Boy Touches Breast = LIFE IN PRISON

Originally posted by celticniall
and if this had been a male coercing a young child of 13, we would all be hankering for a life sentence and castration.....

She is no better than the male paedos.....my heart bleeds......

On this planet, is you are a male that coerces a young child, dont they get only a couple years of prison? What about all the catholic priests? they never get anything? Our priorities are all mixed up these days.

The woman deserves a punishment, but not life in prison.

Originally posted by pieman

The difficulty there is that it's almost impossible to judge the impact at the time of the abuse. The boy might be bragging to his friends but why treat this any differently than a girl who is being abused feeling she is in love with her abuser?

Surely a trained psychologist with experience in working with kids would know the difference?

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
Surely a trained psychologist with experience in working with kids would know the difference?

That's a good idea, although psychologists often vastly disagree in their findings when reviewing the same case. It happens commonly in court cases

reply to post by pieman


The stupidity of the case against the women no the child that is what we are discussing here.

I raised two children to adulthood, it was my job to protect them from the "evils of sin" I think I did a heck of a job.

Now where was the mother when the child was been "molested".

I have nothing to say, this type of threads while very informative about the stupidity of laws are also a breeding ground for emotional mind handicap and I don't fall for that.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by marg6043]

reply to post by pieman


My comments in no way suggest that any form of paedophilia is acceptable. Not sure where you are getting this from. I was simply stating that some sex crimes are worse than others and blanket punishment of all cases is not the way to go. You actually completely twisted my original post to your own agenda.
You originally stated in your reply not only that I find some cases more acceptable, but that I would find it out rightly acceptable, to quote; "So it is also acceptable if the girl is just made to touch the person doing the abusing and no penetration takes place?"
Once again I will have to reiterate to you that I find none of this acceptable some cases are worse than others, as with any crime. That was my only point.
There is no fault in my logic. I find sex abuse completely detestable. And as for the lack of apology, your a real class act.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


I googled this woman, and found another article that has a detail left out of yours in your opening post.

www.kolotv.com...

Woodbury says Taylor did not want to negotiate a plea deal because she did not want to have to register as a sex offender.

She was given the option of a plea deal.

Any other person who comitted such a crime would have to register, but she refused to.

It's her own fault she got such a long sentence. Do I agree with the ruling? In her case I do, because she refused to play ball on having to register as a sex offender.

reply to post by Blanca Rose


Well then is nothing to comment on the case, you get what you sow.

There is a theory that has been floated by experts concerning these situations. Basically it says that the more attractive the woman, the less severe the sentence. I don't have time to jump through the hoops of ATS's picture upload feature, but google Michelle Lyn Taylor and find her mug shot.

Now google Debra Lafave.


Michelle Lyn Taylor received life in prison.

Debra Lafave served ZERO time.

The trend has held true for every case I've encountered like this.

gotta go

Originally posted by Blanca Rose
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

I googled this woman, and found another article that has a detail left out of yours in your opening post.

Excellent find, Blanca Rose.

Very odd because it's completely opposite of what the judge said during sentencing.

Her lawyers apparently really suck or she is amazingly stupid

Originally posted by Grey Magic
This happens when a Federal Justice system is in bed with a Private Prison system.

for example.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ah...Another ATSer who either can't read or chooses not to. Let's see,
"This is the sentence that the legislature of Nevada has created for this type of crime." morphs into "Federal Justice system. Do I need to embiggen "legislature of Nevada?"Ignorance is a natural state for man - Stupidity takes real commitment.

Originally posted by Big Raging Loner

Originally posted by Pixus
Where were these kinds of women when I was 13?

[southpark] Niiiccccceeeeeeee [/southpark]

What she did was wrong, and she does deserve punishment, but does she deserve such a huge sentence? No.

