South Hadley,MA Phoebe Prince 15 kills self over bullying

[Muffet]

a little background...

"Rep. Marty Walz, chairwoman of the Legislature’s education committee, said the issue has taken on new urgency after the death of 15-year-old Phoebe Prince. “The events in South Hadley underscore the importance of our taking action,” she said, “but we also need to respect the fact that students have the right to free speech.”

Parents of South Hadley High students are also calling for action on the part of the school. They say they want to know how school officials plan to discipline the girls involved in Prince’s bullying and what they will do to prevent further tragedies.

Mitchell Brouillard, who has a daughter at South Hadley, said there need to be clearer and stricter consequences for bullying. “I’d like to see a solid line in the sand, if you will, or in stone,” he said. “Pretty much like a three-step process — first being a verbal warning, then suspension, then expulsion.”

A petition is being circulated calling for South Hadley School Superintendent Gus Sayer to be fired over his handling of the issue.

This was February. CNN reported today and last night, the kids in question STILL have not been disciplined...others kids have but not these ones, not the ones charged...what's up with that?

http://www.wbur.org/2010/02/03/south-hadley-bullying

I'd love to see how free their speech would be if they were doing this to one of the teachers.

What nonsense.

 

[Paladine]

wonderful blog post, thoughtful and wise, imo...

We used to think that when kids acted out they were trying to tell us something. I would suggest that we not merely issue decrees or judgments but that we start listening. We would be well served by taking some of these kids and listening to what they need for us to hear. It is our job as adults to protect them, to keep them safe, to be their models. They are speaking in desperate acts of drugging and digging into peers and themselves. These are all symptoms of an alienation they have inherited -- from us.

It's our obligation to understand the symptom lest we imprison the drug abusing teenagers and the chaotic child bullies who are already in a mental and emotional prison. We are the guardians and the guards. It is not okay that bullying is a normal school sport nor is it that we tolerate it in our chronologically adult lives, without questioning ourselves.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-smaldino/bullying-didnt-you-know-i_b_521287.html

 

[Paladine]

I'd love to see how free their speech would be if they were doing this to one of the teachers.

What nonsense.

Exactly! I thought, since when do kids get to call each other names and we call that "free speech'? We used to call it rude and unacceptable. Some of us still do.

 

[Muffet]

IIRC, the courts have said that kids' rights to free speech only extends to the point that it doesn't interfere with discipline or education or go against school policy.

How that woman could pretend that bullying other students doesn't cross over those lines is just more proof that the administration is the source of the rot that killed this poor girl.

 

[Paladine]

get ready for this...

"Phoebe was apparently a very private person; she bore a lot without talking to friends or with her parents or with anybody at school," Sayer told CNN.

"She didn't reveal to people what she was being subjected to and, unfortunately, until January 7, we were not aware of what she was being subjected to, so [there was] very little way we could have intervened in the bullying."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/01/massachusetts.bullying.suicide/?hpt=Sbin

 

[jjenny]

I think you're right, too. They likely bragged to so many, rumor spread, hard to deny when speaking to police. And they might have figured, "why lie"...not thinking of statutory rape...

I must say, those statutory rape laws boggle my mind. This particular case aside, do 16 year old teenagers in MA know that they could face life in prison for having sex with a 15 year old?

 

[Paladine]

CNN link...Sayer:

"But, he added, expulsion is something educators are reluctant to countenance.

"It's a terrible punishment because that changes their whole lives and what they are capable of doing, and they have to figure out a way to renew and complete their education."

He's worried more about the defendants future than he did for Phoebe's...imo. Dying certainly affected her prospects.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/01/massachusetts.bullying.suicide/?hpt=Sbin

 

[Paladine]

I must say, those statutory rape laws boggle my mind. This particular case aside, do 16 year old teenagers in MA know that they could face life in prison for having sex with a 15 year old?

True. They need to know that, imo. I heard someone say that the prosecutors may be using whatever they can to get them, though. The details of the case will be released Tuesday with the indictment. It could be very ugly. Something fired that D.A. up...

