Woman gets life sentence for making 13-year-old boy touch her breasts; Lawyer cries, says the law was never intended for people like her

Revoran · 2013-07-17T17:49:46+00:00

[permanently deleted]

taylor24stras · 2013-07-17T18:26:52+00:00

When she started crying, she lost all credibility. I'd be pissed at my lawyer.

girlwriteswhat · 2013-07-17T20:01:25+00:00

It was intended for people with penises. Clearly.

Now this woman (for whom I have much sympathy if this was her only offence) is learning about another law: the law of unintended consequences.

notnotnotfred · 2013-07-17T22:14:33+00:00

the conviction is all wrong. she was under the influence of alcohol, so the 13 year old boy was raping her (please don't make me place the obvious /s here well there it is anyway)

Godspiral · 2013-07-17T17:39:44+00:00

"It was meant," he continued, sobbing crocodile tears as the law the patriarchy wrote to subjugate women forced him to oppress this woman into oblivion, "for viscous, leering MEN!"

Edit: I write this even though I strongly disagree with the sentence and think it is wildly out of proportion to the crime. However, this case illustrates in a very very harsh light just how insane this particular law is and it will hopefully be a great tool to help change the law and prevent others from being dealt this kind of hand.

The fact that it was so blatantly obvious that this sentence was so out of proportion to the nature of the crime that the judge cried while giving the sentence, really highlights how unjust laws like this are and how damaging they can be.

Edit 2: Apparently she was a repeat offender and this was the least of her crimes (based entirely on the comment here). So, nevermind about the sentence being unproportional. It was just an opportunity for the courts to finally lock her away. Story was wrong.

Edit 3: Apparently she was not a repeat offender and this sentence is as ridiculous and disproportional to her crime as it sounds at face value. Which is actually worse.

pcronin · 2013-07-17T19:31:10+00:00

4-12-10. April 12th, 2010.

Just thought I'd put that out there for anyone thinking this is "breaking news"

walruz · 2013-07-17T19:10:49+00:00

There's room here to call this conviction sketchy, but there are cogent arguments on both sides. While I can't find anything pointing to her being a repeat offender, considering her lawyer came to tears talking about the sexual abuse her client experienced as a child, this only goes to suggest that she is likely to be a victimizer herself. As such, I think we can infer that this 13-year-old boy was not her first venture into acting like a sexual predator.

Beyond that, she was offered a plea deal. However, the plea deal would involve her registering as a sex offender, and she refused to do so. Without the plea, the life sentence was the mandatory minimum. Even if the jury was aware there was a life sentence minimum, that shouldn't have changed their interpretation of the facts as to whether or not she was guilty of molesting the 13-year-old.

Socially speaking, there are two arguably unfair dynamics at hand. One, the client is ugly. Let's face it, if she had a rockin' body with perky breasts, offering sex to a 13-year-old boy would be interpreted completely differently. This case highlights our society's double standard. Two, the client is a woman. If a sexually abused 35 year old man forced a 13-year old girl to touch his penis, kissed her, and then attempted to have sex with her, I doubt there would be any fuss over a life sentence.

In the end, a 13-year-old boy was molested and likely traumatized by this woman. Her sentence keeps her away from other children, which, considering her past, makes me think she likely would re-offend. Justice, while somewhat skewered, was served.

PoliticoG · 2013-07-18T01:36:45+00:00

When my lawyer starts crying, I start crying, because I'm going to jail.

60secs · 2013-07-17T17:46:40+00:00

Word to the wise: when a judge asks you a question, the correct answer is not "I'll get there."

If the genders were reversed, I have little doubt few would question the sentance.

That said, the following are really fishy:

the jury didn't know the crime had a life sentance when they convicted her of it
punishment is more severe than the crime
"lewd" acts is remarkably vague

einexile · 2013-07-17T23:19:28+00:00

Something I feel very strongly on is that the law is intended for everyone, at all times.

I think that if every law were applied every time it was broken, exactly as written, whether we as a society felt the person was in the wrong or not, then after a short period of chaos, we'd find the legal code short enough for the average person to actually know by heart, and a lot more sensible with a lot less dangerously ambiguous clauses.

