@femme-bot: Frankly, I'd rather her life not be made into a living hell. I'd rather she didn't win the lottery, but I truly don't give a shit what happens to Lori Drew, so long as I never have to hear about her ever again. She did a repulsive, unforgivable thing to a child, and ruined the lives of the Meier family and her own. But instead of people spending time harassing Drew with nasty phonecalls and spit-flecked harangues in the supermarket parking lot, I wish they'd devote their efforts to making sure this doesn't happen again. Anywhere. To anyone, by anyone, of any age.
It's not about Lori Drew. It's about Megan Meier and the legacy she left us. We have an obligation to focus on the kids like Megan who are, at this very minute, needing our help and support and protection.
@A Small Turnip: Good point, but I believe people can go above and beyond and manage to do both!
I'd rather not people harass her, but I wouldn't cry if no one wants to give her a job.
@femme-bot: I think everyone should just leave her alone to live with the guilt over all of the pain and grief she caused. Harassing her only gives her ammo to play the victim, and the continued attention gives her a platform to express her sadness, real or fabricated, and (odds are) there will be at least one person who feels sorry for her, or finds a way to rationalize her actions.
@JenniJS: I wish you were right, but the fact is that she has never evinced the slightest hint of remorse. All of her statements are halfassed excuses for why she feels justified in her actions, why she is so put upon by the Meiers and the general public and how she is not as bad as people think. I don't believe that she has the introspection or emotional capacity for the kind of self-flagellation you describe. That would require more heart and soul than I believe she has.
@IBleedGlitter: The High Priestess of Tinsel: This.
Meh, it was expected. The entire world knows what a vile human being she is, Megan's name will be on landmark legislation....I guess it's the best we can hope for, given that there is no law currently on the books to prosecute her with. And it's not like they have anything left for the civil suit to confiscate, given that their business closed and they've doubtlessly not been first in line for people to hire. Still, it seems hollow, though.
@Hooplehead: It's not enough that the world knows that this one woman is a vile human being. It has to be made clear to everyone, that such vileness is contrary to decent society, and will not be tolerated. What will it take for everyone to stand up and say "Enough!!!"? When will the crime become so heinous, that our outrage and indignation will reach a fervor that will cause Congress to act? How many more dead kids will it take?
@NefariousNewt: I'm not saying it's enough. I'm saying it's what we've got. And not letting it happen again is where the proposed legislation would come in, no? I hear you on the outrage, but I'm done getting worked up about this waste of skin every time there is yet another headline about how she's not getting punished. She is the way she is, everyone knows it, and that will have to be its own punishment because the courts can't do any better. We can't save Megan. We can only try to make sure there aren't more victims like her. Like I said, it rings hollow. But it's what we can do given the finality of the "solution" Megan chose.
Yup, because "karma" has certainly worked wonders on other criminal miscreants like Roman Polanski, OJ Simpson, guy released from prison early and killed dozens of girls... Yup, nothing more comforting than Christianized karma.
@AwesomeJerkface: O.J. is in prison, Polanski is in jail and you don't know what those other guys are going through. Karma is not a Christian belief, it is a Hindu one and if you don't believe in it fine. But don't judge me for having faith in the universe.
@Triana Orpheus:
You're right, Karma is not Christian but Hindu (and Buddhism mind you), but I did say ChristiaNIZED... as in your concept isn't the eastern kind.
Eastern Karma is strictly NON-RETRIBUTION. Let me Google that for you: [lmgtfy.com]
"Eye for an eye", "do unto others as you would yourself", "sinners get theirs in the end"... Christian, not Karma.
The idea that karma is about someone getting payback is a Westernized cultural appropriation of karma.
It must be fun for you to use other people's beliefs to satisfy your trivialization.
PS. Polanski's out on bail. Yup, this stuff really works doesn't it?
@AwesomeJerkface:
Why, hello, omnipotent Jerkface, seer of all! Did you like that sweater I wore earlier? I picked it out especially for you. And you got to use the snarky little link you've probably had bookmarked in your browser for over a year now. Good for you! The universe works!
Now we can go back and forth cherry-picking Google links to prove our points on karma, but...well, actually you can. I have a karmic reward coming over in a little bit. I've been such a good girl!
I still think it says something about her psyche when an adult women would go out of her way to harass and bully a 13 year old girl online irregardless of the legal outcome.
