Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kutulu
I guess I would hope that our competent judges would be able to look at a case like this and dismiss it on the grounds that the lady is a complete idiot but never intentionally did anything that could harm the kids. It makes sense to me but I think plenty of people would get their panties in a bunch, calling it 'judicial activism' or something like that.
The problem is that the players involved: the school, cops, DA, and judge are more concerned with how this case will affect their careers than doing the right thing. A savy jury would have nullified the case (of course the prosecution probably would kick the jury members out for even mentioning that).
|
Hmmm. The statute isn't looking for intentionality, per se. I'll do my best from my non-legal background to sketch out my argument for her conviction. The quotes I'm using are from the article I posted above:
In order to convict her, "the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that at the time of the incident, the alleged victim was under the age of sixteen years; and (2) that the defendant wilfully or unlawfully caused or permitted the victim to be placed in a situation that endangered the child's life or limb, or was likely to injure his health or impair his morals."
(1) has obviously been proven, so we'll move on.
(2) I think exposure to pornography would count as a situation that "was likely to... impair [the child's] morals." Debatable, perhaps, but it's certainly a fair reading of the law to conclude that children are harmed by viewing pornography.
The tricky question, then, is whether or not the exposure was "[willful] or [unlawful]" under the terms of the law.
"Willful or unlawful" behavior is defined as "the conduct of a person that is deliberately indifferent to, acquiesces in, or creates a situation inimical to the child's moral or physical welfare".
"'Wilfully' means intentionally or deliberately. 'Unlawfully' means without legal right or justification. Causing or permitting a situation to arise within the meaning of this statute requires conduct on the part of the defendant that brings about or permits that situation to arise when the defendant had such control or right of control over the child that the defendant might have reasonably prevented it."
Since the phrase is "willfully
or unlawfully", the government needs prove only one of the two beyond a reasonable doubt. To me, Amero's negligent behavior qualifies as "the conduct of a person that... creates a situation inimical to the child's moral... welfare." Also, that last part, "that the defendant might have reasonably prevented [the bad situation]", certainly rings true in my opinion.
Don't get me wrong: this is not a slam-dunk case for the prosecution, but the actions of the judge, jury, prosecutors, ect. do not seem in any way to be unreasonable. Their side seems quite logical to me.
One final note: 40 years is a ridiculous sentence for this particular crime. Any reasonable person would agree with that, I think. As has been mentioned, however, she has yet to be sentenced. I don't know what the minimum sentence is, if there even is a minimum, but this woman is going to get a lot less than 40 years even if she doesn't win her appeal. The 40 year sentence is for severe child abuse/neglect, not this mildly harmful sort of negligence. If she got, say, six months in jail for this offense, would anyone have a problem with it?
EDIT:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Val_1
Not allowing an expert witness is unforgivable, especially in a case involving technology. They ONLY reason I can see to not allow the expert witness is because she was being railroaded.
|
The article says the prosecution wasn't given proper access to the expert's testimony before the trial (discovery, they call it). I don't see anything improper about excluding testimony when the rules about testimony are so flagrantly violated. Discovery is very important.