I agree, the lawyer was snivelling and pathetic and as you say she very nearly exposed her true thoughts ( what a shame she managed to stop herself eh ). Sure the sentence is harsh as thousands of men serving similar harsh sentences could confirm, so “suck it up” you got a giant slice of equality i hope it tastes sweet.


Having said that, she should still count herself lucky, if she were a man she would most likely get her bum hole reamed on a daily basis for the next 10 years, but its not likely that she will be subjected to that sort of equality.

And she's supposed to be a lawyer...?

Unfortunately the only way draconian laws will ever be reviewed is when sufficient numbers of women become similarly affected. Women alongside feminists were swept along with the mob hysteria in supporting the implementation of increased laws, wider definitions and harsh sentencing when it only affected men, but are now beginning to regret this as the same laws are increasingly being applied to themselves. I don't feel any sympathy whatsoever!

I imagine it must be quite a blow to get such a sentence - even more of a blow than for a man.

Females expect to receive female sentencing discount for their crimes - that's not a criticism - why wouldn't they as it's normal practice?. It really must be a shock on the occasions they are tried as a man.

Defence is pretty pathetic really. She talks about how she was "forced to subject herself to this mandatory sentence" as if somehow the state made he commit the crime.

Also I've read up on the detail - the breast touching wasn't something the boy requested or even did willingly. He was forced to do so and she went on to ask for sex with him!
I agree with the comments about her only comparing it with a case of another female (and one in a different state at that!) she's segregating the genders as if female sentencing discount is somehow part of the constitution. I wonder why she doesn't compare the sentence to the ones handed out to men? It's typical feminist behavour - that want to be equal when there's something to be gained, yet when it comes to taking responsibility and accepting punishment then equality goes out the window.

JK, d'ya got a link to an article about that, bud? Would make an interesting read...

Outstanding!
Now the tide seem to be turning on women, I hope this bitch gets ass raped with a broken broom handel while she's on the inside.
Even thogh this is but a small step in true equality in law, it is however a step in the right direction, now lets hope there will be an avalanch of of harsh but just sentances handed down to these low life sub humans

Okay, that video is just more proof that feminists in general are pathological liars and hypocrites. First they demonize the entire male sex then they relentlessly cram slut culture down the throats of little girls. Now one female pervert gets a life sentence for fooling around with a boy an suddenly Armageddon is upon us?

FUCKING PATHETIC!!!!!!!!!!

Here is the detail of the case as requested:

T.F. woman sentenced to life for lewdness charge

"""Although eligible for parole in ten years, the woman’s life is essentially destroyed. """

I expect she will adapt to a new way of loving in gaol wink wink ahahhaahahh

in any case wimyn in my opionion can go either way without too much sweat

just testing guest's access

Equality in the fascist prison states of America.

It's good that such cases may expose feminist hypocrisy, but that doesn't make the sentence less ridiculous.

I think punishments should be in proportion to the victim's suffering and the perpetrator's intent to cause suffering or indifference to caused suffering
My type of justice would see people who smoke marijuane freed, and highschool bullies go to jail. '
There are types of bullying that currently go unpunished which don't fall far from this women's crimes in terms of the victims suffering.
Consensual sex with a minor would get lower punishment than bullying.

Quote from Ambiorix

Equality in the fascist prison states of America.

It's good that such cases may expose feminist hypocrisy, but that doesn't make the sentence less ridiculous.

I think punishments should be in proportion to the victim's suffering and the perpetrator's intent to cause suffering or indifference to caused suffering
My type of justice would see people who smoke marijuane freed, and highschool bullies go to jail. '
There are types of bullying that currently go unpunished which don't fall far from this women's crimes in terms of the victims suffering.
Consensual sex with a minor would get lower punishment than bullying.

I hear what you are saying Bro but however since the femanazis have made men's sexualty a crime against nature it is only right and just that women get called out on the carpet for doing what they have demonized men for as well as geting a harsh sentance that men get instead of a slap on the wrist that most women get they they are thinking with their pussies

Quote from nivek

I agree, the lawyer was snivelling and pathetic and as you say she very nearly exposed her true thoughts ( what a shame she managed to stop herself eh ). Sure the sentence is harsh as thousands of men serving similar harsh sentences could confirm, so “suck it up” you got a giant slice of equality i hope it tastes sweet.


Having said that, she should still count herself lucky, if she were a man she would most likely get her bum hole reamed on a daily basis for the next 10 years, but its not likely that she will be subjected to that sort of equality.

As a lawyer, I can assure you it does not feel comfortable to be the cosnstant brunt of evil lawyer jokes nor comfortable to listen to the stereotyping of lawyers as sharkish, unfeeling, uncaring, bottom feeding, selfish beings with nary a nerve to feel or a brain capable of emotion. Contrary to your characterization as sniveling and pathetic, I found this attorney to make convincing arguments, a strong presentation and conviction in her sense of injustice.

A lawyer's job is to make the arguments that benefit the client and not worry about the equality or lack thereof between men and women. And if you were part of the criminal (in)justice system and saw what goes on with the police, district attorneys, enactment of special interest laws and the related "meting out of justice', it really does shock the conscience. indeed, the very term "justice system' becomes a "term of sarcasm' or oxymoron.

To atttack this attorney and characterize her as pathetic for demonstrating her strong advocation and her obvious sense of injustice when one in the legal profession finally can be assuaged as to her humanity, choice of profession and ability to feel rather than emote is simply not fair. And, for all you know, her true thoughts may be that a fondling by either sex should not be handled with the meting out of these severe sentences for men or women and not that somehow men should be punished more severely. Afterall, this attorney did not create the two-tiered system due to special interest laws and has to do whatever she can to protect her clients from it.

Outranged minds can make for outranged thoughts. I think the important think is to learn from the progression, or perhaps regression may be more fitting, of the femminist movement and the creation of misandrics and try and handle ourselves with a bit more of finesse and not make similar mistakes (unless of course one's objective is to swing the pendulum of inequality back for purposes of retribution rather than acheiving a true equality between the sexes). Yes it is nice to see a respect for equality under and equal application of the law, something that seemed to be occurring less and less.

Interestingly many people do not know that the Equal Rights Amendment had never been actually ratified to be added to the Constitution since drafted approximately 90 years ago. The language was simple and fair:

Equal Rights Amendment

Section 1. Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

The Equal Rights Amendment was written in 1921 by suffragist Alice Paul. It has been introduced in Congress every session since 1923. It passed Congress in the above form in 1972, but was not ratified by the necessary thirty-eight states by the July 1982 deadline. It was ratified by thirty-five states.

Interestingly, one of the persistent criticisms that prevented ratification was complaints it did not do enough for women, perhaps something that helped turn the Allice Paul's of the femminist movement into rabid, misandric dogs seemingly now hell bent on special interest language and setting up a two-tiered system to create sepearate classes of citizens.

Of course if the ERA were the law of the land, any attorney to make an argument for unequal punishment based upon sex would be acting so contrary to and violative of this amendment and thus the Constitution that per the Professional Rules of Conduct in the legal profession, potentially face disbarment. I would bet to venture the prospect of the Equal Rights Amendment ever being passed probably firghtens the bejeebers out of many in the domestic violence industry and any misandric woman. Men, men's groups and women should be supporting this law as originally written.