 

[jjenny]

Lori Drew did, indeed, send messages herself via 2 different accounts.

http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/cyberlaw/usdrew51508ind.pdf

She was tried for unauthorized access of a computer system for violating MySpace's TOS, and she was in fact not convicted. But in my eyes she's lower than whale poop and deserves every ounce of misfortune that ever come her way. A grown woman tormenting a child should hang her head in shame every day for the rest of her miserable, worthless life and should die alone and in obscurity. If she was on fire on the side of the road I wouldn't piss on her to put it out.

I don't see anything in your link to suggest that woman personally send any messages to the girl. And she definitely didn't send the "world would be a better place without you" message.
In fact another person admitted to sending the message that "the world would be a better place without you."

 

[jjenny]

True. They need to know that, imo. I heard someone say that the prosecutors may be using whatever they can to get them, though. The details of the case will be released Tuesday with the indictment. It could be very ugly. Something fired that D.A. up...

16 year old having sex with a 15 year old could lead to life in prison-I personally think those are ludicrous laws, and obviously they aren't uniformly applied, otherwise a lot of teenagers could end up serving life in prison.

 

[elle1919]

get ready for this...



http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/01/massachusetts.bullying.suicide/?hpt=Sbin

Unbelievable. I guess that is their story and they are sticking to it.

 

[Paladine]

16 year old having sex with a 15 year old could lead to life in prison-I personally think those are ludicrous laws, and obviously they aren't uniformly applied, otherwise a lot of teenagers could end up serving life in prison.

I think they would be even worse if they were uniformly applied. I'm against mandatory Min's., though. Cases vary, some kids are more mature, some more vulnerable. Some cases may appear to be flagrantly and cruelly taking advantage of a younger, weaker person. Those

 

[BeenaBobba]

I must say, those statutory rape laws boggle my mind. This particular case aside, do 16 year old teenagers in MA know that they could face life in prison for having sex with a 15 year old?

You know, I kind of agree. I want Sean Mulveyhill to be punished to the full extent of the law, but I'm not sure I agree with the statutory rape charge if the sex was consensual. I think he sounds like a huge jerk, but does he deserve to be a sex offender registrant? I don't know about that. IMO, having the registry littered with teenagers who had consensual sex with other teenagers could take the focus off of more serious offenders (like violent rapists and pedophiles), and from what we've seen with the Jaycee Dugard and Chelsea King cases, officials aren't exactly up to par when it comes to monitoring the dangerous ones.

 

[jjenny]

You know, I kind of agree. I want Sean Mulveyhill to be punished to the full extent of the law, but I'm not sure I agree with the statutory rape charge if the sex was consensual. I think he sounds like a huge jerk, but does he deserve to be a sex offender registrant? I don't know about that. IMO, having the registry littered with teenagers who had consensual sex with other teenagers could take the focus off of more serious offenders (like violent rapists and pedophiles), and from what we've seen with the Jaycee Dugard and Chelsea King cases, officials aren't exactly up to par when it comes to monitoring the dangerous ones.

Well the prosecutor kept talking about teen dating relationship, so I presume there are no allegations of forced sex. When there is a "dating relationship" between two minors with such a small age difference, then it's bizarre to me to see statutory rape charges which can put a teenager in prison for life.

 

[Paladine]

16 year old having sex with a 15 year old could lead to life in prison-I personally think those are ludicrous laws, and obviously they aren't uniformly applied, otherwise a lot of teenagers could end up serving life in prison.

I think they would be even worse if they were uniformly applied. I'm against mandatory min's., though. Cases vary, some kids are more mature, some more vulnerable. Some cases may appear to be flagrantly and cruelly taking advantage of a younger, weaker, and socially weaker, person. Those should be prosecuted, imo. Other, more equal relationships, I wouldn't. But that's just my opinion, everybody has one. I do see the danger with interpretation. And how would people know how far and with whom, they could...let's say, 'romance' ? l"ll be polite.