It's only because of this bizzare "the law is only for people who we dislike or are actively making a nuisance of themselves" nonsense that things like anti-gay laws are still on the books.

einexile · 2013-07-17T23:49:28+00:00

She was only charged because she's an ugly woman.

2013-07-17T19:55:44+00:00

If she was a man, nobody would bat an eye at this sentence, even though it is wildly out of proportion - just as the Lawyer states, there's no way that this should carry a heavier sentence than murder. No. Fucking. Way.

That said, the lawyer's crocodile tears are pathetic, and we all know that no such tears would have been shed for a man in the same position.

The law was never intended for people like her, was it? It was intended exclusively for men? Only men are meant to be thrown in prison for 10-life for this?

The whole thing, from every angle, is a joke.

PerniciousOne · 2013-07-18T03:52:15+00:00

No one would have batted an eye if a male was charged with a life-sentence for fondling a thirteen-year-old girl's breasts.

Because it is a female suffering the same criminal outcome if it was a male is why many people are up on arms? Oh the humanity, a poor widdle womyn, being opressed because the gender neutral laws are affecting her the same way, that a man would?

MastaFong · 2013-07-17T18:57:52+00:00

[permanently deleted]

giegerwasright · 2013-07-17T18:31:40+00:00

She's too ugly for a pussy pass. If she looked like Jenny McCarthy, she'd already be doing a book tour.

thrownaway_MGTOW · 2013-07-18T05:53:57+00:00

Here is a link to a story with details on the age, name and face of the molesting adult.

The minimization going on in this thread (and even in the above linked article) is ridiculous.

This is a case of a 34 year old ADULT (not someone 17 years old who got waived into adult court, not some quasi-adult 18 or 19 year old teenager... this is a FULL ADULT).

And the act was not merely a "kiss" nor was it merely her "asking" him to "touch" her breast(s)... this was a full adult, intoxicated and the "roughhousing" (i.e. using physical violence) disrobed and forcing the CHILD of her "friend" to engage an acts of sexual foreplay, with every intent (apparently openly/repeatedly stated, and thus premeditated regarding intent to commit the crime) of engaging in full intercourse with the child, which was apparently interrupted and thus prevented.

Change the gender of the offender ... make this a middle-aged, drunk half-naked male wrestling with and forcing a child (boy or girl) to kiss, and fondle genitals in sexual foreplay, while saying "I'm gonna fuck you!" repeatedly...

And NO ONE would have batted an eye at the conviction OR the sentence (which despite the pleas of the incompetent defense attorney, IS in fact just a 10 year sentence).

In point of fact, I know of a CHILD (i.e. offender who was a teen/minor {age 14} when they committed a similar/lesser act -- but mere "fondling": NO booze, no wrestling, no intent/threat to commit full intercourse, and NO force) who received and served a LONGER actual prison sentence (12 years total, no parole, with 8 years probation following) because they were charged/convicted several years later, after they had turned 18 (and the 12 year sentence was the result of a plea-bargain, the total of the charges stacked-up/trumped-up had threatened over 100 years).

But of course... that was a male, technically a "Man".

This FULL ADULT is exactly the kind of sexual molester/predator that the law was intended for. She (and her incompetent defense attorney) simply thought/calculated that her GENDER alone would be a "get out of jail free" card.

Jamescovey · 2013-07-17T23:50:38+00:00

A life sentence!? That is ridiculous. And the lawyer is a fool.

tallwheel · 2013-07-18T01:47:43+00:00

I wonder if feminists will use this as more "proof" of "patriarchy" and "institutionalized hatred of women".

rapscallionx · 2013-07-18T03:45:30+00:00

Everyone is saying "oh well this is a excessive sentence for the crime committed". Those same people are saying that we need to fight for male equality not female suffering. I agree, but I disagree that this kind of injustice won't facilitate that change.

Let's just say (for the sake of conversation) that the guy in the youtube comments is wrong when he claims that she's getting life imprisonment for more than just forcing the kid to touch her boob. I would contend that the increase in frequency of women getting outrageous sentences for (what women consider) typically male crimes, will give women some much needed perspective on what it's like to be judged as a male.

