You can’t expect better from someone who thinks her own self-induced disastrous personal life is a tale of star-crossed lovers.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140420/opinion/Was-the-writing-on-the-wall-.515609

HE KILLED HER FULL STOP.

Unbelievable.

The truth is that Erin Tanti was much closer to Lisa’s age then your own.

Despite being a legal adult I think that ideally a distinction would be made which reflects the person’s age specifically. This being said even as a 23 year old I would have expected much more from him when dealing with a teenager. My point however is that there is a clear difference between how a 23 and 49 year old would be expected to react in any situation.

[Daphne – Oh, this is where you are absolutely wrong. At Erin Tanti’s age, I had THREE CHILDREN OF MY OWN to look after. If anything had happened to them, no court in the world would have given me a lighter sentence on the basis that I was 23 and not 49. Unfortunately, youth has been prolonged socially so far beyond adulthood-in-law-and-biology that we tend to forget that only one or two generations back, Erin Tanti, at 23, would have been married and providing for a wife, a baby and putting a roof over all their heads and paying the bills. And a generation further back than that, he would have been off fighting some war somewhere. Effectively, at 23 I had far more and greater responsibilities than I do now at 49. At 23, people are fully cognisant of their responsibilities. If they are not, there is something seriously wrong with their mental and emotional development.

There certainly should not be a legal distinction between responsibility towards children at 23 and at 49. For starters, people of 49 generally do not have minor children, whereas it is entirely normal for people in their 20s to do so. So what are you saying here: that people in their 20s, who are of an age when they have young children, should be less legally liable for behaving responsibility towards them than people in their late 40s, who would normally not have young children?]

“Whosoever shall prevail on any person to commit suicide
or shall give him any assistance, shall, if the suicide takes place, be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve years.”

Given that there seem to be no eye-witnesses to the crime and the defendant has not confessed, it is probable that the prosecution would rely quite heavily on forensic evidence to establish the facts, i.e. whether the actus reus consisted in the defendant actually pushing the victim over the cliff — the defendant claims she jumped.

If he pushed the victim over and with the intention of killing her or putting her life in manifest jeopardy, then there is both the malicious act (actus reus) and the intention (mens rea) and the crime would be willful homicide not assisted suicide.

If one gave a minor a quantity of pills and she willingly swallowed them with the intention of committing suicide and the suicide takes place, then it is not wilful homicide on the part of the giver of the pills.

It may be assisting to commit suicide, depending on the intention of the perpetrator. Even if the perpetrator “prevails” on the victim to commit suicide, it is still the offence under article 213.

One has to see how the court would interpret the word “prevails”. To what extent does “prevailing” differ from compelling someone to commit suicide, in which case, I would think, it would amount to willful homicide? We do not seem to have many precedents in Malta and one will presumably have to resort to foreign jurisprudence and jurists.

I therefore don’t see how the “adult-minor” context fits in. If the giver of the pills used force — which apparently must be such as to be more than prevailing — to compel the other to swallow the pills and jump off, then it is another matter altogether.

[Daphne – Aren’t you missing something? Those who supply the heroin which kills an addict are not charged with assisting suicide. They are charged with homicide. Does it make a difference if the drugs are legal or illegal? The addict takes the heroin willingly, and even pays for it.]

Perhaps what you have in mind is that Erin Tanti had such a psychological ascendance on the victim that it amounted to compelling her to take the pills and jump off the cliffs against her will. That would be very difficult to prove I think. If he pushed her off himself, then it would be a different matter, of course.

One must keep in mind at all times that it all depends on what the intention of the perpetrator of the crime was. This is the all-important feature. Was it to assist in suicide or was it to commit willful homicide?

[Daphne – This is so unbelievable. You determinedly and deliberately miss or avoid the crucial element here: that you, a grown adult, cannot ‘assist the suicide’ of a child. This is not an adult-to-adult situation here. The grown man who ‘assists the suicide’ of a child is, actually, killing that child. Children are no more free to take a decision to kill themselves than they are to vote, marry, stay out all night, or run off with a lover. They are not 18. That’s why they are children.]

Of course, in the end, it is a matter of proving what this intention (mens rea) was. One may speculate that it is the difficulty of proving what the intention of Erin Tanti was that lies behind the inclusion of both charges. It will be for the jury to decide on the facts what the intentions of the perpetrator were. I think this case is going to be a “cause celebre” in Maltese jurisprudence.

All this is simply my opinion. I do hope I do not seem like some boring lecturer. In that case, please just omit to upload and come to the rescue of your readers.

Every single thing which connects him to Lisa, apart from him being her teacher (and he’s got some proving to do even in that sphere), is wrong and immoral.