I found that a whil back (whn you linkd to that blog for another reason), and it bears repearing: ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS open mail from Commiefornia!

Regarding th teacher: sh shouldn’t have been found guilty in the first place (the expert witness for the prosecution lied through his teeth, as any any semi-competent web-user would know, much less an “expert”).

Her computer was hit by malware – since a sub no doubt has administrater authority on every machine in the district [rolleyes], she should have been able to do somthing about that.

WHATEVER.

My understanding is that a jury is to decide fatual questions without reference to possible punishment. Sometimes juries will compromise on what seems to them to be a minor count only to be horrified by the punishment attendtent thereto.

The possible 40-year punishment gives excessive power to prosecutors – note the conduct of Mr. Starr who willy-nilly destroyed people by theatening to expose people to such a possibility. Mr. McDougle pleaded giuity to a charge tp avoid the possibilit of getting the equivilent of a life sentence. The bible toating Mr. Starr then let Mr. McDougal die on a concreat floor for lack of medicine.

The fantastic verdicts during the pre-school hysterical prosecutions shows no limit to jury stupidy when it comes to sex.

Limits should appy whether actions are deliberate or not. The rule of proportionality is an essential component of the rule of law.

And the teacher article- so just exposing teenagers to sex is worth 40 years in prison? What reasonable person thinks that? What kind of stupid prudish society is this? What was the jury thinking? If there ever was a time for jury nullification, this was it.

It really makes me mad that our society thinks that sex is dirty. Makes me wonder how we have survived as a species this long.

The defendant says “It’s not about the money”(TM) and given that he’s spending 100-mil to not pay 90-mil, this may be the first documented case where that’s true.

Regarding the teacher, a comment on Boing-Boing makes me wonder how much of her prosecution is due to the fact that the school district would lose federal money since they haven’t been maintaining their filters.

I’ve often said that if we are going to have damage caps – which I oppose – the caps should not apply to cases in which the act was intentional. Any thoughts on that exemption?