"We better give him his luckiest boy in America badge right away!" I know when I was 13 I would have killed for such a scenario too, but as you get older you kind of realise how weird and wrong it is. When your that age you just starting to get those crazy hormones that make it hard to think str8, she took advantage of that.
However I don't believe this sentence is accurate for the crime at all, and she is not as bad as a man doing this to a 13 year old girl. Why? Because if she gets pregnant it's her own stupid fault, not so if it had been a young girl. It would also be a penetrative act of sexual abuse by the man aswell much worse IMO. Makes me wonder where are these tough sentences for Paedophiles in the UK?

The Sexual Offences Act (2007, I think) codifies all prior common-law and statutory sexual offences and provides for a variety of punishments based on certain factors of the crime in question i.e. the age of the child (younger than 14/ between 14 and 16) and what the actual offence was (i.e. touching in a sexually suggestive way, sexual assault, penetrative sexual assault, penetrative coitus etc) and providing minimum sentences for each. I don't recall what the maximum custodial sentence was, but I know for a fact that by and large they were mostly less than 15 years. Any attempt to impose such a sentence in the UK (or Europe, for that matter) would almost undoubtedly invite appeals to the European Court of Human Rights who would strike out such a sentence as being plainly disproportionate.

And, to be honest, although paedophilia is a horrible act, I hardly think that this instance warranted a life sentence. Does anyone know if this was a sentence without chance of parole? If so, that is a grossly disproportionate sentence for the act in question. Although certainly deplorable for the exploitation of a child, I think the Court should have actually looked towards what the actual psychological effect on the child was. I hardly doubt he was scarred for life.

Furthermore, I note that above, some had asked whether or not the Courts had gone mental and need to review this; where the legislature has imposed a minimum sentence, the Court can do nothing but apply the law as it stands on the books, as unfair as that can be.

Best of luck to this woman in her appeals, although I would be interested to know what the grounds of the appeal would be (presumably, for a Supreme Court appeal, whichever Amendment to the American Constitution which forbids cruel and unusual punishment).

Originally posted by Big Raging Loner
You originally stated in your reply not only that I find some cases more acceptable, but that I would find it out rightly acceptable, to quote; "So it is also acceptable if the girl is just made to touch the person doing the abusing and no penetration takes place?"

I find I do owe you an apology, I meant to say "more acceptable", as I did elsewhere. Sorry, I should have said that you seem to believe that a pedophile should be treated more leniently where there isn't a risk of pregnancy to the victim. Now you have that apology, would you mind clearing something up, is it worse for a man to abuse a boy or a girl, in your opinion.

reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater


The point in putting someone in prison pending re-rehabilitation is not the impact on the victim but the danger of allowing a person to pose a future threat to society once they have committed a crime.

I agree with your idea, I gave it a star, but it requires a total change in the legal system. It can't apply for a single type of crime.

Originally posted by duality90
I think the Court should have actually looked towards what the actual psychological effect on the child was. I hardly doubt he was scarred for life.

From Blanca Rose's link
Woodbury says while it might be some adolescent male's fantasy to have sex with a woman, in this case it was a traumatic event. The child has needed, and continues to receive therapy.

Does that answer your question?

As I've said, as bad as sex crimes are, equating them with murder is a Puritanical and fanatical view. This illustrates that.

Originally posted by Blanca Rose
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

I googled this woman, and found another article that has a detail left out of yours in your opening post.

www.kolotv.com...

Woodbury says Taylor did not want to negotiate a plea deal because she did not want to have to register as a sex offender.

She was given the option of a plea deal.

Any other person who comitted such a crime would have to register, but she refused to.

It's her own fault she got such a long sentence. Do I agree with the ruling? In her case I do, because she refused to play ball on having to register as a sex offender.

Thank you for this post.

She gambled when she played with a child. She lost.

She gambled with a jury trial.... She lost again.

But she isn't on the sex offenders list!

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Big Raging Loner
You originally stated in your reply not only that I find some cases more acceptable, but that I would find it out rightly acceptable, to quote; "So it is also acceptable if the girl is just made to touch the person doing the abusing and no penetration takes place?"

