Prosecutors Still Want To Pretend Lori Drew Was Convicted Of Harming Megan Meier

from the this-is-sickening dept

The prosecutors in the Lori Drew trial continue to make a mockery of the law. After pushing to give Drew the maximum three years in jail not because of what she was convicted for, but because she "has become the public face of cyberbullying," prosecutors are now demanding that Megan Meier's parents speak at the sentencing hearing, claiming they are Drew's victims. Except... that's simply not true. Drew was convicted merely of having "hacked" into MySpace's computers, because she broke their terms of service by not using her real name (even though she didn't even sign up for the account). The fact that Megan Meier later committed suicide has nothing to do with what Lori Drew was actually convicted of doing. The only reason to allow them to speak at the sentencing is to push for an emotional reason for the sentencing rather than a legal one. The whole thing is a rather disgusting display of a prosecutor abusing the law to punish someone who he believes did wrong, but who did not actually break the law. Whether you believe what Drew did was horrific or not, there's simply no excuse for abusing the law in this manner.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Tgeigs, May 13th, 2009 @ 6:42am

    There is something special about an overreaching prosecutor who has twisted and turned the law so far that it comes full circle to bite him/her in the ass...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Wammam, May 13th, 2009 @ 6:48am

    This publication supports cyber bullying

    So you support cyber bullying. Well I didn't grow up behind a computer and the way I take care of cyber bullies is to find them and let them meet a tire iron. The same way we dealt with assholes on my block.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 6:53am

      Re: This publication supports cyber bullying

      Troll.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 7:03am

      Re: This publication supports cyber bullying

      @Wammam

      Better watch yourself. Mike mike take offense to your comment and commit suicide and then you would be put on trial for cyber bullying.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 7:27am

        Re: Re: This publication supports cyber bullying

        I think he just cyberthreatened Mike with a tire iron.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Chronno S. Trigger, May 13th, 2009 @ 7:29am

        Re: Re: This publication supports cyber bullying

        Or hacking. Somehow I doubt that Wammam is his real name.

        Wait a second, If the victims of Lori Drew should come and speak at the sentencing, shouldn't the owners of MySpace be there? I'd be sitting there with a stop watch to see how long the could go without laughing.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Mallory, May 20th, 2009 @ 12:35pm

        Re: Re: This publication supports cyber bullying

        oh my god,I'm going to kill myself1now he will be sorry!!LOL

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 7:33am

      Re: This publication supports cyber bullying

      Typical bleeding heart liberal response to something like this. If the other person doesn't agree with your position, then accuse them of being FOR the accused crime to completely dismiss their argument without actually having to come up with a well thought response. Asshat.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Killer_Tofu (profile), May 13th, 2009 @ 10:55am

        Re: Re: This publication supports cyber bullying

        Just like the conservatives did with the war on terror, if you aren't for giving us blanket surveillance of everything then you must be a terrorist?
        Conservatives, liberals, all the same idiots running your life because you think there are actually two sides.
        And both of those sides have absolutely nothing to do with this entire thread at all aside from you trying to pull it in here.

        In short, you are an idiot.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ChurchHatesTucker (profile), May 13th, 2009 @ 4:39pm

      Re: This publication supports cyber bullying

      So you support cyber bullying. Well I didn't grow up behind a computer and the way I take care of cyber bullies is to find them and let them meet a tire iron. The same way we dealt with assholes on my block.

      Snort. If you're reaching around for a "tire iron" then you're so old that I'm not going to be too worried about meeting you on your block. Heck, I might even stand on your lawn for giggles.

      Also, somebody alert the appropriate AG to this terrorist.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Mallory, May 20th, 2009 @ 12:34pm

      Re: This publication supports cyber bullying

      you are being a cyber-bully rigfht now!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    shmengie, May 13th, 2009 @ 7:27am

    justice, no longer blind

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 7:29am

      Re: justice, no longer blind

      they turn justice into revenge.

      This prosecutor has done that fairly well on his own so far.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 12:11pm

      Re: justice, no longer blind

      how did this shitty practice get started and why is it allowed to continue?

