im not sure what the right answer is here. i disagree, CAR, that this is like hiring a “hitman”. it’s not quite that. it’s a bit more of a grey area. she arguably wasn’t really truly intending to have the victim non consensually raped but she clearly wanted to make a third party think it would be ok to have sex with her in a rapelike way. that sure sounds liek the wanted the victim to at least stand a chance of being raped. That’s different in a sense than hiring a hitman, which is less speculative in terms of what the mission is.
but that guy who responds to the rape ad, probably should check before coming over and just “raping” her, since a reasonable personal ads list responder wouldn’t just go for it after all, they might have the wrong address, or wrong person….
on the other hand, maybe the defendant thinks the responder will just go for the rape first and ask questions later. I’m not sure what the answer is exactly, but it’s not a question of “soft” judges …even on the appellate court, there was a dissenting opinion. reasonable minds can differ, apparentyl. I havent read any of it, other than the article, this thread was first i’d heard of it.
What was she really thinking? what was her intent? I’m guessing if I could get in her mind, she didn’t really think there was a definite rape in the future, but there was at least a small offhand chance of a rape from an overeager ad responder; that might be enough for solicitation. that extra step of the amils “stop by anytime between 9-3 i like the element of surprise” is definitely a step in the right direction, as it seems like an invitation to just do it….but it still seems unreasonable for a fellow to bust down the door anythime during those hours to do a simulated rape.
i bet her primary vision was different though … of a stream of creepy dudes coming over to the house and saying, “is this the rape fantasy place? is this the rape fantasy place?” of course, that’s the best case scenario, which isn’t a great pitch to the jury…if the felony charges are reinstated, it will definitely be an intriguing trial.
[/quote]
The bolded part is where we disagree. From the article, which is all I know of the case, it sounds very much like she wanted the woman to be brutally raped. She didn’t ask the guys to knock first and ask if they had the right house. She was instructing them to break in and rape the woman.
The way I see it, that is solicitation to commit rape and sodomy (based on the article). She deserves nothing less than serious jail time, IMO.
Yes, they reinstated the felony charges, but the fact that any judge would reduce these charges to misdemeanors is insane. This is clearly a case of solicitation to commit a brutal rape.
And then, there are the other “pranks” she had engaged in which are reason enough, IMO, for the victim family to file a civil lawsuit and (hopefully) win a very large case/settlement.
Definitely weird that she won “Mother of the Year,” too. You’re probably right about extreme personalities.
