Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
BUT, I believe Amero failed to do everything within reason to prevent the children from seeing pornography. She was negligent and her conviction was therefore justified. Am I reading this correctly when I see that she actually hasn't been sentenced yet and that the maximum possible penalty is 40 years?
|
I suppose that's the real point of the case, "within reason."
Pesonally, I think it's unreasonable for anyone to be
that "computer illiterate." Operating a computer is easier than driving and I'm rather confident that she can drive...
People in the latter part of this thread have been saying that she should have turned off the computer. Hasn't it been established that she was told by someone of authority and pervieved exptertise that she should
not turn off the computer? My understanding is that she wanted to turn it off but was instructed not to. If she is as computer illiterate as people are saying, she didn't know enough to do so...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jorgelito
Hmmm...but is it too late? I mean, if they are already at sentencing the it is essentially at the end of the process?
I understand that the players involved followed the letter of the law but isn't there some kind of discretion involved? Judges have been waaaayy lenient on others for far worse crimes. Violent athletes and celebrities come to mind.
|
There is discretion. They can still give her a light sentence (although it doesn't look like they'll do so) and she can still appeal the decision.
I wonder how she'll feel about computers after this whole ordeal and whether it will motivate her to learn a little more about them...