      It's the result of the feminization of society in general and government in particular that in turn resulted from letting women vote.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Tgeigs, May 13th, 2009 @ 12:38pm

        Re: Re: justice, no longer blind

        Replace "feminization" with "Panzification" and I agree. I just know too many tough as hell women to go w/that terminology.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 1:14pm

          Re: Re: Re: justice, no longer blind

          "I just know too many tough as hell women to go w/that terminology."

          Maybe they aren't very feminine.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      BTR1701, May 18th, 2009 @ 7:51am

      Re: justice, no longer blind

      > 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?

      Ummm... no. You could only sentenced for whatever maximum the law allows. For a poisoned dog, that's probably a misdemeanor so the most you'd get is a year.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Justin, May 19th, 2009 @ 9:39pm

      Re: justice, no longer blind

      Ok, if you are going to critize the legal system, you might want to start off by knowing a little something about it first.

      You will never get a death sentance for poisoning a dog. The result of victim's families speaking at sentencing can not be a sentance greater than the one perscribed for the crime in the first place.

      Lets say that poisoning a dog has a perscribed sentence of 6 months to 3 years. The owner giving an impassioned speach tells the court the level of impact your crime has had on other people and is used to help him determine where in the range of 6 months to 3 years you are to be sentenced. If the impact is large, you will get something closer to 3 years, if it is small it will be closer to 6 months.

      It has nothing to do with a distortion of the justce system (no longer blind), it has everything to do with the fact that breaking the law has an impact on others in society and one of the purposes of the justice is to levy a punishment commensurate with that affect.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    uhmno, May 13th, 2009 @ 7:37am

    She's a monster, I hope she remains in the public eye forever and ends up committing suicide herself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 7:40am

      Re:

      I'm sure your hate makes you a better person.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 7:48am

      Re:

      Well obviously you are not Jewish or Christian or Buddhist.

      And obviously you are still emotionally as mature as a twelve year old.

      As a good man once said, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind". I'm no pacifist, but then I'm not a sadist either. I believe violence is a tool to be applied as necessary, and only when all else fails. Revenge is an empty thing, doubly so when its not even personal.

      Who is more the monster? The one who did not wish for death or the one demanding it? How about the one hoping that the other falls into such despair they aren't killed by execution but instead take their own life?

      Megan taking her own life was a tragedy but not so much as because she's dead so much as *her* actions have brought out the worst in people.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        uhmno, May 13th, 2009 @ 3:51pm

        Re: Re:

        So... What? I'm not allowed any wishful thinking? It's not like I'm going to do anything about it personally anyway.

        Your whole "eye for an eye" thing isn't really relevant either, I didn't ask for her to be lynched.

        And no, I'm not a religious person but with all the fucked up things religious people spend their time saying/writing/doing, I'm pretty sure my statement is quite tame in comparison, so um... well done bringing *that* up.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 3:53pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You're right; you saying the world would be better off without her is completely harmless and... oh. oh, wait...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            uhmno, May 13th, 2009 @ 4:10pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Paraphrasing to make a point that is only relevant within your paraphrase is lame but whatever.

            She'll die one day anyway, and I'll enjoy my schadenfreude if it makes the news.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 7:48am

    i'm just as guilty as she is

    I made a second facebook account not using my real name. I believe I have violated facebook's ToS in the same manner as Lori, therefore I also could be convicted and sentenced for 3 years in prison...

    Just saying...

    How many here have NEVER created a "fake" account on something like myspace/facebook?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 7:49am

    From what I know of the story, Drew created a false Face Book ID for the sole purpose of harrassing Meghan. There is no other reason for a grown woman to take such action against a teenager. While Drew may not have anticipated Meghan's suicide, it is clear that her purpose was to make the young girl miserable. I don't see why a lesser charge of manslaughter would be out of the question.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 7:58am

      Re:

      You don't know the facts, then. She created the account to see if Megan was bad-mouthing Lori's daughter, Megan's ex-friend. They posed as a peer to gain her trust, and when nothing came of it they decided to end the relationship. Drew's employee sent the "the wotld would be better off without you" message without realizing that Megan had mental issues, and the girl killed herself shortly afterward. If you want to convict someone of manslaughter, it should be Drew's employee. Drew herself is just a scapegoat; she did some things in poor judgment and she's being villified because people are upset that Megan killed herself.

