She sucks, but there is no way prosecutors will get the ruling overturned on appeal, particularly in the Ninth Circuit. Something egregious happened, and prosecutors are trying to compensate for the fact that the laws do not move as fast as technology by charging her under a statute that doesn't really apply. Energy should be focused on creating new laws, not trying to make up for the lost opportunity here.
You can be bankrupted by the RIAA if someone, without your knowledge, downloads a file on your network. You can be directly responsible for events causing the death of a young girl and you walk. I am sick of the stupid, slow, money-driven joke known as "the American Legal System." It's pathetic and embarrassing.
Look at those crazy eyes! I would not want to meet her in a dark alley.
I would love to believe that the prosecutors have some super secret legal trick up their sleeves to ensnare Ms. Drew with. But sadly, this is not Law and Order. If they had anything, I'm sure they would have used it already. I have to content myself that Ms. Drew will find her punishment in the court of public opinion. We are far harsher judges, and there is no appealing our verdict.
I understand why this is newsworthy, but pretty much any attorney worth his/her salt files a notice to appeal any decision they lost before the time limit runs out - - - it's still hugely unlikely that they'll re prosecute (cough - because they have no case - cough)
@schweppes: Then change the laws. That woman is certainly responsible for some part of that young girl's death. Let's make sure the next person who does this doesn't walk away...
@Island of Misfit Toys: They are working on creating some new laws I think, but that still doesn't change the fact that there is no case against her. Laws aren't retroactive
It's been decided for months -- she'll receive a token fine and a suspended sentence of some sort. The judge will not fight this fight. It is up to we, the American people, to stand up and say that we will no longer tolerate such behavior, for any reason.
This whole situation makes me very very uncomfortable. I particularly don't like the idea that this woman could be sentenced to the max just to "send a message". I've always disliked that reasoning in trials. No one should be sentenced to make a point or take a stand, they should be sentenced based on the conviction and facts of the case. I guess victim impact statements really rub me the wrong way, as I don't like people involving emotions in sentencing. If Megan had no close family or friends to stand up for her at a trial and read victim impact statements, would it make her life less important, and would it lead to a lesser sentence?
@bluebears: Yeah, you're right about that. Whenever I watch "48 Hours Mystery" or some such, it always seems so wrong to have family members stand up in open court and say how this person has ruined their lives/destroyed the family/etc. I have no doubt that yes, that's probably the case, and it's tragic. But this person is being sentenced for being a convicted murderer (just as an example), not for causing parents to split, or people to become depressed, whatever. I always think, "Well, what if instead of being an honors college student, this girl was a homeless drug addict?" Then what? Same crime, different victims should equal same punishment.
@The Lonely Tourist: plus its really not the responsibility of the judicial system to help victims families achieve some measure of "closure." Look at the comments here, the judge is being an "asshole" because he didn't make proper eye contact? He's a judge not a therapist.
@bluebears: Yes! I'm glad he's not sympathetic to the family, and since it wasn't mentioned, I'm assuming he wasn't sympathetic to the other side, either. Judges are supposed to be impartial, and sit there and control the courtroom!
I was kind of afraid to post my original comment actually, because people get really passionate about this case. I feel for the family, but I don't like the idea of totally blaming and shaming this woman for a teenager's suicide.
@The Lonely Tourist: I'm pretty sure that if something this horrible happened to you, being able to make an impact statement would go a long way towards helping you heal and move on. Having your say is very important.
Victim impact statements are useful. Just thing of all the easy, light sentences given to child molesters, rapists, etc. It's a lot harder to set down a light sentence when the victim and/or family is telling you how it affected his or her life. Until that happens the crime is more abstract.
@The Lonely Tourist: She is a big part of the reason that this young girl killed herself. And she should certainly be shamed. What Lori Drew did was disgusting.
@The Lonely Tourist: The Lori Drew threads always drive home the point that we live in a very pro-prosecution society.
@BAngieB: Our Justice system has always been skewed towards protecting the rights of the defendant because they're the ones whose lives are on the line. Victim impact statements take a giant step in the opposite direction.
