Sometimes you see a story in the press and you have to check the sources, just to be sure it isn't a hoax. This is one such story, and by god, it'll make you fume.
As previously diaried a few weeks back on dKos, Julie Amero was a substitute teacher who found herself in a pickle while teaching a class of 12-year-old boys.
The school computer in her classroom, which she had been told not to turn off under any circumstances, and which had no virus protection, spyware protection, and was running a 9-year-old operating system, started popping up porn ads. Not just one or two, but loads.
When Julie tried to click them off by hitting the little X on the top corner, more popped up. And more.
With the kids clamoring for a look, Julie tried to block the screen from them, but there were too many, so she ran out to the teachers' lounge and asked for help.
When she asked other teachers (including the school's computer teacher) they told her it was no big deal, that it happened all the time. She reported the incident to the assistant principal at the end of the day who also said not to worry about it. --MyLeftNutmeg
This week, Julie was may be sentenced to 40 years in prison for four counts of felony injury to minors.
From USAToday:
Welcome to the nightmare of Julie Amero, a 40-year-old substitute teacher in Norwich, Conn. That's what she says happened to her at the hands of the technologically illiterate Kelly Middle School, technologically illiterate police, a technologically illiterate prosecutor, and a technologically illiterate jury.
If her life hadn't been effectively destroyed by this farce of justice, it would almost be comical. But it's not.
[...]
Which of these scenarios makes more sense to you?
Scenario A: In the middle of class, a substitute teacher decided to surf for thumbnail-size porn images (an analysis of the hard drive showed that's all that ever appeared on the screen — tiny pictures).
Scenario B: A classroom computer running Windows 98 with outdated anti-virus software, no Internet filter, and no anti-spyware software began displaying popups after some kids visited the wrong site.
Assistant State's Attorney David Smith believed Scenario A, despite the ease of verifying Scenario B by checking the computer for adware and Trojans.
The school and the prosecutor declined to do that. Amero called an expert, one W. Herbert Horner. He confirmed everything she said: The computer was infected before she got there, a site visited that morning caused the pop-ups to start, and the porn was the result of pop-ups, not deliberate action.
But the judge refused to let Horner offer all his evidence.
Horner later wrote, "This was one of the most frustrating experiences of my career, knowing full well that the person is innocent and not being allowed to provide logical proof.
"If there is an appeal and the defense is allowed to show the entire results of the forensic examination in front of experienced computer people, including a computer literate judge and prosecutor, Julie Amero will walk out the court room as a free person."
Julie Amero has since had a miscarriage. Now she may get to spend 40 years in a concrete cell. Astonishing stupidity.
This is an innocent woman whose only crime is not knowing how to stop an unprotected computer from doing exactly what it had been programmed to do. This is an absolute and utter disgrace, and we cannot let it stand.
Why? Because of this, from an email sent by one of the jurors that found her guilty (warning, you may want to punch your monitor by the time you're finished):
"The fact that a teacher in a public scol system did absolutly nothing to keep it away from the children is what was wrong. Yes we were told that she was given no permissions to turn off the computer, she also said she was not allowed to use any other school equipment.
"If a 40 year old school teacher does not have the sense to turn off or is not smart enough to figure it out, would you or any other person wanting her teaching your child or grandchild?"
[...]
"Even giving Julie the benefit of doubt, not knowing enough about a computer to be able to turn it off. Some paper and tape would have covered the screen or a coat or sweater, it was October after all."
Am I wrong in wanting to find this guy and punch the moron in the throat? Is that wrong? Should he ALSO get 40 years in prison for not understanding 'reasonable doubt' when deciding the fate of a woman's life?
I'm so fucking mad I could spit. This CAN NOT STAND.
So here's what we're gonna do.
Step 1) Visit the Julie Amero Defense Blog.
Step 2) Make a contribution to her legal defense fund.
Step 3) Call the Norwich CT DA's office and ask them why they're putting an innocent woman in prison. David J. Smith, Division of Criminal Justice (860) 889-5284 - david.smith@po.state.ct.us (Be civil, but be outraged)
Step 4) Call Kelly Middle School Principal Scott Fain and ask him why he is letting one of his staff lose 40 years of freedom for what was the school's error. Ask him if they have decided to put virus and spyware protection on their computers so nobody else ends up in jail for their mistakes. Again, be civil, but be outraged. (860-823-4211)
Step 5) Call the Governor of Connecticut: CT State governor M. Jodi Rell, 860-566-4840 (Toll Free: 800-406-1527) Governor.Rell@po.state.ct.us
Step 6) Write a letter to the editor of every and any news outlet you know of, telling them about the case and demanding they investigate it.
Note: The local Norwich Bulletin has plenty of outraged readers already, but it wouldn't hurt for them to know people around the country are reading about this and forming opinions on their hometown.
Look, we do a lot of blathering about injustice on this blog, so how about we take a few minutes each to make a few calls, send some emails, write some LTEs and ACTUALLY make a REAL difference in the life of one innocent woman, who has been punished far too much already for something that was someone else's mistake.
I mean, by god, she lost her child over this. Isn't that enough?
Call. Write. Shout.