@LilSpitfire: Forget her psyche -- it says something about a society where this kind of thing happens in the first place. Each succeeding generation has seen a lessening of the bonds of community and family. People are no longer people -- they are Facebook "friends," tweets, or Google fodder. It is now possible for revenge fantasies to play out in real life, secure behind walls of "anonymity" (for there is nothing truly anonymous on the Internet), whereas previously these fantasies were locked inside minds.
Children do not develop proper social values anymore. Community service has gone from being a noble pursuit, to be something one is punished with. Instead of reaching out to others, we are becoming more insular, hiding behind the fortress walls of our homes, paying little attention to what goes on outside. Ranting and shouting has replaced communication and discourse.
Lori Drew represents our new society, a society where people are no longer people, but objects. In essence, our society has a collective case of autism.
@NefariousNewt: Truth be told I think people were always this wicked...they just never had a medium to get away with it.
You beat a kid on the playground you can see scars...you beat up a kid online you can't see the emotional scars.
The internet has brought with it both wonderful inovations in communication and abject horrors. It's up to Reality to sort out the mess. But remember we are barely 20 years into redefining human communication in this way, and only 100 years or so if you count all of the 20 century( TV Radio ect).
@NefariousNewt: A collective case of autism? I mean, I was kind of with you until that point. But there's no need to reference a stereotype of autism to describe the behavior of a bunch of people who can and should know better.
@NefariousNewt: "Each succeeding generation has seen a lessening of the bonds of community and family"
That's just plain ridiculous. It's the same precise complaint lobbed by inexplicably nostalgic people since the ancient Greeks. I'd presume that everyone was doing it before hand, but we only have records of it dating back until then.
@mattharvest: And that's the kind of ridiculous supposition that is the hallmark of modern society -- nothing wrong, nothing to see here, it's all just an illusion. I am a parent -- I see it every day. I deal with the fact that children now have many more options for not dealing with people as people, but as disposable commodities. I am dealing with two pre-teens who are more interested in what they are getting from us, than having to put any effort into working for things. And yes, I realize things like this have gone on since time immemorial, but the prevalence of such behavior has grown and expanded with changes in technology and society. People can insulate themselves from their behavior even easier now, than they could 100 years ago. In fact, the advent of MySpace, YouTube, etc., has spurred an increase in negative behavior, in an effort to "become a celebrity."
Society has changed, and to ignore that fact is to ignore human history, where change is the only constant. The societal divides are sharper and more easily enumerated now, given the unlimited forums that people have to express their ideas. A child is now exposed to things which would have been scandalous one hundred years ago, and parents seem unable to cope with the tide of information. Facebook and MySpace have replaced the TV as babysitter, and neither one of them has the filters that television has. True, even TV is a wasteland of mindless babble, but it's far easier to turn off than the Internet, which is now a ubiquitous part of life that is slowly outstripping television.
Bury your head in the sand if you like, but Lori Drew and Megan Meier are only the tip of a very ugly iceberg.
@NefariousNewt: You're engaging in some egregious strawman and moving-the-goalpost fallacies there.
First, it's irrelevant whether you're a parent or not. Your successes or failures with your children aren't indicative of anything about culture as a whole, positive or negative. Anecdotes aren't data.
Second, you claim (without any actual evidence or research) that people can "insulate themselves from their behavior even easier now than the could 100 years ago", but how so? You say that YouTube, etc. have "spurred an increase in negative behavior", but how do you know? Where is your actual study of whether more or less negative behavior is occurring? I've never found a single such claim in any scholarly work I've studied over the last few decades, and I'm pretty sure I never will since it's a specious claim. You're just asserting these things, not arguing for their existence or showing evidence thereof.
Third, you quite absurdly and falsely claim that I'm saying society hasn't changed. Of course it changes; it changes constantly. However, you act as if this somehow supports your conclusion, when it doesn't at all. You think societal divides are worse now than 100 years ago? Are you completely ignorant of what the world was like in the early 1900s? When racism, sexism and other bigotries were not only acceptable but legally enforceable? When bastardized versions of science (e.g. phrenology) purported to actually show that people were better or worse than one another based on their physical attributes?
I think you're just a frustrated parent who isn't happy with their own performance (by your own description) and who is apparently blaming others (i.e. society as a whole) for whatever shortcomings you're perceiving.
@mattharvest: To your point may I offer that the internet, in some ways, leaves us LESS isolated, LESS able to insulate ourselves against our behavior.
If I do something stupid today, the whole world can know about it tonight. That was not the case before the internet.