      In closing, I'd like to reiterate: Megan killed herself.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 12:15pm

        Re: Re:

        You don't know the facts, then.

        Since when does that matter?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Noel Coward, May 19th, 2009 @ 9:31pm

        Re: Re:

        No...the documents state that she created the account to get information from her to use against her as REVENGE for Megan saying something bad about her daughter.

        Maybe YOU should get the facts straight.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ChrisB (profile), May 13th, 2009 @ 10:53am

      Re:

      You obviously have no children.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 7:51am

    Shouldn't the impassioned speeches be saved for the wrongful death suit that is sure to follow?

    I guess I'm assuming there is the possibility of civil recourse in this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    brent, May 13th, 2009 @ 8:10am

    I think what drew did was horrific. Would someone be kind enough to detail what she may be guilty of in the legal system and the punishment for those crimes.

    What she did is not right and if she goes unpunished then i think someone (i wish i was qualified) needs to explore changing laws to prevent people from doing this in the future.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 8:35am

      Re:

      Changing laws will not prevent anyone from doing this in the future. People break laws all the time. Are you not paying attention?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 1:29pm

      Re:

      And at the same time, why aren't the OTHER TWO being convicted, as well? Her own daughter and her employee, who are just as guilty as she, if not more so in the case of the employee. Come on, this isn't justice. It's grandstanding.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 2:43pm

        Re: Re:

        The employee gave information in exchange for immunity. That's when we learned she did it. It's OK, though, we already have a scapegoat. No one involved is looking for justice, anyways.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 8:15am

    Brent, and justice was served.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Judsonian, May 13th, 2009 @ 8:37am

    Drew

    While Drew indeed was a royal B*TCH. I'm still not convinced she was the cause of Meagan's death. From what I've read on the case sounds like she was a spoiled little girl that got mad at her mommy.
    Of course there's still no excuse for bullying. Especially when the bully is a good 15 years older than the victim.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Tgeigs, May 13th, 2009 @ 8:39am

    Christ

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      pbmfisme, May 13th, 2009 @ 9:00am

      Re: Christ

      I agree on pretty much every point you just made.

      Bravo.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      brent, May 13th, 2009 @ 12:53pm

      Re: Christ

      "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?"

      Hey thanks for responding, i got kind of excited to see my name! Yeah, I wasn't sure if she had broken any existing laws, that's why i asked. I have to think that a grown adult going online and harassing a child/teenager (if that is in fact what she did) has to be against the law somewhere. I thought that might be the consenus of everyone and that something could be changed. I certainly did not mean that my opinion should dictate the laws.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      uhmno, May 13th, 2009 @ 4:37pm

      Re: Christ

      (I'm #D)

      I know, I'm venting. I actually agree that "abusing the law to punish someone who he believes did wrong, but who did not actually break the law" is ridiculous. I even believe "there's simply no excuse for abusing the law in this manner", but boy do I wish for her life to be miserable forever.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      BTR1701, May 18th, 2009 @ 7:59am

      Re: Christ

      > 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

      Exactly. I'm a federal law enforcement agent myself and this whole case should really make people uneasy. The lesson here is, if the government doesn't like what you're doing, you're going to prison even if you're not breaking the law.

      And I say this even though this precedent will make working my own criminal cases quite easy for me. I'll be able to really rack up the stats from now on.

      I don't have enough evidence to convict a guy of making counterfeit currency? No problem! I'll just subpoena his ISP logs, find out which online businesses he's patronized and nail him for violating a Terms of Service. After all, those things go on for pages and no one ever actually reads them, so pretty much everyone violates some clause somewhere at sometime. Did he say something provocative or racially charged on Facebook? Used a screen name instead of his real name on MySpace? Posted a fake product review on Amazon? All that and more can now get you 3-5 in a federal penn! Who cares about evidence when I now have this wonderful tool at my disposal?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    DJ, May 13th, 2009 @ 8:53am

    Cyber what???

