Woman Accused of Sexually Abusing Children at Her Day Care Gets 30 Days in Jail

[ghotihook]

Can I get a clarification just to avoid surprise infractions? I assumed gender discussion was talking about the difference between females and males as in why some traits are different than others, not the difference between the way they are treated by society. This is why we are allowed to discuss social issues such as pay gaps.


Race discussion is forbidden but yet we are allowed to talk about why some races have a difference in prison sentences.

So I beg clarification, either both should be forbidden or both be be allowed in this context.

Not trying to start shit or be an ass I am genuinely confused a the difference.

Thanks

You know there is a zero chance of this happening right? And even a less chance for it to be used consistently.

[xskarma]

Race discussion is forbidden but yet we are allowed to talk about why some races have a difference in prison sentences.

So I beg clarification, either both should be forbidden or both be be allowed in this context.

Not trying to start shit or be an ass I am genuinely confused a the difference.

Thanks

1) Next time take this up with a moderator in private, this is moderation discussion

2) Discussion that is only about different races having different prison sentences is race discussion just as this is gender discussion, and against the rules of the forum.


Now please drop the subject and turn any further questions to a moderator.

[Ghostpanther]

She should be put away for much longer than 30 days. Not sure if this is already in place, but she should also be barred from working with children ever again, and be required to be a registered sex offender.

I certainly agree with this.

[enigma77]

If she were a man she'd be locked away for life. (As it should be.)

[shadowmouse]

@enigma77 Congratulations. You successfully ignored the moderators requests on not just tossing out a purely gender based comment. Was the bright green text too subtle?

Stick to the case and drop gender discussion (which includes speculation about gender-based sentencing).

[Ghostpanther]

@enigma77 Congratulations. You successfully ignored the moderators requests on not just tossing out a purely gender based comment. Was the bright green text too subtle?

Man that green text is eye numbing! lol!

[shadowmouse]

@Ghostpanther Ain't it though? The darker green didn't stand out as well against the darker quote background, so I'm doing my part. I figure that if it registers on me while I'm low on coffee, it has a chance of getting noticed.

[Ghostpanther]

@Ghostpanther Ain't it though? The darker green didn't stand out as well against the darker quote background, so I'm doing my part. I figure that if it registers on me while I'm low on coffee, it has a chance of getting noticed.

ROFL. You just gave me the best laugh of the day. Thanks.

[Celista]

@enigma77 Congratulations. You successfully ignored the moderators requests on not just tossing out a purely gender based comment. Was the bright green text too subtle?

Need to swap the green text to the large font.

Stick to the case and drop gender discussion (which includes speculation about gender-based sentencing).

[shadowmouse]

@Ghostpanther Cheers!
@Celista You realize, of course, how hard I am trying not to reply with both combined. Flashing text would be a danger, but I wonder if we could get the colors to slowly cycle through some of the more jarring colors. Left to right? Right to left for effect? Or could it be done in sort of a barbershop spiral? Somebody out there has to know how to make this happen!

Oh, and erm, on topic ... I'd still like to see this kind of case something that could be processed through mental health channels. Whether convicted of sex crimes or not, her game with the spinner ought to trigger a mental health check and subsequent responses should depend on whether she is diagnosed as a pedophile and a future danger.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Oh my mistake, I missed the part in the article that stated she was a billionaire running a day care.

You also missed the part where some of the charges were dropped because the parents would not cooperate.

[Flarelaine]

You also missed the part where some of the charges were dropped because the parents would not cooperate.

While I do not know the details, that might actually be understandable. They are probably trying to bury the whole thing from the kids' point of view.

I've often noticed that when something bad happens to kids - like falling and scraping a knee - they don't always freak out instantly unless there's an adult around to start freaking out. Similarly, the wrongness of the situations that this woman created may not have really registered in the children, but taking part in repeated questioning might drive home the point that something grave happened, which in turn may send them to therapy later in life. Protecting them is more important than making an example of the woman, although as others have pointed out, she should be evaluated by experts and possibly banned from working with children.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

@Ghostpanther Cheers!
@Celista You realize, of course, how hard I am trying not to reply with both combined. Flashing text would be a danger, but I wonder if we could get the colors to slowly cycle through some of the more jarring colors. Left to right? Right to left for effect? Or could it be done in sort of a barbershop spiral? Somebody out there has to know how to make this happen!

Oh, and erm, on topic ... I'd still like to see this kind of case something that could be processed through mental health channels. Whether convicted of sex crimes or not, her game with the spinner ought to trigger a mental health check and subsequent responses should depend on whether she is diagnosed as a pedophile and a future danger.

While I do not know the details, that might actually be understandable. They are probably trying to bury the whole thing from the kids' point of view.

I've often noticed that when something bad happens to kids - like falling and scraping a knee - they don't always freak out instantly unless there's an adult around to start freaking out. Similarly, the wrongness of the situations that this woman created may not have really registered in the children, but taking part in repeated questioning might drive home the point that something grave happened, which in turn may send them to therapy later in life. Protecting them is more important than making an example of the woman, although as others have pointed out, she should be evaluated by experts and possibly banned from working with children.

The problem being I don't know if they can legally compel her to get that mental health check without a conviction. All the sex-related charges have been dropped. Legally speaking...she didn't sexually abuse those children.

Before I catch a ton of shit over this...let me be perfectly clear... I'm talking about legal status only.

