the whole phenomenon of letting the victims’ families speak at sentencing is exactly the opposite of what our legal system is supposed to be. the possibility of swaying a jury (or judge) into imposing a stiffer sentence by crying is beyond comprehension. how did this shitty practice get started and why is it allowed to continue?

bad example:

let’s say i poisoned my neighbor’s dog. a despicable act, indeed. if convicted, can i be sentenced to death because the dog’s owner gives an impassioned speech, complete with tears, on how he loved his dog? how a monster like me should not be allowed to walk the earth?

this is exactly why victims and their families should never have been allowed to speechify at trials. they turn justice into revenge.

i’m just saying, is all.

Okay, several comments to respond to, I’ll just tackle them in one comment:

A. Is anyone arguing that what Lori did wasn’t a nice/decent/humane thing to do? It seems to me the scope of the articles have been that the prosecutors manipulated the law, as opposed to applying it, as a response to the public outcry. The fact remains that she didn’t break any existing laws that aren’t routinely broken by most of us, and to suggest that she do 3 years in the pen because she created a Myspace page under a false name ought to SERIOUSLY frighten people

B. Brent: please refer to respons “A”, particularly in the beginning. But more importantly there are great many things that you and I, or even most people, would find “horrific” and “not right”. Here’s some of mine, for instance: not paying active servicemen enough, not giving vets enough of after retirement, joining the American Nazi Party, spouting anti-Semitic comments, producing the Jerry Springer show. I would qualify each and every one of those as horrific and not right. I also think that creating laws banning them would be dangerous and stupid, since my opinions should not define law. Why should yours?

C. “From what I know of the story, Drew created a false Face Book ID for the sole purpose of harrassing Meghan” – are the type of comments you get from people who get their news from…well, the news. That isn’t even CLOSE to what she did, plus it wasn’t her alone, plus the girl was already disturbed, plus plus plus. But hey, information clogs the headlines, so how about instead we print “Lori Drew creates Myspace account to harrass child” instead?

D. “She’s a monster, I hope she remains in the public eye forever and ends up committing suicide herself” – Fair enough. None of that has to do w/the application of law.

E. I’ve made this point before, but it is deplorable that the prosecutors are seeking 3 years because Lori has become the face of cyberbullying. She became that face because the media CHOSE to focus on this story. Hence, she is getting three years thanks not to the crime she did or did not commit, but because the media coordinators focused on her. That is a complete joke and flys in the face of the “Rule of Law” we supposedly have. What Jimmy Olsen chooses to report or not report should have NO FUCKING BEARING on sentencing hearings.

She did something wrong. Something that we don’t want others to do. She was punished.

Whats the problem?

So you think the Internet changes things? Someone does something reprehensible to a fragile teen and you think because it was done over the Internet that it is OK?

Seems to me you are afraid that your keyboard courage is going to be taken away. You won’t be able to say and do things that you would never in your dreams actually say or do had anyone known you were the ones saying it.

What a bunch of wussies, you want to be able to hide behind the veil of the Internet and say your childish things and not be responsible for it? Hahaha, too bad. Were I the parent of that poor girl, I would have just went over to that woman’s house and give her a beatdown and let them charge me with assault. My victim would have the benefit of knowing who was hurting her, unlike what she did to this poor girl.

Get over it, you techno-nerds.

The whole technology angle is a red herring in this case. If you damage people with something stupid or cruel that you do, you have a moral and legal debt to pay. The internet is not a responsibility-free zone.

You and I have not killed any children with our fake internet names. If that ever changes, we will pay the price, just like this horrible fat old witch should.