    "Someone typed bad things about me so I'm going to jump off a clift!"
    What the hell have we become? I have always thought that to bully someone, you had to do it up close and personal. My god, we have become afraid of our own shadow. What a bunch of wussys. Enough already...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 9:09am

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

    Whats the problem?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 9:23am

      Re:

      She wasn't punished for what she did "wrong." She was punished for hacking when she didn't hack. That's the problem.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Sean T Henry, May 13th, 2009 @ 9:38am

      Re:

      The problem is that you did not use your real name in your post there for you have violated the TOS and will get 3yrs for doing so. You hacker you.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Derek, May 13th, 2009 @ 11:29am

      Re:

      Is your name truly "Anonymous Coward"?

      If not, Mr. Coward, you are now guilty of using a false identity online.

      You hackers are evil. You should do hard time.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 1:36pm

      Re:

      What's the problem? She wasn't alone in this. Her daughter and employee deserve the same treatment.

      Point 2, did she make the account? Or did her employee make the account?

      Point 3, what law did she break? Twisting the law to convict someone of what is admittedly despicable, but isn't actually illegal, should worry the HELL out of you.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 2:45pm

        Reiterated

        Twisting the law to convict someone of what ... isn't actually illegal, should worry the HELL out of you.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 9:09am

    The whole thing is a rather disgusting display of a prosecutor abusing the law to punish someone who he believes did wrong, but who did not actually break the law.

    Whether or not Ms. Drew "broke the law" is ultimately a decision to be made by the trial judge, and not by bloggers having only third hand accounts of the case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Tgeigs, May 13th, 2009 @ 9:16am

      Re:

      You're right, my bad. Let's all stop discussing this in a public forum because we don't have law degrees and haven't been present for every single meeting/proceeding/hearing. We also should just blindly trust the govt. when they say "we know things we can't tell you, that's why we tax/invade Iraq/torture/etc.".

      Or you know, maybe we ought to do our best to examine these things. I dunno, you tell me, since you're so smart.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 9:38am

        Re: Re:

        I look forward to reading your upcoming law review article pertaining to this case and the statute under which the defendant was charged.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 1:39pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes, your comment makes a point, doesn't it? Problem is, none of us can see your point. The day we all give up discussing the law is the day we... oh, wait, we've already lost control of our government. The lawyers all locked it up to themselves since it's illegal to give advice on the law to someone unless you're a lawyer. Fuck you, lawyers.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        windwolf, May 13th, 2009 @ 9:55am

        Re: Re:

        I'm sorry. I have never been a good sheep. People truly believe that the government is to be believed. And they will all be lead off the cliff together.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 10:16am

    I am sure when Capone went to jail for tax evasion, his victims didn't really care what charge he was tried on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    The Cenobyte, May 13th, 2009 @ 10:34am

    isn't that why we have Jury trials?

    Cause sometimes it's more about how wrong it was than how exactly the law was writen. It's one of the problems I have with sentencing guildlines honestly.

    Yes she was convicted of bullshit that should have not past mustard. But sentencing is about the harm the crime caused, sure the crime doesn't seem to fit right with the law applied but it didn't make her behavior exceptable and the jury gets to think about everything related to the crime when sentencing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 10:45am

      Re: isn't that why we have Jury trials?

      The term is, "pass muster," not mustard. It's military in origin.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 11:34am

        Re: Re: isn't that why we have Jury trials?

        ...and you let him get away with "exceptable"? You "could of" corrected him better.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 12:17pm

          Re: Re: Re: isn't that why we have Jury trials?

          I could have ignored those, a few minor errors are acceptable on teh intarwebs. "Pass muster" and the like just happen to be a pet peeve.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 10:46am

      Re: isn't that why we have Jury trials?

      She DIDN'T hack, there shouldn't BE any sentencing.

      Fine, what she did was bad, but there aren't any laws against it. If you think there should be, that's a completely different story.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 11:15am

      Re: isn't that why we have Jury trials?

      "Cause sometimes it's more about how wrong it was than how exactly the law was writen. It's one of the problems I have with sentencing guildlines honestly."

      Ok, then why have the law at all. Just trot everyone out in front of the jury and say, "Whaddaya think, gang?"