I just try not to complicate it. I'm good at complicating. I haven't heard of a statutory rape case that I haven't supported, yet. Seems public opinion is getting the right cases prosecuted. Unless it is an issue that I haven't been tuned in to...and that's more than possible.

 

[Muffet]

I'd love to see this kid have the kitchen sink thrown at him, but yeah, the sex laws in MA really are pretty antiquated.

Not only do they not have a Romeo and Juliet law, but you can still go to prison for adultery.

http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/subject/about/sex.html

http://www.sexlaws.org/questions/Massachusetts

 

[impatientredhead]

We see what we choose to see. It starts on Page 6 of the indictment.

Her challenge was not that she did not send them, but that there was no prosecutable offense even if she did. She was not acquitted of sending the messages, there was ample proof she did, but sending them only broke the MySpace TOS and was not prosecutable under California law.

The fact that it was not prosecutable does not mean to me that it was right and honorable. You are free to feel differently, of course.

This is correct.
She did send the messages.
She admitted as much.
Her defense, and a very valid on in the courtroom, was that she broke no law.

 

[impatientredhead]

Well the prosecutor kept talking about teen dating relationship, so I presume there are no allegations of forced sex. When there is a "dating relationship" between two minors with such a small age difference, then it's bizarre to me to see statutory rape charges which can put a teenager in prison for life.

I have searched multiple sources and have found nothing that indicates life in prison is an option for a statutory rape charge? Can you provide a reference?

There are violent sexual crimes that carry that as an option. There are additional penalties for statutory rape by a person of authority, but not life in prison. But a fellow teenager with no position of authority wouldn't even meet that standard.

 

[impatientredhead]

Child Under Sixteen

MGL. c.265, s. 23. [Commonly known as the Statutory Rape Law]. Rape and abuse of child.
Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under 16 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years or, except as otherwise provided, for any term in a jail or house of correction. A prosecution commenced under this section shall neither be continued without a finding nor placed on file.
MGL c.265, s. 23A Rape and abuse of child aggravated by age difference between defendant and victim or by when committed by mandated reporters; penalties
Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under 16 years of age and:
(a) there exists more than a 5 year age difference between the defendant and the victim and the victim is under 12 years of age;
(b) there exists more than a 10 year age difference between the defendant and the victim where the victim is between the age of 12 and 16 years of age; or
(c) at the time of such intercourse, was a mandated reporter as defined in section 21 of chapter 119, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years, but not less than 10 years. The sentence imposed on such person shall not be reduced to less than 10 years, or suspended, nor shall any person convicted under this section be eligible for probation, parole, work release, or furlough or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until he shall have served 10 years of such sentence. Prosecutions commenced under this section shall neither be continued without a finding nor placed on file.

 

[Paladine]

Child Under Sixteen

MGL. c.265, s. 23. [Commonly known as the Statutory Rape Law]. Rape and abuse of child.
Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under 16 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years or, except as otherwise provided, for any term in a jail or house of correction. A prosecution commenced under this section shall neither be continued without a finding nor placed on file.
MGL c.265, s. 23A Rape and abuse of child aggravated by age difference between defendant and victim or by when committed by mandated reporters; penalties
Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under 16 years of age and:
(a) there exists more than a 5 year age difference between the defendant and the victim and the victim is under 12 years of age;
(b) there exists more than a 10 year age difference between the defendant and the victim where the victim is between the age of 12 and 16 years of age; or
(c) at the time of such intercourse, was a mandated reporter as defined in section 21 of chapter 119, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years, but not less than 10 years. The sentence imposed on such person shall not be reduced to less than 10 years, or suspended, nor shall any person convicted under this section be eligible for probation, parole, work release, or furlough or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until he shall have served 10 years of such sentence. Prosecutions commenced under this section shall neither be continued without a finding nor placed on file.

Respectfully partially bolded by me...
Hey there Good to see you. I pick door C...am I right? And what does "mandatory reporter" mean?