@dayglo: Exactly. Moreover, that will carry with you potentially for years or your entire lifetime. Today, your name is instantly searchable and much of that content will remain there in perpetuity thanks to Google caches and whatnot.
@LilSpitfire: There's a certain type of person---a revolting person, I might add---who dismisses those emotional scars as being non-existent simply because they're non-visible, so to speak. #tips
@femme-bot: Heh. Wasn't one of the first pieces of writing a lamentation by a grown man about the impending downfall of civilization vis a vis unruly youth?
Humanity: Chasing youngsters off its lawn since 5000 BC.
@Ginmar Rienne: And there's another type of person, even more revolting, who thinks that it is better to criminalize offensive speech instead of teaching children how to avoid being injured at all by knowing how to disregard insults.
You cannot scar someone emotionally if they don't care about your opinion. If the child understands why some opinions are worthless, and the speakers even more so, then you don't need a government censor to intervene in your daily lives' conversations.
@mattharvest: Ok I'm not even involved in this, but don't you have better things to do than faux-lawyering and harassing people on Jezebel? I'm tired of reading your comments. Stop fighting with everybody!
@mattharvest: You keep using these dismissive words that imply weakness---very revealing. Your advice smacks of all those 'how to avoid rape' emails that ignore that the crucial element in a rape is the rapist, not the victim.
In short, dipshit, you're all about excusing the attackers and blaming the victims. "Unpleasant", you say. "Offensive," you say, as if somebody didn't raise a pinkie finger when sipping tea at the tea party. You do think you're so clever, but I have a news flash for you: the only person you're fooling is, perhaps, yourself.
If you're the big Internet Lawyer, shouldn't you have something Big and Important to do? #tips
@Ginmar Rienne: Wow, you resort to even more disgusting rhetoric by falsely and hatefully suggesting that I'm somehow blaming the victim in rape cases?
Do you honestly think that's a legitimate way to argue your point? Do you honestly not see the childish petulance in words like that?
Moreover, now you're resorting to vulgarity by calling me a "dipshit".
Honestly, you think you're speaking well here?
By the way, the hate speech regulations you're hoping for would be holding you criminally liable, now, right? Or is it okay to use hateful slurs like "dipshit" and falsely slander someone by suggesting they're anti-victim in rape cases in your mind, but not okay to say something racist?
@mattharvest: By the way, chief, as a lawyer you should know "libel" is the correct term for defamation in print. Not that's she's making libelous statement, though.
@PhDelish: Het hinks he's being clever by claiming I might get 'vulgarity' banned and he might have to complain about me! What the fuck, am I Emily Fuckin' Post all of a sudden? Also, the use of the term 'vulgarity' cracks me up---maybe he's Emily Post.
@NefariousNewt: Your point may be valid, but you don't have to slander a large group of people to make it. People with autism get enough shit on us as it is, so please keep your offensive comparisons to yourself.
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.
11/23/09
11/23/09
It's not about Lori Drew. It's about Megan Meier and the legacy she left us. We have an obligation to focus on the kids like Megan who are, at this very minute, needing our help and support and protection.
11/23/09
I'd rather not people harass her, but I wouldn't cry if no one wants to give her a job.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
@IBleedGlitter: The High Priestess of Tinsel: This.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
#tips
11/23/09
11/23/09
Yup, because "karma" has certainly worked wonders on other criminal miscreants like Roman Polanski, OJ Simpson, guy released from prison early and killed dozens of girls... Yup, nothing more comforting than Christianized karma.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/25/09
You're right, Karma is not Christian but Hindu (and Buddhism mind you), but I did say ChristiaNIZED... as in your concept isn't the eastern kind.
Eastern Karma is strictly NON-RETRIBUTION. Let me Google that for you:
[lmgtfy.com]
"Eye for an eye", "do unto others as you would yourself", "sinners get theirs in the end"... Christian, not Karma.
The idea that karma is about someone getting payback is a Westernized cultural appropriation of karma.
It must be fun for you to use other people's beliefs to satisfy your trivialization.
PS. Polanski's out on bail. Yup, this stuff really works doesn't it?
11/25/09
Why, hello, omnipotent Jerkface, seer of all! Did you like that sweater I wore earlier? I picked it out especially for you. And you got to use the snarky little link you've probably had bookmarked in your browser for over a year now. Good for you! The universe works!
Now we can go back and forth cherry-picking Google links to prove our points on karma, but...well, actually you can. I have a karmic reward coming over in a little bit. I've been such a good girl!
