? Of course you can, unless you can't find him I suppose.

I think that the question is is it possible to convince someone to commit suicide who otherwise wouldn't.

If the person was already very depressed and thinking about it you could always be the little push that nudges them over the edge, speaking figuratively of course.

 

[Silverbeard]

imagine a serial murderer who's a master of psychological manipulation, and kills people by convincing them kill themselves, but otherwise doesn't physically interact with them at all. is the killer responsible for their suggestions, or are the killed responsible for their decisions? legally and objectively.

It would take a very specific person in a very specific state of mind to be influenced to suicide. People, even ones in psychological distress, rarely decide to top themselves. They agonize, dither and sometimes consult others. While it is foreseeable that a wordy killer could convince one to top himself, such a move would require careful observation of the victim's persona life to find the right moment. Even if the talker cannot be directly responsible for the victim's demise, his footprints would be all over the victim's life- and the police investigators would find this, because they are at least reasonably competent. A capable police or government psychologist could interview the manipulator and decide, in a professional capacity, that said manipulator has deviant or murderous tendencies and may have pushed the victim off the edge. Only in the movie do we find that the 'evil' psychologist is smarter than every other mortal on the planet.
Then all we need is a capable prosecutor and the manipulator gets charged as an accessory to murder, especially if he was near the victim when he topped himself. Jail time!

On a more philosophical note, I would say that the victim is to blame for not resisting the urge to top himself, no matter what was whispered in his ear. I have never been in an awful enough situation that I seriously considered topping myself, so maybe it is disingenuous of me to make such a claim, but I do believe that every mortal has a responsibility to fight through his troubles, not top himself.

 

[Hero of Lime]

The killer would definitely be at fault. I imagine that anything said to make themselves would be enough for a prosecution to make a case that this person is worthy to stand trial. We kinda do the same to bullies and cyber bullies, I think they face jail time if the court if convinced they verbally assaulted someone enough to injure or kill themselves.

 

[Brian Tams]

imagine a serial murderer who's a master of psychological manipulation, and kills people by convincing them kill themselves, but otherwise doesn't physically interact with them at all. is the killer responsible for their suggestions, or are the killed responsible for their decisions? legally and objectively.

Youve basically described jigsaw from the saw series. Im pretty sure the police tried to stop him

not even. jigsaw used timers within which you they had to make a decision to save themselves or die. there's a huge difference between an ultimatum and a mere decision. the killer in my scenario isn't forcing himself or his ideas on the victims. just using suggestion and taking advantage of psychology to undermine weaker mental foundations in the victims.
jigsaw on the other hand, did force himself on the victims if they didn't choose life within his time limit. his victims didn't choose death.

Yeah good point but when jigsaw pits two people against one another would the survivor be classed as a murderer or would jigsaw take blame as he has "forced" them to do it?

Jigsaw would be charged with murder, not sure about the survivor, though. Perhaps an accessory? I'm no lawyer, though However, I'm pretty sure Jiggy would be murder. Its no different than a mobster ordering a hit on someone being charged with murder, as the hitman is really just a tool of murder being wielded by said mobster.

This applies to the topic in general. Yes, if you play mind games enough with someone to convince someone to slit their wrists, then you essentially used the knife yourself. That's why I believe that harsh punishments should be used when interpreting bully suicides. After all, someone using mind games to get someone to kill themselves is essentially just really, really precise verbal bullying. The only difference is that, with the serial killer it is intentional, where as most bullying cases its negligent (as in, I doubt some bullies say to themselves "I'm going to keep harassing this kid until he/she commits suicide.)

 

[Agayek]

Youve basically described jigsaw from the saw series. Im pretty sure the police tried to stop him

Nah, it's the first bad guy from that Sherlock Holmes show with Benedict Cumberbatch (awesome show, by the way).

OT: From a legal standpoint, the killer is definitely the one at fault and should be held accountable for the death.

The problem is that something like you've described is essentially impossible to prove without a recording of or an eyewitness to the conversation. At absolute most, in 99% of cases, the most you could prove beyond reasonable doubt was that the killer was negligent in not stopping the victim from killing themselves, and if they're smart, you wouldn't even be able to prove that much.

From a moral perspective, I'd say the blame lies firmly on the deceased. Ultimately, they are the ones who made the decision to kill themselves. Even with someone whispering into your ear, you still have the ability to choose. You always have the ability to choose, in every situation. If they are too pathetic to not make the ultimate coward's choice, then they deserve neither pity nor respect and should bear the full blame for their decision.

Now, that's not to say the person talking to them is in any way less of an amoral scumbag that needs to be strung up by their entrails, just that in choosing suicide, the deceased bears the responsibility for the choice.