Discussion of Teacher Prison Sentence
From WRIT-2510 Spring 2007 Wiki
Contents |
[edit] Eric Wyler's Thoughts
I think this is pretty absurd. 40 years? Just to put things into perspective (numbers found at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/psatsfv.pdf), for 1992, the average sentence for someone convicted of homicide was about 12 years; rape, about 10; sexual assault, 6. I'm having trouble seeing the rationale behind sentencing someone for 40 years for something such as this. Granted, I don't know how looking at hardcore pornography would influence a child, but I would be inclined to believe that a few minutes of the stuff really wouldn't have much of a lifetime effect. The kids are going to see it one day anyway. On top of this, the woman's argument seems valid, and she really does sound like she didn't know what she was doing. Apparently, she hit the red X's in the corners of the popups, invariable leading to more pop-ups (this is in contrast to hitting the actual 'x' that would have closed the windows). Also, to further prove her innocence, a large amount of adware and spyware was found on the computer...42 active programs, in fact.
The school is more to blame, as they admitted to having an inadequate blocking system for such sites. After this case, they proceeded to quickly upgrade the software. That's kind of interesting. I think that the school is more at fault than the teacher. In fact, it seems that the only fault the teacher suffered from was leaving the kids along for a few minutes. Other than that, she didn't do anything wrong.
I'm having trouble seeing the justification of the jury's decision in this case. Common sense just seems to scream that sentencing this poor woman to 40 years is a crime. They've taken away half of her life with their decision.
[edit] Daniel Jones' Thoughts
I feel this is a travesty. Amero, the 40-year old substitute, is obviously a victim to these malicious pop-ups just like everyone else who surfs the Internet. To sentence her for 40 years because she had the unlucky fortune of pornography popping up in front of kids is simply ludicrous. I am not condoning pornography, but pornography does not injure kids. Sooner or later, like Eric stated, they will see it. Sex is just a part of life.
Pop-ups occur through no fault of the surfer and are hard to get rid of. It also does not help situations if the computer has outdated software. Eric brought up a good point with how hard it is to interpret a pop-up. There are a lot of pop-ups that have the ‘x’ to close a window within the window wanted closed. This ‘x’ does not close the window; instead it opens up another window. This leads to a trap of pop-ups that are frustrating to escape. A person using the Internet should not be blamed for something out of there control. It defies fairness.
Amero is being trailed unfairly. Barring the computer expert’s explanations to his technical findings and ignoring blatant facts such as how outdated the computer was proves that this is a “grave miscarriage of justice”.
[edit] Daniel Wong's Thoughts
I have to agree with the opinions of both Daniel and Eric. The punishment for a crime that has been wrongfully accused, is quite excessive. However, I think that this "case" makes a very important and interesting point. That is, the advent and use of the World Wide Web has caused a change in our culture and way of life. The school administration, who is trying to keep up with the current culture changes, has adapted and thus changed its policies and expectations of others including teachers. Is it the substitute teacher's fault that she simply has not kept up with this cultural revolution of technology? Or is it the school board's fault for expecting a member of an older generation to adapt so readily to the ever changing culture?
[edit] Brian McEvoy's Thoughts
I agree with just about everything written here already. 40 years would be an absurd sentence but from my understanding she hasn’t actually been sentenced yet. 40 years is just the maximum punishment. That’s not to say that I think any jail time is justified.
From what I read I would categories the whole thing as a mistrial. Apparently there were some computer log files that the defense wanted to present as evidence but the judge dismissed them. I’m no legal expert but I would think that computer logs would be pertinent to a case involving computer Websites. There was also a website I was reading where it was stated that some of the witness testimony was false. I’m not sure how substantiated the information is but it’s located at http://region19.blogspot.com.
What does this mean for computers in the classroom? Will teachers want to teach using web resources? What I want to know is: whatever happened to “beyond a reasonable doubt”? There are so many variables in this case, how could the jurors not have any doubt? Unless there is some substantial evidence that we’re all missing the system completely failed this woman.
[edit] Keve Zoltani's Logic
I have to disagree with some of the things said so far. I believe people are underplaying the affect seeing pornography at a young age can have. Although it was a pop-up ad, I have only heard of such ads appearing from pornographic sites. If I were to visit bestbuy.com, I would maybe expect a pop-up or two trying to sell me some product. Events and actions experienced by all of us at a young age have lasting effects. I agree with 40 years being a bit excessive, but this teachers actions are inexcusable. There is a time and place for everything, and although it may have been bad luck, this should not have happened. A lesser sentence and some community service would be a better alternative.