      The law in the case was proper. The application was not. What the prosecutor did here, regardless of all other outlying factors, was WRONG. It was a misapplication of the law. It doesn't make ANY difference who they're going after or what your opinions of them are. You can't charge people with crimes they didn't commit, end of effing story.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jack Sombra, May 13th, 2009 @ 10:34am

    Just waiting for the second part

    I am just waiting for the second part of this farce...thats when someone totally unrelated to this case gets locked up for "hacking" by some prosecutor with an axe to grind for providing false personal details to some random site

    By this verdict,in the USA, if you provide false personal details to any web site that asks for them you can be convicted of "hacking" and sent to jail, got to love the "land of the free"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Elle, May 13th, 2009 @ 10:57am

    Re: comment #25

    "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."

    This is exactly why jurors aren't supposed to read newspapers during a trial, and why some jurors are sequestered during a trial, and why some trials have to change venue in order to provide a more fair and unprejudiced jury pool.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Elle, May 13th, 2009 @ 11:00am

    Re: comment #25

    "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."

    This is why jurors are forbidden to read newspapers during the trial. This is why jurors are sometimes sequestered during the trial. This is why some trials have to change venue, in order to insure that there is an unprejudiced juror pool to select from.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 11:05am

    Squirt some more tears please...

    The blame for this "tragedy" is her neglecting parents.

    Her parents are no different then those in the 80's attempting to blame Ozzy or Judas Priest for their teen suicides.

    Instead of "cyber bulling" laws lets implement an internet leash law; no access to the internet without adult supervision for those under 18. Or maybe parents can just learn to say "No".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 11:14am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Derek Kerton, May 13th, 2009 @ 11:55am

      Re:

      OK. But then you should be advocating that Drew be charged with a crime against Megan Meier, not against MySpace.

      If the charge had been something like Involuntary Manslaughter (I'm no lawyer), and the evidence enough to convict, then maybe Techdirt would agree.

      But the charges are for a bogus unrelated crime, and the standard for conviction of those charges have been set so low by this trial that you, with the fake name Anonymous Coward, could be guilty of the same crime.

      We don't think the Internet changes this case. We think the law should not be twisted to find some way to convict Drew. You are a troll, nobody anywhere on this site has written that what Drew did "is OK". In fact, the article suggests what Drew did is horrific.

      [s]But I appreciate your point of view. A world of spontaneous, rage infused "beatdowns" would indeed be a veritable Utopia. I can't wait to live in your world of certain and prompt justice. You are clearly a supporter of a just society, and rule of law.[/sarc]

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 12:22pm

      Re:

      Anonymous Coward said:
      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?

      OK, really. You're putting us on, right?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 2:08pm

      Re:

      Actually, I have 9mm protection from people like you. Come on down, it'd be justifiable since I'd be 'in fear of life or limb'. Lynch mob justice is not justice, and trying to make us feel bad for doing what needs to be done? You're Drew, aren't you?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 11:21am

    It was a misapplication of the law.

    So what?

    What part of the Constitution gives the government the right to take money from me and give it to others? Is that fair treatment? Is it covered under the Constitution? Show me where it says that that is the way it should be.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Tgeigs, May 13th, 2009 @ 11:29am

      Re:

      "It was a misapplication of the law.

      So what?"

      So in this country we are supposed to have a "Rule of Law" system, where disputes and crimes are settled by clearly defined statutes (as opposed to Mob Rule, which is what this case seems to have been prosecuted under, hence the application of the media's coverage into the sentencing consideration).

      "What part of the Constitution gives the government the right to take money from me and give it to others?"

      Well, I didn't say that the law had to be explicitly in the US Constitution, but the 16th amendment for starters:

      "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration",

      which basically says that Congress can take your money and apply it to govt. programs, including Wellfare, Medicaid, etc.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 11:44am

    The Constitution was written to ensure fair treatment for all, to protect the minorities, to protect against "mob rule" but if you look at how our taxes are spent, this obviously goes against the Constitution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 2:10pm

      Re:

      And your proof would be...?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Tgeigs, May 13th, 2009 @ 2:22pm

      Re:

      "The Constitution was written to ensure fair treatment for all, to protect the minorities..."

