« USSC request comments on possible retroactivity of new crack and drug guidelines | Main | Oklahoma on verge of joining states enacting significant prison and sentencing reforms »

May 5, 2011

Plea deals and probation term bring closure to high-profile bullying-suidice prosecutions in Massachusetts

As detailed in this local article, which is headlined "Two more teens sentenced in Phoebe Prince case," plea deals have been worked out and sentences imposed for a group of teenagers who were criminally prosecuted after a classmate they bullied committed suicide. Here are some of the details details:

Two more teenagers charged in connection with Phoebe Prince's suicide were sentenced today to probation and community service, after another emotional statement from Prince's mother, who said Prince was harassed until school became intolerable....

Sharon Velazquez, 17, admitted to sufficient facts on a criminal harassment charge and Flannery Mullins, 18, admitted to sufficient facts on a civil rights violation and disturbing an assembly. Velazquez will be on probation until her 18th birthday; Mullins will be on probation until she turns 19.

Prince, a 15-year-old Irish immigrant, killed herself in January 2010 at her family’s South Hadley home after being bullied by other students at the town’s high school. The case made international headlines and helped spark a national debate on the problem of school bullying....

Alfred Chamberland, Mullins's defense attorney, read a statement outside the courthouse saying that the district attorney's office had brought excessive charges against his client and demonized her and the other defendants.

He said the plea was "an acknowledgment by the Northwestern district attorney’s office that these matters were overcharged and that the former administration brought felony indictments in cases which did not call for such,” he said. "By doing so, the Commonwealth unnecessarily exposed my client and the other juveniles in this case to unfair and harsh national and international media scrutiny.”

Two other teenagers were sentenced Wednesday to probation after an emotional hearing in which O'Brien's mother condemned one of them, saying his relationship with her daughter was "predatory" and his betrayal of her daughter had broken her spirit, the Globe reports this morning.

Do folks think justice has now been served in this high-profile case?   According to this article in the Boston Herald, there is "Outrage in Ireland over plea deals."

UPDATE:  This interesting Christian Science Monitor article about the Phoebe Prince case and these sentencings indicates that observers are looking to restorative justice principles to get ultimate satisfaction from the defendants here.  But, in light of recent comments by the lawyers and others, I am not sure everyone is committed to restoration here, whatever that means.

May 5, 2011 at 04:47 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2014e88436497970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Plea deals and probation term bring closure to high-profile bullying-suidice prosecutions in Massachusetts:

Comments

good riddence to all of them. pity it's a joke of a punishment!

i think they should all be DEAD!

If it had beent me...they would be! i've never seen the sence in killing myself. you bug me so much i think i need to kill myself. TRUST ME your GOING FIRST!

after that well i guess i wouldn't need to go!

Posted by: rodsmith | May 5, 2011 11:53:41 PM

Before discussing the suicide, I remind the lawyer that a large fraction of students go to school in fear of the lawyer client, the ultra-violent criminal. Such fear is likely a significant factor in the failure of the schools to teach to international standards and in the drop out rate. Safety is never considered by the left wing ideologue analysts that run the schools. The lawyer has stopped corporal punishment. He vigorously prosecutes self-defense in self help. He has no tolerance for even the slightest verbal criticism of his ultra-violent client, the vicious criminal. Try criticizing a thug in school. You lose your job, get reported for emotional abuse to child abuse agencies, and lose the teaching license. The lawyer, especially the feminist lawyer, has the good guys fully deterred. Why does the lawyer, especially the feminist lawyer, immunize evil and attack our schools? Because the ultra-violent thug is a source of massive government sinecures and powers. And government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the CCE.

So if any kid is bullied in school, what should he do? Hunt, find, and beat the ass of an education law lawyer, especially a feminist. Take a bat and smash its knees. Don't kill it. The competitors would love it, and just take its place. Deter it in self-help. The other lawyers are smart and will get the message. Now, go after the thugs. To deter.

That being said, this case is a misguided prosecution by feminist lawyers and their males running dogs. Suicide is not that trivial, as depicted. First, it breaks a strong barrier of self-preservation. So, most suicider have a mental illness (over 95%). Half are intoxicated, which makes it easier for the pre-disposed to breach that self-preservation barrier. If there is an environmental input, it is a loss of some kind. The most influential force in a teens' life is the family. One has to know what the family was doing to this suicider. At the very least, they failed to get adequate help in preventing the suicide. The most reliable method of preventing an immediate suicide is to provide eyesight supervision, and that was not done. Suicide is an intentional act, and an unforeseen intervening cause that breaks all chains of causation linking any actus reus to any outcome. The charges violate procedural due process by being pretextual. They are in response to the publicity of this case. The defense attorneys should have sought a disqualification of the first prosecutor as a feminist and of the subsequent one as a male running dog. Feminism is a hate philosophy that gives this prosecution an improper motive.

This is restorative justice. "I raped my Huttu neighbor, then cut her up with my machete in front of her four terrified children. I am so sorry. I was filled with tribal hatred, and was wrong to do that. I will provide babysitting for her children for free. Thank you for letting me go home now. I learned my lesson in tribal tolerance."

