State v. Amero


This is something I should have written about long ago. When I first read about the case of Julie Amero, both the details of her crime and the potential punishment seemed bizarre. (Sorry, no link, the Day's stupid website is down). Ahh, here's a link to the Bulletin, always a distant second but it comes in handy sometimes.

Anyway, you may recall that Ms. Amero, a substitute teacher, allegedly intentionally exposed her charges to on line pornography. She claimed that she had been unable to stop a malware invasion and had been specifically told not to turn the computer off. In any event, hysteria about this sort of thing being what it is, she is now exposed to a sentence 40 times longer than John Rowland got for selling the governorship.

As it turns out, people more knowledgeable about computers than me are convinced that Julie has gotten a very raw deal. You can read more about it at State v. Amero.com.

This is a Connecticut case, so the case hits close to home. The internet and the computer are still mysterious entities in courts of law (I can think of a judge or two who would be impossible to educate on either subject. Some people just shut off their brains when either subject comes up), so it is perfectly believable that this woman could be the victim of a terrible injustice.

This post, by the way, is in direct response to an email I got from a fellow attorney on the subject. I'm a bit ashamed that I haven't mentioned this before. A good summary of the case against the case against Ms. Amero can be read here.
Posted: Friday - January 26, 2007 at 09:01 PM          

©