[shadowmouse]

@Evil Midnight Bomber

As I observed earlier:

This is one where (it won't happen, the mental health system is too underfunded) the danger she poses to kids in the future should get her mandatory and ongoing treatment for her disorder -- regardless of what the legal system does.

Should it? I would say yes.

Will it? I strongly doubt so, even if a path exists the system simply doesn't have resources.

What would the legal mechanism be? Unclear, I don't really have the resources to start checking what laws might apply, but if I had to guess there might be provisions somewhere relating to general public well being (I'd find it odd if there weren't) or perhaps something could come from her having collected money to care for children (however improper her actual conduct was she still did it).

For me, this case highlights gaps in our system. Crimes against children are just that, crimes. Unfortunately, as crimes they are subject to things like plea deals. Where there is evidence of mental condition, however, a case could be made for involuntary commitment if she meets the applicable criteria.

At least, this is the kind of thing the voices in my head keep whispering!

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

@Evil Midnight Bomber

As I observed earlier:


Should it? I would say yes.

Will it? I strongly doubt so, even if a path exists the system simply doesn't have resources.

What would the legal mechanism be? Unclear, I don't really have the resources to start checking what laws might apply, but if I had to guess there might be provisions somewhere relating to general public well being (I'd find it odd if there weren't) or perhaps something could come from her having collected money to care for children (however improper her actual conduct was she still did it).

For me, this case highlights gaps in our system. Crimes against children are just that, crimes. Unfortunately, as crimes they are subject to things like plea deals. Where there is evidence of mental condition, however, a case could be made for involuntary commitment if she meets the applicable criteria.

At least, this is the kind of thing the voices in my head keep whispering!

Yeah, I get what you're saying...and I agree there should be better checks and balances.

But my point is, without the testimony of the children she abused, there is no evidence of a mental condition.

Also, the daycare she was running was unregistered anyway... so even if there was a mandatory mental health check before opening a daycare (i don't know if there is or isn't...but i think there probably should be)...she gets around it because she's not registering as a daycare. I don't know if there's really anything to stop her from just moving into the next state over and doing the same thing again.

This is why it kinda sucks that the parents don't want to cooperate. I mean, I totally get their point that their number one priority is to protect their children and they don't want to put them through everything that comes with testifying about their abuse...but the other side of it is...there's not a lot to stop her from doing this again.

[XangXu]

God the crazy is getting worse.

[Flarelaine]

@Evil Midnight Bomber

As I observed earlier:


Should it? I would say yes.

Will it? I strongly doubt so, even if a path exists the system simply doesn't have resources.

What would the legal mechanism be? Unclear, I don't really have the resources to start checking what laws might apply, but if I had to guess there might be provisions somewhere relating to general public well being (I'd find it odd if there weren't) or perhaps something could come from her having collected money to care for children (however improper her actual conduct was she still did it).

What about giving an option to judges to order mandatory mental evaluation in cases involving children and/or sexual charges? It certainly could assist both judge and jury to see the defendant more clearly.

[Lynarii]

What about giving an option to judges to order mandatory mental evaluation in cases involving children and/or sexual charges? It certainly could assist both judge and jury to see the defendant more clearly.

Except it wouldn't. Statistically, people with mental health issues are less likely to be criminals and more likely to be victims than the general population. So having a mental health issue isn't in any way evidence that she is guilty of the charges, nor is being found mentally sound any evidence that she is innocent. It would be information that prejudices the jury without any actual bearing on what is being tried.

[shadowmouse]

But my point is, without the testimony of the children she abused, there is no evidence of a mental condition.

It has been publicly reported. From the quote, I'd guess it is part of a court record:

Miss Kim forced them to play using a tan and blue game board with pictures of private parts and a red spinner,” recalled another mother. “Your Honor, the sound of my autistic son and little girl being able to describe what that grown woman’s vagina looks like and feels like, is something we regrettably will never be able to forget, and honestly something that I can never forgive.”

Also, the daycare she was running was unregistered anyway

I'm pretty sure I acknowledged that, nevertheless administrative laws tend to find a way to go past such things. For example, you can still be busted for speeding even if you don't have a valid driver's license.
@Flarelaine @Nymrohd Depending on the state there are various solutions to things both of you have raised. We don't know why the parents didn't cooperate so it is hard to do more than guess. Were they concerned for their children? We hope so. It could, however, be that by testifying they would open themselves up to liability on something -- perhaps for having taken the kids to an unregistered daycare, perhaps it would show something that could roll back on them as part of child custody? Who knows.

[Flarelaine]

Except it wouldn't. Statistically, people with mental health issues are less likely to be criminals and more likely to be victims than the general population. So having a mental health issue isn't in any way evidence that she is guilty of the charges, nor is being found mentally sound any evidence that she is innocent. It would be information that prejudices the jury without any actual bearing on what is being tried.

I certainly had something more professional in mind than "Mentally disturbed Yes/No Check the box".

Also, I meant it more of a tool for actual sentencing than for ascertaining guilt. Your worries about prejudice are valid, though.

- - - Updated - - -

We don't know why the parents didn't cooperate so it is hard to do more than guess. Were they concerned for their children? We hope so. It could, however, be that by testifying they would open themselves up to liability on something -- perhaps for having taken the kids to an unregistered daycare, perhaps it would show something that could roll back on them as part of child custody?

Perhaps some of the parents were themselves unregistered. Plenty of possible explanations.