Boy Touches Breast = LIFE IN PRISON

This post is actually more complicated then it seems. On one hand, when I was 13 there's a good chance I'd have locked myself in my bedroom imagining sleeping with a few of my mums friends. On the other, the way it's described she actually raped this kid, no better or worse than any other dirty pedo.

As lame and wrong as this sounds, it probably depends on if this woman was hot or not.

Nevada has pretty strong sentences for a lot of things treated lightly in other states.

The moral of the story is, if you're going to break the law, don't do it in Nevada or Arizona if you're an illegal immigrant.

So much for being protected against Cruel and unusual punishment.....


Just crazy.

reply to post by Captain Obvious


Youre right, kissing and asking for sex really mandate a life sentence.

Cruel and unusual punishment? Absolutely.

After serving a life sentence, it will be hard for her to find a boy that would even remotely consider touching her. She may have to go to an old-folks home to find someone vulnerable enough.

No sympathy, sorry.

reply to post by brainwrek
You are over-simplifying the story.

She chose a jury trial over having her name put on a list of sex offenders, which she is one. She was found guilty.

Maybe the mandatory minimum sentence is wrong, but she is not too bright.

She was being a little naive but she probably never thought she would get this ridculous of a sentence. Is the boy still alive? At first I thought maybe she killed him? 100 years a go this would a mut point because their wasn't an age of consent.
By the way when has the age of consent changed to 16; I thought it was 18.

reply to post by butcherguy


Of course she is an idiot, but thats not the problem people have with this case.

The issue at hand is the sentence imposed on her.

reply to post by dreamseeker


Hi Dreamseaker,

From what I have gathered some states it is 18 and in some it is 16. In the UK it is 16 but on the continent of Eurpope in some countries it can be as low as 14, however, this is between same age partners.....



Peace!

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


As the first reply to this thread stated, if this had been a man forcing himself upon a child then people would be wanting him dead and life in prison would be seen as a weak sentence.

She's a paedophile that attacked a child, once they cross the line between imagination and action that's it as far as i'm concerned. If they do it once they will do it again, she just happened to get caught. I don't see what was not proportional about the sentence, she abused a child so quite simply, i hope she rots in prison until her teeth fall out and her heart stops.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by The Wave


Oh ok that makes sense. When I was dating I would always stay over the age of 21. I find anyone under that age too immature for me.
I think the woman is sick but what about Mary Kay Latrino isn't she out of prision now?
Did the woman appeal it? Her lawyer was too overemotional so that might of hurt her chances as well.

reply to post by dreamseeker


Hi,

The saddest thing is that kids in the UK and the continent are falling pregnant at 11 or 12....

Although this woman has a life sentence there appears to be little parental control over the kids. And this is driven by videos, magazines and MSN pressure that drive the kids into bringing kids into the world when they are still kids themselves.

And legislation against this.... hmmm...guess there are $'s, £'s and €'s.

Peace!

I could not bring myself to read through all 5 pages of this post, did anyone bring up the fact that this mentally ill woman is

ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE IN 10 YEARS

she is not doomed to spend the rest of her life in prison, and she most likely won't.

I believe confusion runs deep with americans, "I should know." She is being overly punished, why not just exile her? Oh wait, we do not do those types of things anymore, hmmm, I say we are liveing in interesting time. What are you doing to protect our selves and the ones we love from un-justice. .

I am not saying she is not in the wrong, maybe she will learn her truths about her confusion. . . But this is absalutly silly. Injustice will knock, I shall welcome it, for I know who Iam and Why Iam here.

all I really can say is be carefull sisters and brothers.

"Do not spit on the side-walk"

Lucky bastard, there's nothing like a Milf to get the man out in you.

Criminal law, centered upon placing revenge as a virtue, is ridiculous. In fact, the whole system is barbaric and uncivilized. If instead of focusing on vengeance and rage people can focus on victim compensation and crime prevention then you are focusing on something that actually works and serves a purpose to better society. If someone is a very severe danger to society for life then feel free to put them in prison for life. But not as a punishment but as a means of preventing crimes from occurring. People think of prisons as a means of punishment but that is an *immature* system that accomplishes nothing and furthers the cycle of violence in society.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by truthquest]

This is a perversion on our system. It matters not the crime, but rather the method of the imposition of sentance. In mandatory sentancing, there is no place for a judge to "judge". They are simply acting as clerks processing the mandatory sentance already imposed by the legislative branch. They have taken out the middle ground and made it a black or white, all or nothing issue. Either you are innocent and walk, or you are guilty and it's over. In an earlier era of our system; pehaps the judge would take matters into consideration and impose an 8 year sentance or a 25 year with parole after 6.5.. or whatever.. or do you think, it's better with the mandatory minimums.. with some folks going off for decades because of an herb? Mandatories are relativly new i think, with the 1st ones appearing in the 1950's.. then some more a few decades later and even more as time reaches now..The systematic processing of individuals into the penal system.. streamlined. Mandatories were not designed into our original legal system and I dont think they have a place in it. More complications to screw things up in my own opinion.. need to get rid of a lot of extra legislative crap and this is a perfect example.. well have a nice day.. RDDS

reply to post by truthquest


If we apply your thinking that prison is a place to put dangerous people in an attempt to protect the public then this woman most certainly belongs there. A paedophile, when they act upon their impulses has shown they cannot control their compulsion and so cannot be trusted in society.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
I don't see what was not proportional about the sentence, she abused a child so quite simply, i hope she rots in prison until her teeth fall out and her heart stops.

Violent crimes including murder carry lesser penalties. This is life in prison for a kiss, a grope and a request for sex.

Punishment is most certainly in order but life in prison for this is cruel punishment.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Maybe it is better that she is inside... there's no doubt she likes young boys and although she didnt have sex with this one, she could have found another one to have sex with and then another..... so yeh, i'd say she's better off inside before someones child gets abused or worse....

And like one other said on first page.... the UK needs to get a lot tougher on these Peodo's too....