<p>Seems rather steep to me. 5-10 would seem more reasonable.</p>
<p><a href=“404 Not Found | 9news.com”>404 Not Found | 9news.com;
<p>Always hard to make a judgement based on a news story. Don’t know all of the details, the extenuating circumstances, the victim impact statemnts (probably very important for sentencing purposes in this case), etc. Don’t know what kind of mandatory minimums are involved, but I would guess that the sexual assault charges alone carried some heavy minimum penalties. Supplying meth to teenagers? Probably some pretty hefty sentencing guidelines as well. It does seem like a long sentence, but I really can’t venture an opinion without knowing more.</p>
<p>No opinion on the sentence here either. But after the year when she claims she learned her lesson, she’s riding in a car which crashes with a 14-year old at the wheel? (Learner’s permit age in Colorado appears to be 15+). Kind of strains my belief that she learned much.</p>
<p>Yeah,as jmmom says, in addition to the other charges, she was sentenced for violating a restraining order…presumably to stay away from teenage boys. This happened while she was awaiting sentencing on the other charges. I’m sure she cooked her own goose with that stunt.</p>
<p>I think that her gender makes the sentence seem worse than appropriate. If the genders were reversed, and it was a father providing drugs and having sex with his daughter’s teenaged girlfriends, 30 years would seem reasonable.</p>
<p>as it is though, i think that she clearly has some sort of mental illness. there truly is nothing else to explain what reasoning was going on in her head.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Amen to that one! Finally some gender equity in sentencing. Can you imagine the uproar if some male teacher gave teenage girls alcohol and had sex with them? They would call for his head! I believe this sentence is entirely appropriate. I can’t help imagine that what the sentence would have been if the woman was considered attractive though.</p>
<p>Putting all the PC stuff aside, I think gender plays a role in the level of “harm” done.</p>
<p>I’m actually more interested in what they are doing for the kids. Are the boys going to feel guilty for life for having ruined not only the mom but the entire family? or, alternatively, simply take a cynical attitude toward sex (and women generally speaking) and have that follow them around? What happens to the girls in the family?</p>
<p>I am not trying to minimize what the woman did, but the length of the sentence one way or the other does not mitigate the damage done and the needs to be served.</p>
<p>
Again I reverse the roles. Would a teenage girl feel the same way about a male teacher’s family? Not a snowball’s chance in hell. A male who did the same thing, they would not give a rat’s patoot about the guys family. Why should we did the same for this convicted felon’s family just because she is a woman?</p>
<p>Reality maybe? I seriously doubt the boys will be all that scarred for life, etc.</p>
<p>
mini, this question confuses me. If the perpetrator were a male adult and the youths female, would you be asking whether the teenage girls would feel guilty for live for “having ruined the man and his entire family?”</p>
<p>So what you think (and it is a reasonable opinion) is that this is for the most part simply a “status crime”, with no necessary relationship to harm having occurred to any of the parties (except the imprisoned). And the ruin to the woman’s family comes (for the most part) simply from the actions of the state? If that’s the case, wouldn’t a slap on the wrist have sufficed?</p>
<p>Jmmom - I was making no such distinction. Would girls be “more damaged” by such an experience than boys? I doubt it - though I think the expression of damage (if there was any) might be quite different, with a sexual cynicism on the part of boys, and sex-related trauma on the part of girls. And I think even that is likely an overgeneralization, and, regardless, is culturally based.</p>
<p>Look. The reality is that in the past 100 years, girls are reaching sexual maturity roughly 3 years earlier than they used, and boys about 2 1/2 years earlier. Yet, we’ve confined them in institutions designed 100 years ago, and assume that they just act as if they are reaching sexual maturity even later than they used to. It might just be that it is the dominant culture that is aberrant (200 years ago, for working class families, the whole idea of abstinence for women past age 14 would be thought of as just plain dumb). So I am trying to make sense (and I haven’t yet - my opinion IS unclear) of what should be considered a real crime and what purely a status one, based on harm to both individuals and society as a whole.</p>
<p>Let’s grant that the harm to the woman’s family stems from her actions (I agree - but these are social consequences, not natural ones.) It wouldn’t make the harm any less real, or less a matter of social or community concern.</p>
<p>I guess I’m thinking that the harm to the woman’s family comes from her actions, setting aside the degree to which her actions arise from mental illness vs. moral turpitude. Not sure I understand the rest of your post.</p>
<p>Well <em>joining in the sorting out process</em>, let’s say that our culture hasn’t dealt with the earlier sexual maturity of our teens. I think the notion of a “status” crime might be appropriate in sex between relative age-mates (not sure of the cut-off, but let’s say teens with teens, or even a 20ish and a later teenager) but between a parent and her children’s peers? I don’t see it.</p>
<p>“I think the notion of a “status” crime might be appropriate in sex between relative age-mates (not sure of the cut-off, but let’s say teens with teens, or even a 20ish and a later teenager) but between a parent and her children’s peers?”</p>
<p>I tend to agree, but I’m trying to understand why - if we think there was no harm to the boys, no harm to the woman, and no harm to her family. Or alternatively, if there was “harm” (and we can define what it is), whether more harm accrues to all involved from the punishment as opposed to the crime.</p>
<p>The spider and the fly </p>
<hr>
<p>ok this is completly stupid but i can never get these dumb blue book problems…ok so can ne one help me with it?
In a rectangular room 30’x12’x12’, a spider is at the middle of an end wal, on foot from the celling
The fly is at the middle of the opposite end wall, one foot above the floor. The fly is so frightened it cant move.
What is the shortest distance the spider must crawl in order to capture the fly?(hint less then 42’) i may seem totally stupid but i need help and my teacher wont help ne one out with these so i hope u help…thanks</p>
<p>Whether the teens involved suffered such harm as pscyhological damage, difficulty in their future sexual relationships… isn’t known to me without knowing them and watching their development. </p>
<p>To me, children and youth who fail to receive, from their parents, grounding in moral values - these children suffer harm. (Some may rise above it based on what they receive from the larger “village”, but that’s another discussion). This woman harmed her family and these kids by the absence of providing that grounding and/or the complete contradiction of that grounding. Whether the punishment fits the crime, I don’t know.</p>
<p>The harm which comes from the punishment - ie, depriving the family of her presence. Hmm, we could argue both sides on that, I think. The harm which comes to her family from the humiliation - she created that. So says me.</p>
<p>macymathwonder, I dare say yours is the funniest post I have read in 2 years on this forum!! Unintentional I presume. (Hey kid, don’t bother me when I am discussing sex crimes!!! )</p>
<p>BTW, I think the sentence is totally outrageous. I cannot recall a more inappropriate sentence. So when will she be eligible for parole? It absolutely must be reduced on appeal (the term of the sentence).</p>
<p>New York State prisons are crowded with people serving sentences longer than 30-year sentences under mandatory sentencing laws for drug offenses far less serious than providing methamphetamines multiple times to teenagers. </p>
<p>I still remember the advertisements from Nelson Rockefeller’s last gubernatorial campaign, bragging about how the people he put away would have a “long time to think about” their drug crimes. Actors portraying inmates were shown progressively growing older and older in a series of cuts. </p>
<p>The point of this was to recast Rockefeller as a “law and order” governor in preparation for a presidential campaign.</p>
<p>Now if you want to discuss how much I am against mandatory minimum sentences, that is a whole nother ball of wax.</p>