Let me also say that I'm pretty sure that if you or a loved one where on trial/convicted of a crime you/they didn't commit a judge handing down a harsher sentence because of a victim impact statement would seem like a grotesque twisting of the justice system.
@bluebears: @The Lonely Tourist: Sentencing guidelines are just that, guidelines. If the judge can give someone between 5 and 25 years, that is a big difference.
I know that defendants have rights, but so do victims. Often a victim's life and actions is put on trial, and I think this evens the score.
@bluebears: Yes, our justice system is skewed towards the defendant, because the Founding Fathers saw what happened when the rights of the accused were paid lip service by their own government. They wanted The State to have to prove its case, not simply pass de facto judgment.
That said, once someone has been convicted of a crime, no matter the circumstances, The State must allow the record of the suffering of the family of the victim or victims to hold some value in sentencing, to see full justice done.
I agree that there should be some attempt at passing cyber-bullying laws. however the judge is just doing his job, and I really disagree that one person should be punished as some sort of example to thousands. thats really bad law and policy.
I feel so sad for the Meiers that their marriage fell apart because of this too. To lose your daughter and then to become estranged from your spouse -- it is so so lonely and sad.
I wouldn't be surprised if her punishment is more lenient that anyone would expect. People don't even take bullying seriously enough when it's live and in person- and online, I see GROWN ASS PEOPLE say horrible things that I haven't heard since middle school (homophobic, racially hateful crap, etc). It just seems that online, at least, Lori Drew is definitely not all by herself. She did target a child, but I wonder who else is doing this (or has done this), and the result is different bc the kid/ target has some asshole & spunk in them, so we just haven't heard about it.
@oh.geez.: Yeah, bullying has always been a problem but I feel like layering in the medium of the web has made it exponentially worse. From what I can tell from this case, though, there's the age difference (adult v minor) and also the fact that she KNEW this girl had struggled psychologically. Seems like that should factor in somehow.
I think this kind of thing is going to have to surface and cause a lot more problems before it's in any way regulated, sadly. In the meantime, people will continue to be fucking assholes.
The judge has to be very, very careful during victim impact statements, or that's just one more thing that is appealable. Most judges don't start crying like the Anna Nicole judge, and for good reason.
Lying about your age for a dating site is dishonest. Doing specifically to hurt someone, anyone, is wrong. Just because there isn't a law specifically for it doesn't mean she gets to slip through a loophole. I'm not totes up with the legal bizzle but if she is found properly guilty and does time, this sets a legal precedent that will protect other potential victims, won't it?
@noiseau: It may also sets a legal precedent that will make it possible to prosecute people for lying about their height and weight on dating sites. I think Lori Drew is a terrible person, but I think using this law in this way to go after her is a terrible idea, and opens up all sorts of avenues for harassment and abuse of prosecutorial discretion.
I always want to bite my tongue when it comes to the law, but sometimes I really hate the legal system. I'm very surprised that there isn't SOME kind of anti-harassment or abuse law on the books that this could have fallen under. I do understand that the prosecution is stretching, here, but.....seems like Wu could be a little, I don't know, nicer.
God, I just asked a judge to try and be more of a sweetheart.
Weird? The situation is weird? A grown-ass woman bullied a 13-year old so badly that she took her own life because of it. There are much better word for it than "weird".
I think Wu is being extra careful and trying to stay as close to the law as possible because well, that's his job, and also because this case will set a huge precedent going forward as to how these types of cases are handled.
@NefariousNewt: But the unequivocal precedent being set here is "If we don't like you because we think you've done something horrible, but it's not really against the laws as written, we will use an obscure part of a different existing law to come after you for something we don't really care about." That's a very dangerous precedent. Nobody's shedding tears about Lori Drew going to jail, but what about the local prosecutor who's pissed at some woman who bought a sexual harassment claim against a local big business, or a racist prosecutor who's pissed that a minority is successful, or police who suspect someone of a crime but have no evidence that that they commited it. If any of those people have joined some internet service and been less than truthful, or posted something they didn't have the legal right to, or violated the TOS in some obscure way, this case sends a message that it's OK to haul them into court as punishment for something different.
