By Bernie on 06 Jun 2007
Photo: This nerds taking over.
We are a nation filled with Prosecutors running amuck. In our frenzy to protect our children we are putting innocent people in jail for decades for what would be simple mistakes or misdemeanors in any other civilized country.
You can now be executed in Louisiana for holding a girl's hand if she decides she doesn't like you and says you touched her little boobies. And finding a prosecutor willing to take on a sex case is no problem since most prosecutors could not care less whether you are innocent or not as long as they get to put a notch on their belt to help advance their careers. The Duke Lacrosse case is a perfect example of prosecutorial over-exuberance. Mike Nifong, the immoral, lying piece of ratshit, only needed the uncorroborated testimony of a looney tunes ho, to make sure he got national exposure in the media which helped him win election to a full term as district attorney.
Now you may think that Nifong is an anomaly. No, what would be an anomaly would be a decent, honest, fair-minded prosecutor who would never take on a case simply for self-aggrandizement.
It wouldn't be so bad that we have so many conniving, lowlife prosecutors in this country; what makes the whole thing so egregiously unfair is that we are passing Draconian punishments for relatively harmless, so-called crimes. I know many of my readers disagree, but I think it is criminal itself to send adult females who have voluntary sex with teenage boys to prison for decades. I'm sorry, but I do not believe anyone would actually feel threatened and lock their doors at night or lose sleep if one of these females were released into their community. And if you are afraid of women like these, you need to move to Afghanistan where you'll feel quite at home with the Taliban.
So aside from prosecutors gone wild, I also blame the public as well. The hysteria about children and porn has gone beyond reason. Here I'm speaking about the Julie Amero Case, where a teacher is facing 40 years in jail for an obvious mistake. Here is the story:
Washington Post, 25 Jan 2007, Substitute Teacher Faces Jail Time Over Spyware
A 40-year-old former substitute teacher from Connecticut is facing prison time following her conviction for endangering students by exposing them to pornographic material displayed on a classroom computer.
Local prosecutors charged that the teacher was caught red-handed surfing for porn in the presence of seventh graders. The defense claimed the graphic images were pop-up ads generated by spyware already present on the computer prior to the teacher's arrival. The jury sided with the prosecution and convicted her of four counts of endangering a child, a crime that brings a punishment of up to 10 years per count. She is due to be sentenced on March 2.
I had a chance this week to speak with the accused, Windham, Conn., resident Julie Amero. Amero described herself as the kind of person who can hardly find the power button on a computer, saying she often relies on written instructions from her husband explaining how to access e-mail, sign into instant messaging accounts and other relatively simple tasks.
On the morning of Oct 19, 2004, Amero said she reported for duty at a seventh grade classroom at Kelly Middle School in Norwich, Conn. After stepping out into the hall for a moment, Amero returned to find two students hovering over the computer at the teacher's desk. As supported by an analysis of her computer during the court proceedings, the site the children were looking at was a seemingly innocuous hairstyling site called "new-hair-styles.com." Amero said that shortly thereafter, she noticed a series of new Web browser windows opening up displaying pornographic images, and that no matter how quickly she closed each one out, another would pop up in its place.
But an expert who was not allowed to testify for technical reasons concluded otherwise:
14 Feb 2007,
Teacher faces jail time for porn pop-ups
In court, school officials testified that the school's firewall software had indeed expired, that the anti-virus software on the computer was long out of date, and that there were no anti-spyware tools on the machine. A computer expert hired by Amero's lawyers—who was ultimately blocked from presenting his testimony because it was not made available to the prosecution before the case went to court—claimed that there was evidence that spyware/adware was, in fact, installed on the computer for weeks before Amero's arrival at the school.
By a miracle she's getting a new trial, although the proper, decent thing to do is simply drop the case.
6 Jun 2007,
Substitute teacher spared sentencing for porn pop-ups, gets new trial
The computer in question was sent to a Connecticut state laboratory after the original trial finished, and the judge announced today that the lab findings may contradict those presented by the prosecution's computer expert at trial. Amero's lawyers asked for and received a new trial, and the request was not opposed by the prosecution. A date has yet to be set.
Julie Amero Defense Fund.
Here is a list of the prosecutor and others in the case.
Can anyone reading the facts in this case explain to me why anyone would have brought this case to trial? We need to reign in our Prosecutors and the rest of this country needs to take a chill-pill before we end up with our own Shariah law without any help from Muslims.
Soon we'll be hanging gays in public.
Update: The Case is Over, although Justice was Not Served
Anyone may republish this article for non-commercial use without asking my permission. I make it easy, see details here.
comments powered by Disqus