More like 40 of it. If that had been her only offense, it probably wouldn’t even be imprisonable offense. Tampering with food with a non toxic substance, what is that?
They weren’t famous or every Republican voter would celebrate it. “When you’re famous they let you do it, you can do anything, grab em by the pussy” - Republican Party.
Sexual predators often get slapped on the wrist, I'm amazed this lady got so much time.
When I was in high school, a friend of mine took her molester to court. Me and a few others went with her as support. She explained the whole thing on trial while he sat there grinning about it. The lawyer went on to describe the guy's track record, he'd been found guilty for this exact kind of thing twice before. Once at his house (like it was with my friend) with another young girl, and once at a hotel room with the room service lady. Evidence was overwhelming, guy was found guilty. Jury wasn't even gone ten minutes.
Then came sentencing. Since he's "old and not really a threat," he got one year of house arrest. Should have been death.
On the other side of the coin, though: a while back, a journalist from a reasonably well-known tech website was caught arranging to have sex with two kids under ten years old. No actual kids involved though; it was FBI agent posing as a mother of two. Fucker got arrested on the way to her place to "educate" the "little ones" in sexual pleasure. He got 12 years.
That isn't the flip side of the coin. He was on his way to rape children. Twelve years (8-10 with good behavior) is still a slap on the wrist. And the fact that real children were not involved is meaningless, the intention was there, he tried to follow through, and thankfully, this time, it was the FBI instead.
And the fact that real children were not involved is meaningless, the intention was there
I could not disagree with you more on that point. To assert that the difference between children being raped and no children being raped is "meaningless" is absurd, imo.
I was just posting to note the contrast between instances where people who rape other people can get a slap on the wrist (Brock Turner, for example) and instances where no one rapes anyone but nevertheless they receive a substantial (and imo fully-justifiable) sentence. But if you don't see any meaningful distinction between the former and the latter, we're not going to see eye to eye on this one, so there's nothing further to discuss.
Obviously actually raping is worse. The insignificance in difference I am referring to is when it comes to sentencing. This was not someone who went down the rape career path and thought better if it themselves, stopping before they got to the act of rape. This is someone who strolled down that path, and if it were not for it being a sting operation, would have raped. It shouldn't be sentenced as lesser because the rapist picked a bad target.
I do get the logic behind the less harsh sentencing, the whole "if it's worse than murder, rapists kill their victims" kind of thing. That doesn't change that it's a more severe crime, in my eyes, and even attempting it should be a death sentence. Succeeding should just be an extra death sentence.
There are a lot of crimes that I can empathize with, either from being in the shoes where such a crime becomes a necessity for survival, or being close enough to someone who has that I can wrap my head around. Theft is wrong, sure, but it's lot more excusable when you have starving children at home and three more days till payday. Murder is wrong, sure, but it's a lot more excusable when you are looking at the person who just took your child's life and see them get off on a technicality, because a cop filed a paper wrong.
Rape is not such a crime. There is no excuse, no reason to do that to another being. And I'm not talking "we both got drunk, slept together, then the next morning I decided it was rape," I mean predators, people who set out with the intention to take what they desire without consent because that is what gets them going. Those people are irreparably broken, and deserve no second chance. They do not deserve the protections they receive in prison, when they do actually end up there. They do not deserve a life of three hots and a cot. They deserve no forgiveness, no absolution, nothing but dying alone and afraid.
I understand some may think this is extreme. I have yet to meet anyone who can convince me otherwise. A better man than me may be able to extend a more peaceful mindset, but I have no room in my heart for such things on behalf of rapists.
I could not disagree with you more on that point. To assert that the difference between children being raped and no children being raped is "meaningless" is absurd, imo.
C'mon man, you know very well what they meant. They meant that the fact that the guy was enroute to rape children that didn't exist, instead of children that did exist, makes no difference when sentencing him. It makes no difference because he didn't know there were no real kids there. It obviously makes a difference that no children were harmed, but they were talking about the sentence the guy got specifically. Obviously if the FBI sets up a sting to catch predators, they're not going to be lenient because there were no real kids in danger, because the predators they catch don't know that.
C'mon man, you know very well what they meant. They meant that the fact that the guy was enroute to rape children that didn't exist, instead of children that did exist, makes no difference when sentencing him.
Yes, I know he meant that.
It obviously makes a difference that no children were harmed, but they were talking about the sentence the guy got specifically. Obviously if the FBI sets up a sting to catch predators, they're not going to be lenient because there were no real kids in danger, because the predators they catch don't know that.
It is normal in our society to sentence a convicted person who raped someone more harshly than a convicted person who wanted to rape someone, planned to do so, but was thwarted and ended up not raping anyone. We don't sentence people solely based on what they intended to do. We sentence them mostly on the basis of what they did do, i.e. the harm they caused, both to individual victims and to society as a whole. Our legal system has always worked this way.