Women will continue to have a reckless attitude towards crimes they are immune from being convicted of until they themselves are wrongfully accused and/or punished unfairly for them. You will never convince these bigoted feminists to ever see your perspective. They are incapable of seeing anything but their own perspective. So these unfortunate situations need to be forced on them for their attitudes to change.

Uncle-Thomas · 2013-07-18T14:19:46+00:00

Feminist-leaning people should take note that this is the response men are learning to give all your victim politics, emotion and crying... disinterest in how you feel and what you say.

The lawyer was arguing that the mandatory sentencing guideline used in this case was not meant for women, but men instead, and when pressed by the Judge asking why, she could not say it outright because she still has to work with that judge and district attorneys in the future, and that its sexist and patently biased.

For decades, Feminists have been hammering at men for being the evil wrong-doing pedophiles, only to now attempt to explain away the abject epidemic of female pedophiles.

Legislators are taking notice and signing in laws to protect our children from this epidemic of pedophilia.

Welcome to equality, ladies.

legendofthebar · 2013-07-17T18:33:18+00:00

She was only convicted because she's ugly. If she'd been an ex-cheerleader the boy would have been told he was lucky.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/former-cheerleader-sarah-jones-bengals-female-sandusky-_n_1727967.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57527978-504083/sarah-jones-former-nfl-cheerleader-pleads-guilty-to-lesser-charges-in-sex-case/

psuedophilosopher · 2013-07-17T20:47:07+00:00

Gotta love when the judge just straight faced said "why not?" I might be projecting, but it really felt like she was arguing that the law wasn't meant for women and the judge just shut that right down. Ultimately, I agree that all mandatory sentencing is BS that completely undermines the concept of a judicial system, but that is what the voting public has proven to elect.

lazlounderhill · 2013-07-18T03:12:32+00:00

Unconstitutional because it's a woman? You have two choices here. You either apply the law equally to both genders, or you change the law and apply it equally to both genders. Anything short of that equals REAL gender oppression.

cutcoguru · 2013-07-18T00:14:40+00:00

Just left the following comment:

At the end of the day, this is a form of child molestation - pure and simple. The child was being sexually corrupted and violated by an adult in a position of power over him. No matter how good he might feel about it now, in time it will deeply scar and haunt him for the rest of his life. This hypocritical lawyer dares cry crocodile tears over this child sex offender getting a life sentence, yet how convenient that she ignores the life sentence that this woman has already given to this poor boy.

vampvincent · 2013-07-17T18:02:18+00:00

The initial information here was incorrect, move along citizen.

I do not advocate for life sentences for a single sex crime EVER, but here, it is earned not by one crime, but by a multiple sum of offenses where she was allowed to re-enter society only to offend again.

She clearly has no inkling that she even needs to reform, and she has proven that beyond a shadow of doubt if she was released this time she'd do it again.

LuckECharms · 2013-07-17T21:56:18+00:00

I read that she had also asked the boy if he wanted to have sex with her, would you then feel this sentence is less harsh had that happened?

Captaincastle · 2013-07-17T22:40:34+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Lawtonfogle · 2013-07-18T00:27:36+00:00

Truth be told, age of consent laws were never meant for cases like this. Back when they were made the thought was that couples should just get married to legalize it (and child marriage was allowed back in the day). They were only meant for men who would use girls for sex and then leave them when they got pregnant (it took many years before boys were even considered worth protecting under the same laws and even now we are having trouble getting women prosecuted equally under the laws). And in general, one shot gun wedding was all it took for charges to be dropped.

But things have changed and now an 20 year old deserves life in prison for doing anything sexual with a 17 year old (according to our laws).

hugged_at_gunpoint · 2013-07-18T07:18:35+00:00

I would like to know where a man got a life sentence for kissing a little girl and moving her hand to his breast. Links?

I mean, I can google a bunch of cases in nevada where a man had *worse *crimes and a *lighter *sentence:

24 years

15 years

2 convicted counts, no prison time

I did find this though:

two life sentences

In this case, the punishment definitely fits the crime, which is far beyond mere kissing and chest touching.

einexile · 2013-07-18T07:49:12+00:00

I'm wondering if anyone here is actually interested in the case.

