Almost two years ago, I posted about the case of Julie Amero, the school teacher who had some pornography pop-up on her computer during class. TChris at TalkLeft recently posted about the resolution of the case:
You may remember the case of Julie Amero, the teacher who allegedly exposed her seventh grade students to p*rn*graphy on a classroom PC. Amero's defense (not ably presented at her trial) was that she accessed no p*rn and that the computer was infected with malware that caused the p*rn sites to pop up faster than she could close them. Amero was nonetheless convicted of impairing the morals of a child and risking injury to a minor.
Before she was sentenced, with the assistance of a new lawyer and a host of new evidence, Amero persuaded the judge to give her a new trial. The case has been languishing for some time. Last week, because she "wasn't in condition to endure another trial," Amero entered a guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct and agreed to give up her teaching license. She was fined $100.
Amero's decision to put an end to her ordeal is understandable but unfortunate given the evidence of her innocence....
The prosecution apparently refused to give up this dog of a case because of its newly minted argument: even if Amero didn't access the porn, she should have turned off the computer once she realized she couldn't control it. Maybe, but imposing criminal liability on a relatively computer-illiterate teacher because she didn't think quickly enough is reprehensible.
The result is a ruined life because the school system couldn't manage its IT competently and because prosecutors couldn't bring themselves to admit they made a mistake.
This is outrageous. We have some teachers getting a slap on the wrist for statutorily raping children, and this woman had to go through all of this over an accident that wasn't even her fault? Ludicrous.
Posted by: Mheald | December 16, 2008 at 04:01 PM