"A teacher who admitted having a sexual relationship with a 13-year-old student was sentenced to five years probation. Pamela Diehl-Moore, 43, pleaded guilty in January to sexual assault as part of an agreement to avoid a possible three-year prison sentence."
Then again, maybe not, since this involves sexual assault against a little girl as opposed to a little boy.
Okay. The judge in that case should be tarred and feathered. The female offender agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence of three years in prison instead of ten--and the judge took leave of his senses, ignored the deal the prosecutors had arranged and gave her probation instead. He said that the thirteen-year-old was "satisfying his sexual needs", as if a thirteen-year-old boy's sexual "needs" should ever be satisfied with anything other than his own hand. Furthermore the woman is a complete basket case who has attempted suicide once and been "hospitalized" twice since April (a probable danger to her own children, in other words) and is very likely to offend again no matter how loudly she sobs about how sorry she is. I fully expect her to violate her probation in a big way before the year is out, and then she'll be in (as another freeper put it so well today)"the stone college of hard knowledge" where she belongs, just like Mary Kay LeTourneau. HOWEVER--
The woman *pleaded guilty*, as opposed to the dirty old heterosexual pervert and the homosexual toe-sucking pervert we were previously discussing, who both believe they are completely innocent and only misunderstood by society, and are hoping to convince a jury of same. They'll have to take what they get, and can't count on getting a wacky judge to intervene on their behalf with a "gift" sentence.
Plus, it isn't the end of the story. The judge agreed to postpone sentence for 45 days so that the prosecution can appeal--they made that request as soon as the word "probation" left the judge's lips that day. And they are definitely appealing, last I heard.