(no subject)

[theweaselking]

Schoolteacher faces 40 years in jail because of a spyware infection on a classroom computer

Apparently, the prosecution didn't even look to see if there was spyware on the machine, and the prosecutor didn't know that popups do, in fact, mark links as "read" if the popup goes to the page that is linked to.

Comments

[chaosrah.livejournal.com]

man, that's fucked up.

sometimes i think america needs to rethink punishments so that they actually fit the crime...

[tsunami-ryuu.livejournal.com]

Sheesh, we used to accidentally get those endless porn loops on our middle school and high school computers every once in awhile, as well as those self-installing gambling programs and whatnot-- and this was in the early days of spyware. I don't see how any of what happened in that case is novel or shocking.

Not to mention that one time during American Government Class when we were supposed to visit the White House website. Suffice to say that we newbies to government sites thought the address was "whitehouse.com" instead of "whitehouse.gov".

[itlandm.livejournal.com]

So... 40 years or up to 40 years, which is it? Because even though she is found guilty, it is of a crime that might also involve bashing the kneecaps of every child in the classroom with a sledgehammer, unless I misread. It strikes me that the punishment would probably be in relation to the offense, rathern than automatically default to the maximum.

On the other hand, since it is in America, I guess anything is possible. It is the land of endless possibilities, after all.

[itlandm.livejournal.com]

Yes, the two cases are eerily similar. The boy broke the same law as a serial baby rapist, so of course the maximum penalty was extreme. If either he or this teacher is sentenced to only a small symbolic punishment, as is most likely, we will never hear from them again. The thing is, a jury is not asked to mete out punishment. It is asked to decide guilt or not. It is not their problem that the law is very wide-ranging; so is the punishment, and this is left to professionals. You cannot declare a guilty person not guilty just because you don't trust the judges. There are courts of appeal for that.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

#1: The boy already got the minimum sentence: 10 years in jail and permanent registry as a sex offender. That's the minimum, the smallest sentence the law allows for his "crime".

#2: Actually, refusing to convict a guilty person because the jury feels that the law is completely unjust is, I believe, one of their duties in some circumstances - in the same way that a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich if they really feel that it needs to go to trial. I don't recall what these circumstances are, and I do know that this kind of jury action can also cause a mistrial, but I definitely recall that being the case.