      The constitution explicity stated that slaves and some minorities were to be counted as 3/5 of a person, you ignorant fucktard:

      "...including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

      That's how it was originally written, then superceded by the 14th amendment. If you live in this country and don't want to bother to understand the single most important document in American existence, you DO NOT get to comment on the constitutionality of laws (that should be the rule, in fact put THAT in the constitution rather than any idiocy concerning a definition of marriage).

      Tell you what, here is a hypertext version of the US Constitution, searchable via keyword thanks to its hypertexticity.

      http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

      God Dammit.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 2:54pm

        Re: Re:

        Fun fact: the abolitionists (those AGAINST slavery) didn't want to count them at all! The bit you quote is from the section in the Constitution where they're talking about the distribution of taxes and the number of delegates each state gets to the House of Reps. Slave owners wanted to count their slaves in the population (thereby getting them more money and influence) and those against slavery wanted to not count them (thereby encouraging slave-owning states to think twice about it).

        I'm glad you've read the Constitution, it's more than most, but try to learn a little history before berating someone about how racist this country is.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Tgeigs, May 13th, 2009 @ 2:59pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          That's not the point I was trying to make. He said the constitution was written to "protect the minorities", an argument that is fundmenatally flawed when the original document went so far as to determine the comparative WORTH of minorities, regardless of the intention of use.

          For instance, if my intention was to release an African American from prison where he was incorrectly imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit by saying, "He can't be convicted because he doesn't no any better", I'm doing something AGAINST racism by BEING racist.

          So there.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 3:50pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I'm doing something AGAINST racism by BEING racist.

            Right... so I'm not sure what your point is. You think your racism is justified because you don't "mean" it? Because either you're an ass for saying "he doesn't no any better" or the constitution DID try to protect minorities by saying they only counted as 3/5th for the purposes of determining tax distribution and governmental representation.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Tgeigs, May 14th, 2009 @ 7:05am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Yes, but they did it in an inherently RACIST way, making it a racist document.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2009 @ 8:03am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                So, to be clear, you maintain that the abolisionists were all racists?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Tgeigs, May 14th, 2009 @ 8:28am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Yes that's exactly what I said, that every single abolitionist was a racist, without exception, you inflamatory fucktard.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2009 @ 11:56am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Yes that's exactly what I said, that every single abolitionist was a racist,

                    Yeah, that's what we thought you said. And you're the one calling names?

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 12:13pm

    Ah Derek, a rage infused spontaneous beatdown may actually be legal, or at least a good defense. Something about temporary insanity?

    Think about it, who here believes chopping the head off of someone and eating them is the act of a sane person? Of course that person was insane. Will it get the person off? Of course not.

    Drew here did something wrong and she was punished for it. End of story. Justice was served.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Natalie, May 13th, 2009 @ 12:19pm

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 13th, 2009 @ 12:26pm

      Re:

      I reiterate: Megan killed herself.

      If there were a way to charge Drew with her death I assure you they would have. But they didn't. They took hacking law and twisted it so that breaking TOS goes from a contractual issue to a felony. You don't see a problem with that?

      No one here is saying the Internet should be a "responsibility-free zone." But why are you letting the Authorities get away with twisting laws like this? that's both frightening and reprehensible.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Tgeigs, May 13th, 2009 @ 12:45pm

      Re:

      First:

      "If you damage people with something stupid or cruel that you do, you have a moral and legal debt to pay."

      Then:

      "this horrible fat old witch"

      .....Simply stunning.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mallory, May 20th, 2009 @ 12:32pm

    I agree!

    This case reminds me ,years back,when some prick sued Jaclyn Smith for casting spells on him.I kidda ya not!!!WEll,it is entirely possible Ms.Smith really did intend to cast spells on this dimwit.But this not being the middle ages,there is no way to prove it,nor is it against the law.same with Lori Drew.While it is possible she wanted to spaz girl to kill herself,she didnt make her do it.This case should be thrown out of court.If Lori Drew recceives jail time,then maybe the guy who sued jaclyn Smith should get a do-over,unless he has now been turned into a frog!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This