arab_freak Posted January 12, 2007 Posted January 12, 2007 http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/01/12/teacher-faces-40-years-for-pornographic-pop-ups-on-school-computer/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.norwichbulletin.com%2Fapps%2Fpbcs.dll%2Farticle%3FAID%3D%2F20070106%2FNEWS01%2F701060312%2F1002%2FNEWS17&frame=true Summary: A middle school subistitute teacher was found guilty of damaging a minors mind and morals after failing to shut down the computers where pornographic pop ups kept showing up on the children's sreens. The teacher said she could not control the images as a new one opened up each time she closed one. The jury found her guilty and she faces up to 40 years in prison.
ViPeR Posted January 12, 2007 Posted January 12, 2007 That's a joke right... murderers get less jail time these days. Gotta love our justice system. Sounds like a simple mistake, everyones had it on completely innocent sites. Fucking joke.
Ten10 Posted January 12, 2007 Posted January 12, 2007 Yeah 40 year is a bit harsh, but its not like the evidence wasn't there. And as Phoenix always says its all about evidence, and when its against you, your pretty much screwed. Should have downloaded spybot search + destroy.
fanman Posted January 12, 2007 Posted January 12, 2007 Yeah 40 year is a bit harsh, but its not like the evidence wasn't there. Up to 40 years... that's just the maximum sentance... That's quite funny though...
Charlie Posted January 12, 2007 Posted January 12, 2007 I heard about this a couple of days ago and it seems like complete BS, admittedly, I didn't read the article. It said that she had to click something to get onto it, whether that's true or not... Anyway, she hasn't been sentenced to 40 years in prison, that's just what the maximum penalty is.
MoogleViper Posted January 12, 2007 Posted January 12, 2007 That's a joke right... murderers get less jail time these days. Gotta love our justice system. Sounds like a simple mistake, everyones had it on completely innocent sites. Fucking joke. That's because murderers are good people inside and can be rehabilitated and forgiven. However people who view porn (whether it be purposeful or accidental) are sick and deserve to die.
fanman Posted January 12, 2007 Posted January 12, 2007 That's because murderers are good people inside and can be rehabilitated and forgiven. However people who view porn (whether it be purposeful or accidental) are sick and deserve to die. For looking at porn?
Katie Posted January 12, 2007 Posted January 12, 2007 No one picks up on your sarcasm do they Moogle. It sounds ridiculous to me, stop her from teaching fair enough but anything further seems over the top. Then again we don't have all the information, we don't know if she showed them by accident or not to be honest.
arab_freak Posted January 12, 2007 Author Posted January 12, 2007 That's because murderers are good people inside and can be rehabilitated and forgiven. However people who view porn (whether it be purposeful or accidental) are sick and deserve to die. Roffles. But what if you killed someone while watching porn?
weeyellowbloke Posted January 12, 2007 Posted January 12, 2007 It sounds ridiculous to me, stop her from teaching fair enough but anything further seems over the top. Then again we don't have all the information, we don't know if she showed them by accident or not to be honest. But why would anyone go "Mwa hahaha, today I'm going to show a load of little kids some porn and corrupt them all" its completely ridiculous and to go to jail for it is even more ridiculous.
ipaul Posted January 12, 2007 Posted January 12, 2007 OMGZZZZ!!! NAKED PEOPLE AHHHHHH WTF?!?!?!? BURN HER!!!
solitanze Posted January 12, 2007 Posted January 12, 2007 Ridicolous, murder is the most serious time and often people get very lenient sentences for it. Why I could go and butcher someone into pieces, use their testicles in a bolognese sauce and still only get a one year sentence. Of course I wouldn't really doing that, its just to illustrate a point that sentencing is inconsistent. I know they take the welfare of society as a whole into account when making judgements and according to judges, porn would affect a lot more people than the killing of a single person, but still...
fanman Posted January 12, 2007 Posted January 12, 2007 Ridicolous, murder is the most serious time and often people get very lenient sentences for it. Why I could go and butcher someone into pieces, use their testicles in a bolognese sauce and still only get a one year sentence. Of course I wouldn't really doing that, its just to illustrate a point that sentencing is inconsistent. I know they take the welfare of society as a whole into account when making judgements and according to judges, porn would affect a lot more people than the killing of a single person, but still... This is in america (I think, only read the summary bit) where sentences are generally much harder. You would probably get a life sentence, or even a death sentence for that. The 40 years is generally there as a deterent, to scare people, and for use in veeeeeeeeeeery extreme cases. I'm not sure of what would come under "veeeeeeeeeeeeery extreme cases", but hey.
MoogleViper Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 No one picks up on your sarcasm do they Moogle. I know. Maybe I should start using italics.
Mr_Odwin Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 I know. Maybe I should start using italics. Don't! If people don't get it it adds to the amusement.
MoogleViper Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 Don't! If people don't get it it adds to the amusement. Ok. You should know. You're the sarcastic master.
Katie Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 But why would anyone go "Mwa hahaha, today I'm going to show a load of little kids some porn and corrupt them all" its completely ridiculous and to go to jail for it is even more ridiculous. I agree it would be weird but that could be said for so many crimes, some people are crazy. If it was a completely genuine mistake which she couldn't stop I don't think any action should be taken.
Babooo Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 Sounds like bull shit to me. 40 years in jail for showing porn to kids?? ...........er no.
MoogleViper Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 Most of the kids (well the boys at least) would have seen it before anyway.
KingJoe Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 The crime she was found guilty of was "risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a child". Which probably includes: convincing a child to murder their parents; making a child run naked on a treadmill while a blind jazz pianist throws axes at them; throwing children off roofs; making kids surf on lava. As it was 4 counts, the maximum penalty for this type of crime is 10 years. She won't get that though, I'd hope. But she should have pulled the plug. Dozy mare.
Recommended Posts