[quote=CA renter]This is incredibly frightening. The worst part is that the charges have been reduced to misdemeanors. IMO, this should be a felony charge for solicitation to commit forcible rape and sodomy. The intent of the two men does not matter at all. It is very clear that the crazy woman wanted the victim to be brutally raped; that it didn’t happen is just a lucky coincidence.
The argument for reducing the charges is like suggesting that hiring someone to kill a person is somehow less evil than killing someone yourself. The intent to commit a brutal rape was there, she lucked out because the “hit men” didn’t go through with it. She is still every bit as guilty as any rapist who attempts to brutally rape another person. And it was a premeditated act, too, as evidenced by her communications with the two men.
She deserves major jail time of *at least* ten years, IMO. And if she used her position at work to obtain any information about the victim or to post ads or communicate with the men, then she should lose her pension as well since committing a felony while working as a public employee can now result in losing one’s pension.[/quote]
the judge at prelim reportedly dismissed the felony charges, but the appellate court reinstated them; now the issue of whetehr the state should be permitted to go forward on the felony charges is pending before the supremes i think according to the article.
Just because the judge at prelim dismisses the charges DOES NOT mean they are dismissed for good and ever…either side has a right to appeal on certain rulings at preliminary hearing.
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.
definitely interesting, super creepy, and what i find really interesting is the defendant won MOTHER OF THE YEAR award a couple years back for slavish devotion to her daughter. makes you thinkmight be better to not trust extreme people who are at the very top of their field in mothering! almost makes the people shooting guns at your lot seem like neighbors of the year….
