In 2008, Nadia Kajouji, then a first-year Carleton student, took her own life. This came as a result of William Melchert-Dinkel’s advice and encouragement in an online chatroom.
Melchert-Dinkel, a native of Minnesota, has also been convicted of assisting the suicide of 32-year-old British citizen Mark Drybrough via the Internet.
Despite the leniency of Melchert-Dinkel’s initial sentence, 360 days in jail as opposed to a possible 15 years, he has appealed, arguing it was within his right to exercise free speech.
Although Melchert-Dinkel’s claims may be acceptable under the American constitution, Canadian law limits free speech if it infringes on other rights, such as “the right to life” (Article 7), which would likely be seen as more valuable to most people.
This case is messy. It deals with victims in two different countries, and an offender in a third country, all of which may have different laws and human rights policies. But even if there are slight variations in legislation, ethically who’s to say that one should override the other? A Canadian life was lost, a British life was lost — the judge should consider that this case spans beyond U.S. borders.
Melchert-Dinkel’s sentence is already lax enough considering he played a significant role in the deaths of two innocent people and will not even be spending one consecutive year in prison.
This is a precedent-setting case.
If Melchert-Dinkel’s appeal for a lesser sentence is successful, it will be even worse for the already dangerous precedent being set, especially since this type of crime could happen again as the Internet and social media become more prevalent every day.