- Sunday, 29 November 2009
- INQ Mobile
- RSS
It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place - H.L. Mencken
Cyber bully mum found not guilty
A CASE WHICH has caused much head scratching in the US the justice system came to a possible conclusion yesterday as the woman charged in the first ever cyber-bulling case was let of the hook.
The case hit the headlines back in 2006 when the 49-year-old woman posed as an adolescent boy in order to tease a 13-year-old girl, who tragically committed suicide after he ceased contact.
Lori Drew was let off of computer fraud charges but convicted of three misdemeanors – the jury deadlocked, however on a remaining criminal charge of conspiracy.
The 12 person jury, made up of equal amounts of men and women took just over a day to conclude that Drew was not guilty of the criminal charge of violating the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
The problem with this case was that although Drew had clearly done something wrong, there was no actual law on the books for a crime such as this. Drew had obtained unauthorised access to MySpace by posing as a 16-year-old boy named 'Josh' - yet this isn’t exactly computer hacking – which she would have got five years for.
This is why the jury ruled that Drew was guilty of misdemeanors only – gaining unauthorised access to MySpace with the intention of obtaining information on Megan Meier with the intent to cause distress.
Strangely, while the jury rejected the claim that Drew had committed three computer hacking crimes they failed to recognise that this was part of a scheme to intentionally inflict emotional hurt and distress on a minor.
US District Judge George Wu is yet to make a final ruling, yet it seems he could overturn even the misdemeanors for lack of evidence. It is not yet known what will happen about the deadlock decision on the final conspiracy charge.
Drew was originally held up in court in Missouri where the hoax unfolded, yet the ruling was that Drew's behavior did not violate any state laws at the time.
The indictment charged that in September 2006 Drew conspired to create the Josh Evans account with her daughter, Sarah, and a female employee for the purpose of inflicting psychological damage to Meier.
While prosecutors claimed that Drew committed the same crime as any hacker – as she created a false account with false details and digitally signed the 'click to agree' contract – these charges weren’t upheld.
One of the main reasons that Drew wasn’t convicted of a more serious crime, even though a girl died because of her thoughtless prank, was because if this went through it could potentially make a criminal out of anyone who violated the terms of use on any website. µ
L'Inq
Wired
Share this:
ShareBusiness Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
this is simply ridiculous. she should be punished.
Creating a web-"persona" with the *intent* to harm someone, or a life, bloody ought to be criminal, whether true-named or pseudonym.

The mis-use of inappropriate laws ought /also/ to be criminal, since it changes the categories of what is legal in ways that harms the entire citizenry, *against* national long-term health.

IOW, what /ought/ to've happened, is that they should've accepted that their ignorance of *proactive* clean law resulted in an obliteration of life that they have no ground to prosecute...

..and therefore ought get off their asses and correct that specific deficiency.

Everyone gets surprised, sometimes, dealing honestly with it is better than grubbing greater authority against citizenry in order to "punish" when it was one's own inaction that left the laws wrong.

Cheers.

Of course, the bully in question ought have undying renoun for pushing the obliteration of a child's life...

dealing with that, for the rest of their life, is fair, isn't it?
Perhaps this woman has not committed an illegal act. I think she has committed a crime nonetheless.

Had the woman instead physically sought out the teen aged girl and verbally abused her to the point of suicide, I cannot believe the woman would have been found innocent of wrongdoing.

To have tried her partly on the basis of her violating the website's terms of use agreement was wrong. What was violated that was important was the girl's psyche and ultimately her life. That is what was at issue and it was on that basis the woman should have been tried.
Anything else would clearly be a nonsense.

This case wouldn't have even existed if the girl didn't kill herself, which means there were problems with that girl beyond just some "cyber bullying". If anything, the case should just be treated as a normal harassment case, not "cyber" manslaughter or something like that. The only outrageous thing in this case is that the mom was getting involved, which should be outside the scope of this happening online.
Just a clue here that "Mom WAS found guilty" of several misdemeanor crimes which could land her in jail for 3 years plus fines. There was no "not guilty" verdict rendered in this case. The felony charges were reduced to misdemeanor charges.

A mis-trial was declared on the charge of "conspiracy". That is not the same as being found "not guilty". She can be tried again for conspiracy.
not at all...

download 5 songs and you loose your house but egg on a child until they kill themselves and a jury cannot make up its mind?!?

Whats wrong with you people?

This dirtbag mom should get 200 lashes medieval style!!
... many readers here believe the crap that society is responsible for the bad things people do.

Bovine Hockey. The girl is responsible for killing herself; no other is responsible. We are accountable for what we do and that responsibility cannot be pawned off on another no matter how repugnant the other person is.

If you bleeding hearts believe the woman is guilty, stop your jawing, invest some of your own precious time and money in the fight to bring this woman to "justice" and simply do more than just complain. Complaining without acting is simple bitching.

And b*tching never changed a thing. If you're so convinced she's guilty get your rear end to the closest library and do the research to get her convicted. Get a law degree and make an example of her in your own perfect way.