You know when a left wing ideologue gets up and says, you need to apologize for your bias against homosexuals, the community of LGBT, your eating of meat, and BLT. That is where restorative justice started. In the conversation we need to have. In the narrative running through the narrative. It is having rape victims come and speak to rape offender group therapy meetings to help the offenders understand how much their feelings were hurt by having a knife held to their throats, and being held captive in a bunker for three months. This results in the rapists' feeling really sorry, and offering to volunteer at a women's shelter.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 7, 2011 11:22:24 PM

Think of restorative justice as the polar opposite of incapacitation, the sole mature, reliable, and proven goal of the criminal law, if safety is the goal of government. If making jobs for therapists, supervisors, and babysitters of violent criminals, and pounding the taxpaywer is the goal, then restorative justice is the way to go.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 8, 2011 8:09:24 AM

Excuse me. Feminist and racist.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/01/elizabeth_scheibel_wins_accola.html

Feminists hate not only males, but black females, Jews, and all others not their own ethnic origin. "Family planning," including abortion, are primarily to slow the fecundity of certain undesirable groups. That was stated in writing.

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm

It embraces full Malthusian eugenics.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 8, 2011 8:28:11 AM

"...get reported for emotional abuse to child abuse agencies,..."

Those provide massive government employment for what type of person? Which gender? And grants them powers that the police do not have. For example, to enter the home without permission, the police need to get a ...? Search warrant. To get a search warrant, they need to ...? Show a judge evidence of probable cause. To put their hands on and restrict a person from leaving, they need to have or show they have ...? Articulable facts sufficient to show the person more likely than not committed that crime.

None of that applies to the feminist child welfare worker. They will enter the home without any judge adjudicated warrant. They will have an armed sheriff wrest screaming, desperate children from their parents at the slightest bruise, or false allegation of a putdown, as determined by their feminist judgment alone. That is correct. Derogatory remarks are child abuse, and grounds for removal against the will of parents. Black kids are then placed with well paid white foster parents who meet criteria for feminist political correctness, and raise these children in their entitled feminist culture.

Here is court mandated feminist indoctrination into the recognition of child abuse. This is an official presentation from the State of Delaware. Derogatory remarks are abuse. Wearing long sleeves in summer? A sign of abuse.

http://www.slideshare.net/lshock/final-cpac-ais-identification-reporting-of-child-abuse-8-13-10

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 8, 2011 9:06:51 AM

anyone i catch in the act of coming into my home without a warrant will simply be DEAD i don't really care what clothing they are wearing, what job they THINK they have or who they think they are working for.

Under the ORIGINAL u.s constitution i have every legal right to defend my home against intruders and there is NO exception in that document for anyone

Posted by: rodsmith | May 8, 2011 12:57:16 PM

Rod: When the child welfare team learns of your attitude, the SWAT team will take their side, and not yours. They will help you comply. The sole validation of feminist law making and imposing it is at the point of a gun. The rest is tyranny, as you imply. You will also prove their point, that you are not a fit parent. You cost them an embarrassing hassle, you get them in the papers, they can delay the return of the children with pretexts of non-compliance gotchas until they reach adulthood. They will tell you about their powers if you begin to question their decisions.

If you take out the SWAT team, Army Airborne will show up, as they did when a governor resisted a court order.

I agree with you. I am just reporting the way the law is under the feminist lawyer controlling it today, just as the KKK lawyer controlled the law in 1911. There was no recourse then, there is none today. The judges, whatever their personal views, must presume the truth of any allegation by a female against any male, however bad her credibility, however upstanding his reputation is. If he does not, even if the electorate supports him, the feminists will drive him from the bench. Judges have told me so without uttering the feminist word, the f- word. Imagine the fate of a judge taking the word of a black defendant over that of a white accuser in 1911. Suicidal, literally, physically.

This is an unjust assault on the patriarchal family, the single most powerful factor preventing crime. Bastardy, or coming from a single mother home, is the most powerful correlate of being both a criminal and a victim of a criminal.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 8, 2011 6:07:56 PM

how true SC but like i said before i wont' care what clothing or job they have. i would remove a SWAT team illegally on my property trying to inforce an illegal order just as quick IF NOT quicker than i would the social service flunky trying the same thing since they are supposedly a quazi-military order they should know an ILLEGAL order when they hear one!

then of course i'd be heading for town to get the idiot who was dumb enough to ISSUE the order!

Posted by: rodsmith | May 9, 2011 4:08:08 AM

Taking on SWAT. Perhaps. But you would be helpless against the hostage negotiator offering you a box of donuts in exchange for release of a child, or even better, a pack of cigarettes, to be delivered by a little weaponized hostage negotiator robot. No one human can resist a pack of cigarettes.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 9, 2011 8:53:30 AM

LOL i could i had my first and LAST cigarette when i was like 1 year old. put me in the hospital for almsot a year. never had the urge again to touch one!

Posted by: rodsmith | May 9, 2011 2:00:38 PM

"The era of turning a blind eye to bullying and harassment is over."- The truth will come out no matter how you try your best to hide to everybody.

Posted by: SMSF Investment Strategy | Nov 23, 2011 9:13:16 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