« New student note proposing new framework for assessing computer conditions | Main | "Battle Over California Marijuana Initiative Goes Down to the Wire" »

October 31, 2010

FAMM amicus brief assails life (with parole) sentence for woman who let teen touch breasts

As detailed in this press release, which is titled "FAMM Urges Nevada Supreme Court to Reverse Mandatory Life Sentence for Michelle Lyn Taylor," the group Families Against Mandatory Minimums has filed an amicus brief in a notable sentencing case is Nevada Supreme Court. Here is more:

FAMM filed the amicus brief in support of Taylor’s appeal to challenge one of the most egregious outcomes of mandatory sentencing that the organization has ever encountered. In April, an Elko County jury convicted Taylor, 34, of lewdness with a minor under 14 for inducing a 13-year-old boy to touch her breast and soliciting him for sex.  Download FAMM's amicus brief [at this link].

While this behavior certainly deserves punishment, Taylor would have received a lesser sentence if she had murdered (25 to 50 years) or kidnapped (2 to 15 years) the boy. Conviction for lewdness with a minor under 14 carries a mandatory life sentence in Nevada with parole eligibility after 10 years.

“Sentencing Taylor to life in prison for acts that could have been charged as misdemeanors is unconstitutional, inhumane, and does not advance public safety. It violates both the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment as well as Nevada’s ban on cruel or unusual punishment,” said Deborah Fleischaker, FAMM director of state legislative affairs.  “FAMM asks the Nevada Supreme Court to overturn Taylor’s cruel and disproportionate sentence.  We also urge the Nevada legislature to consider Taylor’s case, a prime example of the unintended consequences of mandatory minimums, and reform this sentencing law,” concluded Fleischaker.

Related post (which gets cited in brief):

October 31, 2010 at 10:24 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20133f57d0cd7970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference FAMM amicus brief assails life (with parole) sentence for woman who let teen touch breasts:

Comments

Shouldn't a crime involve a harm? What did this boy feel, that it was a harm to touch a tit or a benefit, a great benefit? One my not have a crime that imparts a benefit to the victim.

This the vile feminist lawyer trying to falsely show even handedness, as it hunts down the productive male. No one is fooled by this vile feminist running dog. The prosecution of female teachers should not proceed without the implicit consent of the victim that a harm took place. Any asserting such a harm will have to face the derision of his pals.

Feminism is a hate philosophy. As it is universally accepted and assumed to be correct, so was the Klan 100 years ago. No difference in hate today, nor in contempt and perplexity by future generations.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Oct 31, 2010 11:45:13 PM

Life in prison for women who breast feed because they are allowing infants to touch their "naughty parts"? I agree with SC, is there some harm that was done here, or should she have realistically gotten probation only for a year and then allowed to return to her life? Knee-jerk reactions are often so apopropriate, are they not? (/sarcasm)

Posted by: tbucket | Nov 1, 2010 4:47:15 PM

How many males that age are in prison with very long sentences for touching the breast of a 13 year old girl? Or, even how many males are in prison for a very long time for doing less than that.

Posted by: DLJ | Nov 3, 2010 7:29:00 PM

Life in prison for women who breast feed because they are allowing infants to touch their "naughty parts"? I agree with SC, is there some harm that was done here, or should she have realistically gotten probation only for a year and then allowed to return to her life? Knee-jerk reactions are often so apopropriate, are they not

Posted by: abercrombie and fitch | Aug 17, 2011 3:23:35 AM

Just another ridiculous, draconian sentence based on "mandatory minimum" sentencing. Not only is it not fair to the defendant, but it is costing us greatly as a society. When I was involved in my divorce case, I had talked to my attorney ( Eric Roy ) about some of the trends in our legal system. We seriously need changes.

Posted by: Paul | Oct 21, 2011 2:04:53 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB