40 years for something she could do nothing about???

Question

It is really pathetic that a teacher has to face 40 years in prisin for something that absolutely was not of her doing. I am believing that the USA is earning the reputation it has around the world.

are any of you agreeing with the judgment????

Sorry I thought you knew because here in asia we know. A substatute teacher went to teach a seventh grade class and she let them turn on the computer and there was malware on it infecting it. It kept poping up porn pictures for the students to see. Now she fases a possible 40 years in prison and the judge is to deside very soon. Yes this is in the USA

Turn it off immediately you say? A computer you have never seen before and know nothig about but the kids know because it is in their class room. No all computers ar not the same.

What is so wrong with seventhgraders seeing porn any way. most of them know before that age wht it is and have seen it.

Answer 1

Yes, it is pathetic. It was not in her control, and any jury or judge in their right minds would acquit her immediately. However, although someone said the United States reputation is in foreign policy...which is probably correct...maybe the judicial system should be under scrutiny as well. It's all about the almighty $$$$...if you have money then you have more power, if you don't have money, you get caught up in a system that almost always sets you up for failure. Our forefathers are probably rolling over in their graves at our judicial and political situation.

Answer 2

Well, first of all, there has been NO punishment as of yet, least of all 40 years. Just because a POSSIBLE punishment is associated with a crime in this country doesn't mean the person convicted of the crime will receive that punishment. There are many possible outcomes to the situation. Also, there is some dispute over whether the websites were accessed through malware or not.

At the very minimum, she should have pulled the plug on the computer. One student even testified that she physically turned his head away from looking at the computer screen when he approached her at the computer. Further,
Under Section 53-21 of Connecticut law, "Any person who . . . wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that the life or limb of such child is endangered, the health of such child is likely to be injured or the morals of such child are likely to be impaired . . . shall be punished. The intent of the statute is to protect the physical health, morals and well-being of children." The law also provides that "the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that at the time of the incident, the alleged victim was under the age of sixteen years; and (2) that the defendant wilfully or unlawfully caused or permitted the victim to be placed in a situation that endangered the child's life or limb, or was likely to injure his health or impair his morals."

The kids in this case were 7th graders, so there is no doubt as to the 'under the age of sixteen years' mandate. And the law further clarifies willful or unlawful behavior as "the conduct of a person that is deliberately indifferent to, acquiesces in, or creates a situation inimical to the child's moral or physical welfare". The legal documents further define that "'Wilfully' means intentionally or deliberately. 'Unlawfully' means without legal right or justification. Causing or permitting a situation to arise within the meaning of this statute requires conduct on the part of the defendant that brings about or permits that situation to arise when the defendant had such control or right of control over the child that the defendant might have reasonably prevented it."

That last bit is pretty explicit: "conduct on the part of the defendant that brings about or permits that situation to arise when the defendant had such control or right of control over the child that the defendant might have reasonably prevented it."

Remember, Amero did not make any attempt to turn off the computer, even knowing that "the computer was completely covered with pornography" and even knowing that the kids in the classroom could see it.

As for the "likely to injure his health or impair his morals" part of the law, this is further defined within the legal statute as "'Likely'' means in all probability or probably. As used here, ''morals'' means good morals, living, acting and thinking in accordance with those principles and precepts that are commonly accepted among us as right and decent."

Amero did not respond in court when asked why she didn't turn off the computer. But allegedly she had been told during substitute training or at some other point prior to the incident that she was not to turn off any equipment in the classroom. If a librarian had been told not to remove books from the library, and then subsequently Larry Flint dropped a truckload of Hustler magazines in the children's center, shouldn't the librarian's good judgment prevail and the magazines be removed? I think yes.


NOW, tell me I don't know what I"m talking about!

Answer 3

I don't know the whole story...but the reputation that the USA has around the world is because of its foreign policy NOT because of its criminal justice system.

Answer 4

Please post a reference so the rest of us know what you are talking about. Its kind of hard to read minds over the internet.

Answer 5

She should have turned that computer straight off.
Obviously she did not, therefore she is not the brightest

Answer 6

Sorry,I don't know the whole story..

Answer 7

WHO What When ???? We don't know unless you give more info.

Answer 8

I don't know to whom you are refering...

Answer 9

Sorry,I haven't got a clue as to who or what you are referring to.More details please.