I find I do owe you an apology, I meant to say "more acceptable", as I did elsewhere. Sorry, I should have said that you seem to believe that a pedophile should be treated more leniently where there isn't a risk of pregnancy to the victim. Now you have that apology, would you mind clearing something up, is it worse for a man to abuse a boy or a girl, in your opinion.

reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater

 

The point in putting someone in prison pending re-rehabilitation is not the impact on the victim but the danger of allowing a person to pose a future threat to society once they have committed a crime.

I agree with your idea, I gave it a star, but it requires a total change in the legal system. It can't apply for a single type of crime.

This will be my last post on this thread as much as I enjoy spending my day considering such a horrible issue. (insert Sarc mark here)
First of all thank you for the God awful apology. Now as for the question you posed to me... Not sure we needed to 'clear it up' it's not as though it was an outstanding issue during our back and forth. To answer I find them both equally disgusting and neither is worse than the other. What I was pointing out, was that a man sexually interfering with a young girl in particular via a penetrative act, is considerably worse than what this woman did with a young boy. And that her sentence should be less than the aforementioned act by the man.

"Letting? I have never seen any story, nor could I imagine, a story in which somebody would utter the word's "letting a 13 year old girl touch his penis". It's just ridiculous."

Yes that is ridiculous you seem to also believe the penis and breasts are polar opposites, I suspect quite a few 13year old boys probably would touch a woman's breast if she let them.
You will be glad to know however that I'm not a court judge and therefore your blanket sentencing irrespective of circumstance will probably continue unabated.

Originally posted by Pixus
Where were these kinds of women when I was 13?

[southpark] Niiiccccceeeeeeee [/southpark]

What she did was wrong, and she does deserve punishment, but does she deserve such a huge sentence? No.

You're absolutely right. A no.

Anyway, what judge would mete out a life sentence to a woman who let a 13 year old boy grope her boobs? Surely a conservative one wouldn't have done this.

Did Ms. Taylor want to enhance the boy's libido? I think yes...

Originally posted by Big Raging Loner
I suspect quite a few 13year old boys probably would touch a woman's breast if she let them.

First of all, I'm not trying to twist your words, they're plenty twisted as things stand.

The whole point to these laws is that a 13 year old is not old enough to give consent. Most 13 year olds, boys and girls, have a crush on at least one adult. Most of them would fool around with that adult, given the chance. The willingness of the child is entirely irrelevant to the behavior of the adult.

Things like this are allowed to happen because most people are still stupid and sexist enough to believe that all men are perverts and women are chaste little angels. As another poster pointed out, the length of sentence seems to be proportionate to a womans beauty.

The only reason to sentence a person to life for these crimes is to protect children from them in future. She abused the boy and tried to get him to have sex with her. She believed her actions were, in some way, acceptable (as do most of you ). I see no reason to believe she wouldn't offend again, given the chance.


[edit on 8/6/10 by pieman]

Originally posted by pieman
She believed her actions were, in some way, acceptable (as do most of you

).

Huh? Who ever claimed that they found this woman's behavior acceptable? I find it reprehensible and deserving of punishment. Just not lifetime incarceration.

She wasn't jailed for booby touching. Children under 14 are allowed to touch boobies all the time. Why do people keep saying it was because he touched her breast? There's nothing illegal about that.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6d596678cd8b.jpg[/atsimg]

She was jailed for being a fat drunken slob trying to have sex with an under age boy.

Michelle Lyn Taylor "kissed a friend’s [13 year-old] child, forced him to touch her breast and asked him to have sex with her."

If she wouldn't have been such a large unattractive oaf the boy wouldn't have ratted her out. For that matter if she would have resembled someone other than Jabba the Hut's little sister, grown men would have found her attractive and she wouldn't need to resort to hitting on little boys.

She blames the alcohol, I blame the Twinkies, ice cream, and cheeseburgers.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by Captain Obvious]