This woman got stuck with a mandatory sentence because she refused to plead guilty and so was not offered a plea bargain, for reasons which seemed perplexing to the judge. (That it surprised anyone a plea bargain wasn't offered to a defendant who outright refused a guilty plea is beyond me, but that's how it went.)

Her attorney wasn't grasping at constitutional straws and crying in court because she wanted her pet child rapist to go free; she was behaving that way because she had fucked up the case and in the process destroyed the life of another human being.

A shitty human being, sure, but if you imagine it feels good to ruin a shitty human being's life, try it sometime. You might be surprised.

ChokinMrElmo · 2013-07-18T12:32:29+00:00

I thought the title was a typo. Life for lewd conduct? The fuck? She deserved jail time, but life- seriously? Nobody thought that was a bit extreme when they were writing the law? I think 10 years with possibility of parole at 2 years would be sufficient.

This does beg the question, though, if the law wasn't intended for people like her, who was it intended for?

wontom12358 · 2013-07-17T20:13:24+00:00

Life? Thats a bit extreme in my opinion. All thats doing is indefinitely adding to the already massive taxpayer tab for incarcerated people for something that should be far less.

vynusmagnus · 2013-07-18T08:00:59+00:00

I think a life sentence (with the possibility of parole) is a good punishment for people like her. She's a predator, pure and simple. I'm sure hundreds of men have been sentenced to life for the same crime, it's always good to see equality.

MrMilky20 · 2013-07-17T20:50:45+00:00

Life sentence ? That's fucking ridiculous man.

liquidfirex · 2013-07-17T21:18:00+00:00

I honestly don't care about genders at all here, this is perversion of common sense and justice in every sense I can muster.

cutcoguru · 2013-07-18T08:02:39+00:00

This is ridiculous on both counts. On one hand, her lawyer turning on the waterworks and claiming that the law shouldn't apply to her client was disgraceful. IANAL but her entire case was "I agree that X is the punishment for Y, and I agree it is plainly stated here, and I agree that Y occurred." She was relying upon appeal to emotion, which IMO has no place in court.

But the sentencing is absurd. Back in GA there was this archaic law that said digitally penetrating (aka fingering) a minor was 25 years, which was actually greater than the punishments for other forms of stat. rape.

Life in prison for making a kid touch your breasts? I agree some serious jail time was in order, especially seeing as to how she was (from what I can tell) a repeat offender, but life? LIFE?

SmooK_LV · 2013-07-18T08:11:40+00:00

As much as I want equality in courts, I also want a proper justice towards any human being. Sure, jail time can be given for such act, but a life sentence? -That's absurd.

2013-07-17T21:56:11+00:00

This isn't really an issue. Of course her lawyer is going to use any BS defense he can. That's what lawyers do.

That being said, life is way too much. Some rapists don't get that.

kingsmuse · 2013-07-17T22:24:15+00:00

Life??

Jesus, that's out of line

BigBoobieBitches · 2013-07-17T22:35:50+00:00

Beside the fact that jury tribunals are a joke and this sentence is too, if I had to face life in prison and this would be my lawyer, I might as well fire her early and reduce the expenses. She was horribly bad from start to finish. Every first semester law student would have done a better job. I get that she's probably in her early years and emotionally invested in the case, but she fucked up from the first to the last word.

ElDiablo_Blanco · 2013-07-17T22:44:58+00:00

Well its obvious why she lost the case. She has a terrible lawyer.

cutcoguru · 2013-07-17T22:48:17+00:00

Life with possibility of parole after 10 years seems more than a bit much.

Yes, punish her the same as you would punish men, but this is ridiculous.

I mean yes, what she did wasn't acceptable, but what actual harm has actually come to the boy?

2013-07-17T23:16:36+00:00

This is what happens when you try to excessively punish "creepy men". I think this law is crazy excessive, and we need to show feminazis videos like this so they shut up about "pedophiles deserve the death sentence"

JamesRussellSr · 2013-07-17T23:24:44+00:00

I would like to point out that the video description holds up a case in which a police officer was having sex with his 17 year old daughter. He was only convicted of incest. He is eligible for probation while this woman gets a life sentence. While most people would find sexual relations with ones daughter reprehensible it is important to note that incest is the crime that isn't the same as sexual assault. The law could prove that she forced the boy to touch her. The law could not prove the daughter was forced to have sex with her father; that or its a conspiracy. That's my two cents.