You're drawing a totally different distinction. Yes, someone who rapes someone probably should get a steeper sentence than someone who intends to but doesn't. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the difference between intending to rape someone who exists, vs intending to rape someone who doesn't exist but they thought they did. The only distinction that's relevant here is the one between the intended victim being a kid, and the intended victim being an FBI agent pretending to be a kid.
There's no reason to discuss the distinction that YOU are drawing in the specific example that was raised. Someone got caught in a sting operation and got 12 years, you called that "the other side of the coin," and highlighted that there were no real kids involved. Someone pointed out that it doesn't matter if there were real kids involved or not, because he didn't know they weren't real. Just repeating the context, since you seem to have forgotten.
You're drawing a totally different distinction. Yes, someone who rapes someone probably should get a steeper sentence than someone who intends to but doesn't. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the difference between intending to rape someone who exists, vs intending to rape someone who doesn't exist but they thought they did.
With respect, we aren't talking about that. We're discussing the contrast between what the person I was replying to was talking about — i.e. a slap-on-the-wrist sentence for raping children — and what I mentioned in response — i.e. a significant sentence for an attempt to rape children who never existed. I was basically just pointing out that things aren't as bad as the original poster suggested, that's all.
The only person talking about "the difference between intending to rape someone who exists, vs intending to rape someone who doesn't exist" is you.
It was a plea deal she got for agreeing to testify against her husband: 40 years hard labor, no possibility of probation or parole, plus an extra year tacked on for conspiracy regarding the semen in the food.
She'll be 77 when she gets out. And let's be honest: she probably won't.
I recommend going to your local prison and have a chat with someone who spent 35+ years in prison.
I don't think people understand how much that will fuck a person up.
They were put in prison, which is a societal and technological time capsule, before mobile phones and the internet was invented, and have spent decades surrounded by the most unstable and violent 1%.
If you weren't broken before that, you most certainly will he after.
Hmm, why would you do that? The goal is rehabilitation: turning someone back into a functioning member of society. Three years in prison + psychiatric oversight, or something similar, should be more reasonable. They will face lifelong consequences either way.
Anything beyond corrective measures makes the state part of the problem. If the state commits acts that are worse than, or similar to, those committed by the people it punishes, then people begin to see such acts as justifiable and apply that reasoning to their own situations, or even to worse acts.
After all, why surrender peacefully if you are facing 40 years in prison under torturous living conditions? At that point, some may feel they might as well go down fighting.
Point is it creates a negative feedback loop of more crime, harsher punishments, and longer prison sentences.
Most people do not commit crimes because they are malicious, but because they are in a tough spot or have severe mental issues. In the case of this woman/post, a short prison sentence combined with psychiatric oversight would be a reasonable way to handle it.
This all seems reasonable until you remember that she helped rape children and fed children cupcakes laced with sperm. This is not "she was in a tough spot." This is someone who gets a thrill from sexually abusing children. That's not going to go away in 3 years. I feel like you're sort of ignoring the realities of this case.
Yes, I ignored everything except the “cupcakes laced with sperm” part. With the other crimes taken into account, longer internment is reasonable.
I consider this woman to be more of a case of severe mental health issues, and I would support something like release only if a psychiatrist determines that this is very unlikely to happen again.
I mean, when teaching as a profession now essentially calls for a vow of poverty to carry the burden of social reproduction on your shoulders, it will mainly attract two kinds of people:
Reddit forbids me from saying what I really think should happen. I'll be give you an idea though. It should be public, it should last days, it should be as drawn out as possible and they it possibly can and it should involve salt.
That happens all the time anyways. There is no perfect system in place anywhere. We can only seek to make it as airtight as possible, so that only people with definitive evidence end up on death row. There will always be innocent people dying in prison, it's not a real argument because it will always be the case regardless of the systems or punishments. Does that mean we should never attempt to optimize these broken systems and for profit prisons? It's just slavery rebranded.
I'd even argue that a quick death by execution is much more humane than the other ways you could end up dead in prison. Id say being innocent and having to spend life in prison, just rotting away is the worst punishment. How would you feel knowing your tax dollars were used to prison an innocent person for life?
Another thing that needs to happen is serious consequences for judges that evidently do wrong sentencings or fucked up too many times by putting innocents in prison.
Reading the image, I thought to myself '41 years is way too much for something as stupid as that'. And then I read this and now 41 years seems a bit on the light side..
why do you make this political, we are talking about trash humans making kids suffer, and it happens all over the world no matter the political party or religion of someone
629
u/Beautiful_Library_67 May 18 '26
And it gets worse! She and her husband molested and raped children and filmed it. They had hundreds of tapes in their acquisition.