State v Amero - A Miscarriage of Justice?: Recent Comments2008-08-20T18:42:39Zhttp://blog.state-v-amero.com/comments/atom.aspxQuick BlogComment on Juor Speaks: Teacher in Porn Casetag:blog.state-v-amero.com,2007-09-02:506806Jeff2007-09-02T16:27:41Z2007-09-02T16:27:41Z I am continually astonished when I see just how stupid people can be. However just for the sake of argument, despite the fact that the evidence proves her innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, let's assume that she's guilty.
Let's see...
The crime: She allowed minors to see porn. Are they scarred for life? How much pain were they under during the episode? Who was hurt by this and what is the extent of the pain?
The punishment: 40 years in prison. Imagine you are at a party you don't want to be at, or some social function you don't like and you want to leave. Now imagine you take away anything pleasant you could look at or the possibility of talking to anyone. The thought of spending an hour like that is one of the most negative things I can think of. Now increase the trapped feeling. An hour feels like a week. There is absolutely no way you are getting out of there no matter what you do. Then do that 320,000 times in a row.
punishment == crime?
People should really understand the consequences of what they do. Especially prosecutors.]]>Comment on Great, Great News!!!tag:blog.state-v-amero.com,2007-06-06:384662Rob2007-06-06T16:20:08Z2007-06-06T16:20:08ZComment on Great, Great News!!!tag:blog.state-v-amero.com,2007-06-06:384390Fin2007-06-06T12:53:41Z2007-06-06T12:53:41Zthis mess will eventually be behind you and I hope that Norwich School District steps up its Network Security.]]>Comment on Why did she not plead guilty?tag:blog.state-v-amero.com,2007-04-24:332649Mike Butkus2007-04-24T15:24:46Z2007-04-24T15:24:46ZFailure: The school district should receive the first lawsuit. I believe it's federal law to use decent filtering system. E-rate, a federally funded rebate for school technology requires it. Almost every school get E-rate technology funding. Failure to filter will have E-rate request back 3 years of those refunds as a punishment. That can be a chunk of change. Then there are state laws requiring schools to protect children from Internet porn, most states have them. Where was the school on that? Failure: The police personnel or DA that worked this. They must be as clueless with technology as much as the victim Julie Amero. Spyware on older Win 95/95/ME computers without firewalls will cripple a PC in a few days. Ever since 2001 spyware has invaded most computers without specific protection to the point of needing to format the hard drive to get rid of it. Go ahead, Google "spyware won't go away". All that was needed to be done was go to the "hair site" the students visited and view the source code. That will show spyware programs injected into the web site's HTML codes. Microsoft didn't spend millions in developing IE patches the past few years for nothing. They finally created IE 7 specifically stating it "helps" prevent spyware and pop-ups. Isn't that what happened here? There is not much else to say. I think the school and former DA should start taking to their lawyers, they are going to need it. I say an easy $350K settlement split between the school and DA office. If they think they have a case outside of whatever technology challenged area they live in, they will be wrong. If they don't agree, that's when you double that settlement price when any PC person rips apart the "story line" the DA gave. Anyone that ever owned a PC from 2000-2004 would know about spyware. My wonder is, if the students knew they could get porn from one school PC, then they knew they could go to any old PC in the building and do the same. What did the district do about that? If nothing, then the school is responsible for violating current federal and state laws on protecting public school children.]]>Comment on Amero Sentencing Delayed!! [Part 2]tag:blog.state-v-amero.com,2007-04-15:322401SueEllen Denthttp://www.yahoo.com2007-04-15T17:19:49Z2007-04-15T17:19:49ZComment on Juor Speaks: Teacher in Porn Casetag:blog.state-v-amero.com,2007-04-11:318295Ian Woolgerhttp://www.ianwoolger.co.uk2007-04-11T15:11:17Z2007-04-11T15:11:17Z Ian Woolger (Devon, England)]]>Comment on Juor Speaks: Teacher in Porn Casetag:blog.state-v-amero.com,2007-04-10:316740editorhttp://blog.state-v-amero.com2007-04-10T10:15:23Z2007-04-10T10:11:14Z You're absolutely right. If it was a male found guilty, I probably wouldn't have taken a second look at the case. But a pregnant female teacher, looking at porn in front of a classroom full of students, c'mon.
I still have (had?) some degree of faith in our Criminal Justice system and would not believe that they would blindly attempt to send someone to jail just because they could. I also believed that they would speak to technical experts about this issue, but they didn't.
But, on the other hand, if it was a male teacher, and I saw the following quote, I might have taken some action.
"You have to physically click on it to get to those sites," Smith said. "I think the evidence is overwhelming that she did intend to access those Web sites."
Prosecuting Attorney David Smith in the January 6th Norwich Bulletin. It was this line of horse-shit that prompted me to look into the case.
Also, complaining about two standards for American justice does not
entitle one to do nothing when obvious injustice occurs. And
addressing the Amero case will lead to greater protections for male
teachers and others who find themselves in similar situations. A much
higher standard of computer forensics is called for in a case like
this. Unsecured computers can and will download and cache content that
the user doesn't control, doesn't see or doesn't intend to keep.
Thanks for visiting the site and reading up on the case.
The Editor]]>Comment on Juor Speaks: Teacher in Porn Casetag:blog.state-v-amero.com,2007-04-10:316362DIon Homes2007-04-10T01:30:19Z2007-04-10T01:30:19ZComment on Hartford Courant Ad - An Open Letter to Kevin Kanetag:blog.state-v-amero.com,2007-03-07:279461Mike Conwell2007-03-07T17:08:17Z2007-03-07T17:08:17ZComment on Hartford Courant Ad - An Open Letter to Kevin Kanetag:blog.state-v-amero.com,2007-03-07:279426webfoot2007-03-07T16:48:09Z2007-03-07T16:48:09Z Someone forgot to proofread. Makes the whole thing look pretty stupid, unfortunately.]]>