Per my response to others:
I agree it was sleazy - but I can also hear the defense stating, rightfully so, that she was not qualified to understand his issues properly. It's why we have "expert" witnesses and rely on testimony of so-called "experts" in some cases. It could just as easily be said that she has sociopath issues which amount to her needing psychiatric help.
I would not be sad to see her indicted/convicted but we also need to have some lines within the legal system to insure it isn't up to the discretion of those who are offended vs. the actual laws and intents of the laws under the Constitution.
So many of our problems have been caused by politicians selling us on, or claiming, some "Noble Cause" clause in the Constitution that my "spidey sense" goes off with such cases.
My instincts say, "hang her from a tree in the town square", my other side says we need to be absolutely sure we are actually doing what's right without putting another ding in the Constitution - like "hate crimes"....
I think you are confusing a lot of unrelated things. She encouraged and manipulated a person into doing harm... Just because the harm was to himself makes no difference.
Charles Manson personally killed no one, but he was properly convicted of 7 counts of first degree murder.
There is no confusion in the law about this. She should indeed face these charges.