2013-07-17T23:44:20+00:00

I can't stop laughing at the overall incompetence and appeals to emotion this lawyer spews forth.

"Now, 70 years, while a stiff sentence, is not life!" Err, yes it is. Most people barely make it past 80 nowadays.

"Seperation of powers. Because she was not granted a plea deal, the judicial branch is trying to harm her." Yeah, OK bitch. The state doesn't HAVE to give you a plea deal. She did it, she was convicted. She's gonna have to deal with it.

"This court doesn't allow for mitigating factors" There ARE NO mitigating factors, lady. Lewdness with a minor below age of 14.

Etc, etc. I'm too busy laughing to list all of her shit.

Kaderpy · 2013-07-18T00:03:18+00:00

If she had a good lawyer she would've gotten off. It was probably a case of "hey mid-pubescent boy, you wanna see my boobs?.... Go ahead, touch 'em"

rotarycombustion · 2013-07-18T00:28:19+00:00

thats bullshit

2013-07-18T00:44:34+00:00

All the best attorneys cry when they don't get their way. It shows their passion for the law.

Skippydero · 2013-07-18T00:57:56+00:00

According to youtube, this sentence was for this charges plus other charges.

2013-07-18T01:18:00+00:00

Glad that the letter of the law was followed for a woman too, sad that there is this ridiculous statute out there. America's legal system is fucked.

charliebeanz · 2013-07-18T01:35:11+00:00

The video mentioned the "woman" was a minor. How old is she?

ytismylife · 2013-07-18T01:44:24+00:00

This lawyer is terrible at her job.

NemosHero · 2013-07-18T02:02:34+00:00

Lawyer is doing his job

ichthys · 2013-07-18T03:11:38+00:00

Anyone else notice the time jump from 03:44:20 to 03:48:31? Seems there are 4 minutes missing/cut out.

keith_weaver · 2013-07-18T04:12:40+00:00

Life for this? Seems about right...

neoform3 · 2013-07-18T04:27:01+00:00

Note to self: go nowhere near any child in Nevada.

Life in prison for getting a 13 year old to touch her clothed breasts?

Jesus Christ.

Zackcid · 2013-07-18T05:36:01+00:00

That woman sucks at her job. It's hard to believe they let people in like her, when getting in as an attorney is apparently so competitive and difficult. I've done better mock trials in highschool than what I'm seeing here.

SMZ72 · 2013-07-18T10:16:16+00:00

A life sentence? That is outrageous.

gaedikus · 2013-07-18T11:48:02+00:00

when she turned on the waterworks, someone should've been allowed to spray her with water.

lemywincks · 2013-07-18T19:17:06+00:00

that seems a bit much, for anyone

StarsDie · 2013-07-18T20:06:13+00:00

This sentence pisses me off.

FUCK that bullshit.

2013-07-17T17:32:24+00:00

LAWYER IN LAME ATTEMPT TO DEFEND CLIENT SHOCKER

2013-07-18T02:19:33+00:00

and if this was a guy nobody would give a fuck. Let the bitch rot and let this joke of a lawyer grow up and get off her soap box. If this was a man she would be outside the court house demanding the death sentence. Life is 20 years and they end up doing 7-8. I hope and pray women offenders continue to do harsher sentences than men so perhaps the fake rape crap may end and perhaps they will do equal time for greater and lesser crimes when a man can piss outside his own home and end up on a list when fucked up women can rape young boys and get away with it. If these women can demand men lose their nuts when they end up on a list I say we take their tubes. Fair is far.

SkyWulf · 2013-07-18T00:08:41+00:00

He's right, and that sentence is fucking stupid.

Elite-Streak · 2013-07-18T00:11:24+00:00

Would it be possible for her to appeal this case? The sentence obviously bullshit, and needs to be brought to life by a more reasonable judge. No matter the gender.

Hifen · 2013-07-18T01:26:09+00:00

You know this is disgusting when the entire MRA disagrees with the severity of a sex offense ruling on a women.

