View Single Post
Old 02-28-2007, 07:24 PM   #20 (permalink)
politicophile
Addict
 
politicophile's Avatar
 
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.
__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Last edited by politicophile; 02-28-2007 at 07:26 PM..
politicophile is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360