Nobody wants to hear your carping. I want to read in the coming weeks of all the outrage citizens who are taking positive actions to rid society of her.

Not a single one of you will.
No question she was an obnoxious arsehole.

But if being an obnoxious arsehole was a criminal act, who would we have left to be the jailers?
This case is being tried in US District court under wire fraud laws that were/are aimed mor at the Nigerian scams than what happened here. First there were three not guilty verdicts on three of four felonies. As a retired US government attorney who worked these same statutes to prosecute Savings and Loan Fraud back in the 1980's and 90's these three statutes are aimed at financial crimes and had in the jury instructions require a finding of financial loss AND foreseeability of the loss. Very much a stretch here.. The jury did return three GUILTY verdicts on the misdemeanors. Each is punishable by 0-36 months in federal prison. These sentences can be stacked to a total of 9 years if the judge so decides. Given the sentencing guidelines and the seriousness of the consequences my guess is 3 years running concurrently for two of them and the third probated to be served after release. The decisions of the US Court of Appeals, do NOT give judge Wu much room to grant a Rule 29 verdict dismissing the misdemeanor convictions. He has to find NO evidence to support the jury verdict. That is appealable by the DOJ if granted. I never saw that happen in 60+ trials over 10 years. If the jury found her guilty there is ipso facto some evidence to support the jury verdict. The remaining felony charge can be retried by the DOJ. That will probably await the results of sentencing for the misdemeanor counts. A sentence at the maximum of the misdemeanor range will probably end things. The daughter and a 20 year old friend are the real culprits here they sent the destructive emails. Mother is guilty of aiding and abetting them. The maximum sentence for aiding and abetting in this category of crimes is three years since no guns or drugs were involved. A six year sentence , 3 years served, 3 on probation fits the guidelines for this since she didn't send the emails.
bullying someone till they committ suicide is not an offense. This entire trial seems to be missing the point. Wheter or not a computer was involved in the malice is irrellevant and beside the point. The point is the psycho b***h conspired with her daughter to hurt a 13 year old girl as much as possible.

If there ain't a law against that something is seriously wrong.
Social network used to be ones family, friends, and the counsellors at the local hospital. It would be normal that a child bullied by someone would approach the social network for comfort.
Apparently the social network did not gain the child's confidence, causing a build up of emotions and the drastic step. 
And I would like to know, was the actual identity of Jason revealed before or after the suicide?
If bullying isn't a crime it should be. The use of a PC to bully so as to conceal your identity, should be an additional crime.

While I don't think you could make a case here for murder, you certainly can make a case for a conspiracy to cause mental harm. If the woman gets sentenced to prison for 1-3 years, which she could, then I think justice will have been served and the message will be clear that you can't hide behind a PC monitor to commit crimes of any nature.
Um... How about someone teaching that 13 year old girl to not believe everything she reads on the web. Let alone tie her self esteem to it.

Besides, you can block people you don't like on Myspace. You don't HAVE to friend anyone. No one here's ever deleted an email before reading it just cause they know who sent it is an ass?

No offense, but by the time someone is 13 years old in this era they need to know about the dangers and assholes of the web, just like they need to know about not getting into cars with strangers.

Sure the "mom" is an asshole, but that 13 year old was either mental ill, an idiot, or had the worst parents ever.

Next thing you know, we're going to be passing laws for emotional distress caused by someone getting dumped. Oh wait... We already crossed that line.

See you all in hell. Cause that's where we're going.
I think there is a law in UK which covers this in a roundabout way. Is there no law for the US?

Well they do live in a country where there are more guns than people, and it's not Afghanistan.

Is there any other country in the world, not having a civil war, where there are more guns than people?
What we need are more laws, it should be illegal to upset or yell at people too.

No Flaming this post please, I could take offense and possibly hurt myself. If that happens, you will be sued.
they sue eachother over billions for patent s+++ but could not send this dumb bimbo to prison for ruining some1s life. Stupid law rubbish.

I say bring back the hanging, so you don't have to give her the electric chair. EYE for an EYE.

People, think with a clear mind and stop getting a boner (Stiffy) it is only 1 woman you can find better replacement in the streets during the night or playboy escorts!
@ mcluvin
The problem with your assertion is that the girl is NOW dead and she is unable to learn anything under her NOW condition.
Bullies on the other hand has learned that they can get away with a cyber proverbial ten foot pole. Or even further they get to pervert the law.
Bullies are always out for what they call "respect" and they will walk over maim kill anybody to get it. While the weak and mild tempered RESPECT are ignored by the law on the side of the bullies.
This problem is always dismissed at the basic ROOTS of education:
1. The theory of evolution "Survival of the fittest" (Exchange fittest with "more violent") Educated as "FACT"
2. Watered down, Biblical education to support personal ideals and social excuses. Like War for example.
3. World class global & national examples done by leaders in esteemed places of honour with the two first points above!
With all due RESPECT!