Whisper · 2013-07-18T03:57:26+00:00

Yes, it's draconian. But it's been draconian to men, and no one cared.

Where was this sympathetic, crying officer of the court when this sentence was carried out on men?

OniZ18 · 2013-07-18T10:14:33+00:00

ridiculous.... that sentence is so out of proportion with the crime

cutcoguru · 2013-07-18T11:46:49+00:00

How is this a men's rights issue? I swear this subreddit has far too many pussies in it. With that aside, this law is fuckin ridiculous regardless of gender.

cutcoguru · 2013-07-18T14:45:33+00:00

Some facts which seem to have been missed from the sanitised version of things:

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Michelle Taylor, a Jackpot woman convicted of lewdness with a minor. The case went to the Supreme Court in mid-October, at which time Taylor’s defense argued a life sentence for “asking a boy to have sex with her” was “cruel and unusual punishment.” Prosecutor Chad Thompson argued the statute calls for a 10-year minimum with a possible life sentence with the possibility of parole. Thompson, in his argument to the justices, said there was skin-to-skin contact between the boy’s hand and Taylor’s breast. He also said Taylor tried to remove the boy’s clothing and demanded he have sex with her, rather than requested it. Taylor’s defense had sought a review of the evidence in the case; not a re-trial or review of sentencing. However, the viability of the evidence would have had an impact on the trial’s outcome. According to court records, Taylor was arrested for lewdness in February 2008 after the 13-year-old boy’s mother told sheriff’s deputies that Taylor had tried to have sex with her son.

So let's cut the BS about 10 years being draconian for what is clearly an attempted child rape.

goodinbed · 2013-07-17T19:43:55+00:00

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.

If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension GreaseMonkey to Firefox and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

flooberses · 2013-07-18T05:25:50+00:00

Life seems pretty steep for a titty grab...

Forgot_itAgain · 2013-07-18T09:40:46+00:00

Keep making fun of all those 'backwards countries with horrible human rights' America. Everything I've heard jingoistic and exceptionalist Americans claim, often falsely, about all the so called 'lesser' and 'evil' nations is more true about the US than anywhere else. Open your eyes and look in the mirror America.

Offensive_Brute · 2013-07-18T02:03:14+00:00

the crime doesnt warrant anything remotely near a life sentence. this is nuts.

LeeHyori · 2013-07-18T02:43:27+00:00

This is cruel and unusual punishment. I hope this was revisited.

2013-07-17T17:41:34+00:00

[permanently deleted]

HugoWeaver · 2013-07-17T23:53:28+00:00

That is one hell of a harsh sentence. I definetely would imagine a few years but LIFE? Cmon, that's insane. Then a $10k fine as well? How stupid.

I can understand feminists having a field day with this and rightfully so.

I mean, justice is served here but way too harshly, IMO. Even the judge believed so.

mrmcdude · 2013-07-18T01:32:19+00:00

Unfortunately having unfair laws apply to everyone, rich and poor, black and white, male and female, is the quickest way to get them changed. Sucks for this woman though, and I hope her sentence gets commuted to something more reasonable after the law is fixed.

Toallpointswest · 2013-07-18T11:54:46+00:00

Yeah I'm thinking that the punishment DOES NOT fit the crime. There are people in prison for killing other people who didn't get Life.

cutcoguru · 2013-07-18T12:04:06+00:00

Life?? WTF!?!

BigBoobieBitches · 2013-07-17T21:09:26+00:00

A jury worth its salt would have had the charges dismissed by way of jury nullification. If there is ONE instance in your whole life where your duty as a citizen lies in stopping a legal system that has gone way way off track, it is this one.

Female discount sentencing is one thing, but oppression and sheer disproportion between the harm done and the punishment is a whole other beast. Two wrongs can not possibly result in a right.

Title	Woman gets life sentence for making 13-year-old boy touch her breasts; Lawyer cries, says the law was never intended for people like her
Author	superkant
Upvotes	788
Comments	478
Date	July 17, 2013 5:22 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1ihxig/woman_gets_life_sentence_for_making_13yearold_boy/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/woman-gets-life-sentence-for-making-13-year-old.1168546 https://theredarchive.com/post/1168546

Comments