Nevada woman sentenced to life for lewdness charge

[Chris]

A Twin Falls woman convicted of forcing a 13-year-old boy to touch her breasts was sentenced Monday to life in prison.

Michelle Lyn Taylor, 34, was convicted of lewdness with a minor under 14 in November after a week-long trial in Elko County, Nev., District Judge Mike Memeo’s courtroom.

With the conviction, Taylor faced a mandatory life sentence, and Memeo set parole eligibility after 10 years, the minimum sentence. If released on parole she must register as a sex offender and will be under lifetime supervision.

The district attorney’s office did not offer a plea agreement in the case, said public defender Alina Kilpatrick, who argued the sentence is unconstitutional and doesn’t fit the crime.

http://www.magicvalley.com/news/local/article_441731b0-5a17-5b4f-8890-a70bc318ae88.html

Wow.

[mamacags]

I don't have a problem with it.  If it were a 34 year old man forcing a 13 year old girl to touch his penis then I would call for a shot to the head.  It should work the same way for women too.

[The Village Idiot]

Its bad either way unless your okay with boys growing up thinking sex with minors is okay? Some people don't seem to look ahead very far.

[Lord Undies]

Kilpatrick said despite the parole eligibility after 10 years, there should be no mistake that it’s a life sentence for Taylor.

“She is getting a greater penalty for having a boy touch her breast than if she killed him,” she said.

I find the whole thing absurd.  This isn't about "justice" at all, because it isn't justice at all.  Has this nation gone nuts or what?

Call me what you will, but I think this woman receiving a life sentence for this while Bill Clinton walks around us a free man is just ridiculous. 

[IassaFTots]

I find the whole thing absurd.  This isn't about "justice" at all, because it isn't justice at all.  Has this nation gone nuts or what?

Call me what you will, but I think this woman receiving a life sentence for this while Bill Clinton walks around us a free man is just ridiculous. 

Werd. 

[DumbAss Tanker]

I agree with Undies.  It's a wildly-excessive sentence for what actually happened.

[debk]

Many people who have committed murder don't get life sentences! 

This is a ridiculous sentence!  If the woman is 34 years old....she will conceivably live another 40 years, cost the state $50-100,000 per year. Do the math..... cause for those who want a sentence like this....it's your tax dollars. 3 squares a day, free rent, free decent medical and dental, exercise, tv, educational benefits....all paid for by our tax dollars. Are you living as well?

[rich_t]

I suspect it will be reduced on appeal.

[Wineslob]

When I was 13 she woulden't have had ANY problem.........................

[BlueStateSaint]

When I was 13 she woulden't have had ANY problem.........................

Same here.  Hell, I might have received a sexual abuse charge when I was 13, if a 34-year-old woman asked me to fondle her, I would have been that ready to go.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Flip the script: a 34 year old man forces your 13 year old daughter to touch his genitals.

How many years for that?

[The Village Idiot]

Flip the script: a 34 year old man forces your 13 year old daughter to touch his genitals.

How many years for that?

Should be death instantly if you ask me, either way.

[rich_t]

Flip the script: a 34 year old man forces your 13 year old daughter to touch his genitals.

How many years for that?

Breasts are genitalia?

[The Village Idiot]

Breasts are genitalia?

rich_t wants pics or something

[rich_t]

rich_t wants pics or something

Did I say that?  Nope.

[The Village Idiot]

and I didn't get any paper cuts either.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Breasts are genitalia?

As the nature of the offense is the forcible sexualization of minor children I believe the analogy to be valid.

I'm not saying the sentence is to harsh or too light or even just about right. I am, however, addressing what appears to be a double-standard when sex crimes against children are committed. As long as the victim is male and the offender female the offender seems to enjoy a degree of leniency not available to other victim-offender pairings.

I do not believe one's gender or a victim's gender should magnify or diminish the severity of punishment. It's the same prejudiced absurdity that make minorities and homosexuals more vluable in the eyes of the law vis-a-vis hate crime laws and affirmative action.

[The Village Idiot]

and when it comes to child porn how comes this is legal?

OKAY, I won't post the link, but its apparently perfectly legal.

Which is crazy if you ask me. Why would parents do this? Pervert Central! Buy our DVD of naked kids, hours and hours of naked kids. Naked child beauty pageants! Or is that a lineup advertising wares for perverts?

[rich_t]

As the nature of the offense is the forcible sexualization of minor children I believe the analogy to be valid.

I'm not saying the sentence is to harsh or too light or even just about right. I am, however, addressing what appears to be a double-standard when sex crimes against children are committed. As long as the victim is male and the offender female the offender seems to enjoy a degree of leniency not available to other victim-offender pairings.

I do not believe one's gender or a victim's gender should magnify or diminish the severity of punishment. It's the same prejudiced absurdity that make minorities and homosexuals more vluable in the eyes of the law vis-a-vis hate crime laws and affirmative action.

No prob SB.

IMO, without a doubt there is a double standard when it comes to sex crimes.

[The Village Idiot]

You like the whooping, cheering and atta boys some people express when a woman sexually abuses a boy at FR?

Because we all know boys need to learn that sex with minors is okay when they grow up.

People don't think ahead.

[rich_t]

I don't go to FR and as far as I can recall, I've never been there.

[mamacags]

As the nature of the offense is the forcible sexualization of minor children I believe the analogy to be valid.

I'm not saying the sentence is to harsh or too light or even just about right. I am, however, addressing what appears to be a double-standard when sex crimes against children are committed. As long as the victim is male and the offender female the offender seems to enjoy a degree of leniency not available to other victim-offender pairings.

I do not believe one's gender or a victim's gender should magnify or diminish the severity of punishment. It's the same prejudiced absurdity that make minorities and homosexuals more vluable in the eyes of the law vis-a-vis hate crime laws and affirmative action.

Amen!  They didn't say the woman asked the boy to touch her boobs and he complied.  They said she FORCED him to do it against his will.

[littlelamb]

If she forced him she should be put in jail. I don't think for life but for a long long time

[longview]

My first reaction was repulsion of the woman.  Then I thought of the high rate of recidivism by molesters.  Glad a perv is off the street.

Never did understand the double standard that exists regarding male and female predators.

[vesta111]

My first reaction was repulsion of the woman.  Then I thought of the high rate of recidivism by molesters.  Glad a perv is off the street.

Never did understand the double standard that exists regarding male and female predators.

Now don't blame ME for this post, it is that I am passing on a cockamamie idea from a friend about this.

Serrano----

The woman is pie eyed at a party and someone brought their Gay 14 year old son.  Now the parents have prayed, taken their son to the experts, really believe the son is just sick and can be cured.

The loopie friend decides that if the boy has sexual contact with a woman he will forget about sex with men and boys. 

The boy is laughed at and derided by others at the party and objects to having to feel up this drunk woman.

Makes me wonder if my friend may not be too far of the mark on this one.