11/23/09
Sick women, sad case.
11/23/09
Children do not develop proper social values anymore. Community service has gone from being a noble pursuit, to be something one is punished with. Instead of reaching out to others, we are becoming more insular, hiding behind the fortress walls of our homes, paying little attention to what goes on outside. Ranting and shouting has replaced communication and discourse.
Lori Drew represents our new society, a society where people are no longer people, but objects. In essence, our society has a collective case of autism.
11/23/09
You beat a kid on the playground you can see scars...you beat up a kid online you can't see the emotional scars.
The internet has brought with it both wonderful inovations in communication and abject horrors. It's up to Reality to sort out the mess. But remember we are barely 20 years into redefining human communication in this way, and only 100 years or so if you count all of the 20 century( TV Radio ect).
Still in baby stage in the big picture.
#tips
11/23/09
11/23/09
"Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers."
11/23/09
That's just plain ridiculous. It's the same precise complaint lobbed by inexplicably nostalgic people since the ancient Greeks. I'd presume that everyone was doing it before hand, but we only have records of it dating back until then.
11/23/09
Society has changed, and to ignore that fact is to ignore human history, where change is the only constant. The societal divides are sharper and more easily enumerated now, given the unlimited forums that people have to express their ideas. A child is now exposed to things which would have been scandalous one hundred years ago, and parents seem unable to cope with the tide of information. Facebook and MySpace have replaced the TV as babysitter, and neither one of them has the filters that television has. True, even TV is a wasteland of mindless babble, but it's far easier to turn off than the Internet, which is now a ubiquitous part of life that is slowly outstripping television.
Bury your head in the sand if you like, but Lori Drew and Megan Meier are only the tip of a very ugly iceberg.
11/23/09
First, it's irrelevant whether you're a parent or not. Your successes or failures with your children aren't indicative of anything about culture as a whole, positive or negative. Anecdotes aren't data.
Second, you claim (without any actual evidence or research) that people can "insulate themselves from their behavior even easier now than the could 100 years ago", but how so? You say that YouTube, etc. have "spurred an increase in negative behavior", but how do you know? Where is your actual study of whether more or less negative behavior is occurring? I've never found a single such claim in any scholarly work I've studied over the last few decades, and I'm pretty sure I never will since it's a specious claim. You're just asserting these things, not arguing for their existence or showing evidence thereof.
Third, you quite absurdly and falsely claim that I'm saying society hasn't changed. Of course it changes; it changes constantly. However, you act as if this somehow supports your conclusion, when it doesn't at all. You think societal divides are worse now than 100 years ago? Are you completely ignorant of what the world was like in the early 1900s? When racism, sexism and other bigotries were not only acceptable but legally enforceable? When bastardized versions of science (e.g. phrenology) purported to actually show that people were better or worse than one another based on their physical attributes?
I think you're just a frustrated parent who isn't happy with their own performance (by your own description) and who is apparently blaming others (i.e. society as a whole) for whatever shortcomings you're perceiving.
#tips
11/23/09
If I do something stupid today, the whole world can know about it tonight. That was not the case before the internet.
11/23/09
#tips
11/23/09
#tips
11/23/09
Humanity: Chasing youngsters off its lawn since 5000 BC.
11/23/09
You cannot scar someone emotionally if they don't care about your opinion. If the child understands why some opinions are worthless, and the speakers even more so, then you don't need a government censor to intervene in your daily lives' conversations.
#tips
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
In short, dipshit, you're all about excusing the attackers and blaming the victims. "Unpleasant", you say. "Offensive," you say, as if somebody didn't raise a pinkie finger when sipping tea at the tea party. You do think you're so clever, but I have a news flash for you: the only person you're fooling is, perhaps, yourself.
If you're the big Internet Lawyer, shouldn't you have something Big and Important to do?
#tips
11/23/09
Do you honestly think that's a legitimate way to argue your point? Do you honestly not see the childish petulance in words like that?
Moreover, now you're resorting to vulgarity by calling me a "dipshit".
Honestly, you think you're speaking well here?
By the way, the hate speech regulations you're hoping for would be holding you criminally liable, now, right? Or is it okay to use hateful slurs like "dipshit" and falsely slander someone by suggesting they're anti-victim in rape cases in your mind, but not okay to say something racist?
What a hypocrite.
#tips
11/23/09
#tips
11/23/09
#tips
11/23/09
11/23/09
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