@samethingwedoeverynightpinky: This idea has been hashed out and rehashed ad nauseum here. No, this is not perfect justice, but it is uses the available statutes as they were intended. She cannot be charged with any kind of criminal negligence for her direct acts, but she can still be charged with using MySpace in clear violation of the TOS. A punishment for this will not cause her to "pay for her crime," because it has little to do with the crime other than being the instrument that allowed her to carry out her heinous plot.
And this precept is used all the time by prosecutors, who are more than willing to charge someone with something, anything, in order to be able to buy time to charge them with a higher crime.
@NefariousNewt: I know this conversation has happened before, but every time there's a Lori Drew thred, the vast vast majority of commenters seem to be of opinion that since she's a terrible person they should go after her any way they can and it doesn't matter that there isn't a law against what they're actually putting her on trial for. If she were really being tried for violaing the TOS agreement, wouldn't Myspace be giving the victim statement?
I know that prosecutors use the we'll get them for what we can strategy all the time, and selectively enforce laws like this just to go after people who they think are "bad" for some other reason, but I think overeliance on prosecutorial discretion is part of why our criminal justice system is so profoundly racist and classist and often arbitrary, and I cannot endorse it. Obviously other people's mileage varies on this topic, but I don't think it hurts to ask the generally very very pro prosecution jez community to think about the way in which legal srategies like this manifest themselves as opportunities to harass marginalized communities.
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
I would love to believe that the prosecutors have some super secret legal trick up their sleeves to ensnare Ms. Drew with. But sadly, this is not Law and Order. If they had anything, I'm sure they would have used it already. I have to content myself that Ms. Drew will find her punishment in the court of public opinion. We are far harsher judges, and there is no appealing our verdict.
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
05/19/09
05/19/09
Anyone else feel the same?
05/19/09
05/19/09
05/19/09
05/19/09
I was kind of afraid to post my original comment actually, because people get really passionate about this case. I feel for the family, but I don't like the idea of totally blaming and shaming this woman for a teenager's suicide.
05/19/09
Victim impact statements are useful. Just thing of all the easy, light sentences given to child molesters, rapists, etc. It's a lot harder to set down a light sentence when the victim and/or family is telling you how it affected his or her life. Until that happens the crime is more abstract.
05/19/09
05/19/09
@BAngieB: Our Justice system has always been skewed towards protecting the rights of the defendant because they're the ones whose lives are on the line. Victim impact statements take a giant step in the opposite direction.
Let me also say that I'm pretty sure that if you or a loved one where on trial/convicted of a crime you/they didn't commit a judge handing down a harsher sentence because of a victim impact statement would seem like a grotesque twisting of the justice system.
05/19/09
I know that defendants have rights, but so do victims. Often a victim's life and actions is put on trial, and I think this evens the score.
05/19/09
That said, once someone has been convicted of a crime, no matter the circumstances, The State must allow the record of the suffering of the family of the victim or victims to hold some value in sentencing, to see full justice done.
05/19/09
05/19/09
05/19/09
05/19/09
05/19/09
I think this kind of thing is going to have to surface and cause a lot more problems before it's in any way regulated, sadly. In the meantime, people will continue to be fucking assholes.
05/19/09
05/19/09
05/19/09
05/19/09
05/19/09
God, I just asked a judge to try and be more of a sweetheart.
This is just depressing.
05/19/09
05/19/09
05/19/09
That being said, I wonder if he has kids.
05/19/09
05/19/09
05/19/09
05/19/09
And this precept is used all the time by prosecutors, who are more than willing to charge someone with something, anything, in order to be able to buy time to charge them with a higher crime.
05/19/09
I know that prosecutors use the we'll get them for what we can strategy all the time, and selectively enforce laws like this just to go after people who they think are "bad" for some other reason, but I think overeliance on prosecutorial discretion is part of why our criminal justice system is so profoundly racist and classist and often arbitrary, and I cannot endorse it. Obviously other people's mileage varies on this topic, but I don't think it hurts to ask the generally very very pro prosecution jez community to think about the way in which legal srategies like this manifest themselves as opportunities to harass marginalized communities.