Thursday, November 27, 2008

Lori Drew Facing Lesser Sentence

Murderess, Lori Drew, has been found no guilty of the most important charge of unauthorized access of a computer with malicious intent. The jury found her guilty of three misdemeanor crimes regarding abusing MySpace TOS, but the jury could not decide on the other charge of conspiracy.

Lori Drew posed as a 16-year old boy with the intention of harming a 13-year old neighbor. The neighbor hung herself after Lori Drew, posing as this 16-year old boy, ended their relationship and sent her several malicious messages.

What boggles my mind is how someone like Charles Manson can be convicted of much the same thing - unduly influencing others with malicious intent - where this piece of human shit is somehow innocent because the means to the end were slightly different. Drew knew the girl had emotional problems and intentionally sought to cause her stress and damage because she and Drew's daughter had experienced a "falling-out." Charlie Manson believed the Beatles had told him to kill people.

Which one of these things is not like the other?

On the one hand, you could argue that Manson did not truly understand why/how what he did was wrong, which makes him dangerous. But I could just as easily point-out that Lori Drew knew exactly what she was doing, which makes her even more dangerous. While Drew is not likely to repeat her performance, and I do not believe in "making examples" out of people (excepting police officers, politicians, and district attorneys), Lori Drew has shown little remorse for her actions and I believe that should matter; I am concerned that precedents set here could be used unfairly in the future because the American "justice" system does not know how to temper the law in regards to differing circumstances.

When all is said and done, what the living fuck was a fat, old, ugly woman doing harassing a 13-year old girl!? Why isn't she being charged for child abuse, contributing to the delinquency, and so forth - as in most other crimes involving adults and minors? Obviously the attorneys involved were looking more toward making a name for themselves with this "landmark" case than seeing justice served. Which, in effect, means the case involving Lori Drew changes nothing.

© C Harris Lynn, 2008

1 comment:

ManoDogs said...

Lori Drew was convicted of the misdemeanor charges (accessing computers without authorization) but a judge overturned the verdict, acquitting the murderess of any wrongdoing.

Lori Drew is free to kill again.