Debra Lefave... Good criminal justice?

[OpTiOnMaStA]

True............no problem with kids chasing kids..........sounds like you might want to comb the high schools for some interested kids, maybe Cyberdude.     
I love the fact that  her porking some lil' boy is perfectly fine with you all.  If she climbed on an adult who cares.....she victimized a kid and should be in jail.    It is true that a good percentage of the "girls" who give it up to "teacher" probably do liek it, and are all for it.  But it is still illegal and until we change taht law to help GUys like Cyberdude score with teens, it is a crime.    WHY PROSECUTE ANYONE AND WHEN IS IT Ok...................Old enough to bleed they are old enough to breed..............

Whoa I think you're missing the point here. I'm not addressing her original case. I am addressing the stipulation of her parole that she is not to have contact with anyone under the age of 18. That's a problem and is worded incorrectly. It can't work.

As far as the crime she committed she's the hottest child molester in Florida if you ask me. That doesn't make her any better.

[MrFreakinMiyagi]

She knew the conditions of her probation, and she violated them. Pretty freakin' stupid........

[ufojoe]

Check that out. The part that is relevant to this discussion is at 3:40 or so. But you
may want to check out the rest of it. Interesting. May not be the perfect system but
the murder rate speaks for itself.

[jakedakota]

cyberdude557, you are right on.. ask any of these 12-13-14-15 -16 year old girls and I bet they all are bragging about SEX with older men.. It is the parents that want them to report these pedaphiles..ERRRRR Good human beings like Debra...

If Debra was an UGLY 23 Year old she would be in Jail.. PERIOD!

But hey Cyberdude.... Lets just not have any laws about KIDS/ADULTS/Having sex...

[cyberdude557]

You are putting a lot of words in my mouth. I never said it was OK. Im simply telling you I disagree with this idea that it was "rape." This kid was not violently intimidated.

And that in many places in the world, this would be acceptable behavior....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3699814.stm

Im simply stating the facts of the real world... Dont shoot the messenger.

[BucsBullsBolts]

It's just comforting to see that the probation workload is light enough where a good deal of time could be spent on this. Yes, for you hardasses, she did, technically, rape a minor but I'm sure in the severity of rape cases involving probation hers' would be bottom 1%. I just hope the other 99% of the offenders are getting just as crucial scrutiny...

[MrFreakinMiyagi]

No, it isn't that simple. You continue to miss the point of what I am saying. Whether or not she was buying cigarettes and was arrested for violating her probation that way she is STILL VIOLATING IT IF SHE DID THAT. So, in the eyes of this condition on her probation it doesn't matter if she was talking with someone underage to buy cigarettes, ID them, tell them she can't talk with them, etc. That's unacceptable. She was talking with a co-worker. Everybody talks with co-workers. If the rule on her probation was no minors to her house or no contact with minors except at work or in passing I would understand. That's not what it says. It says she can't talk to minors. Anybody would violate that condition.

Amen! Stupid laws and probation conditions set up by IMO people who really need a reality check..

Read the terms of her probation.
Read the violation report.

Not a single instance that Option has brought up would make her in violation of her probation.

[MrFreakinMiyagi]

In Freaks black and white world it is so simple? Trouble is that it is a gray world we live.

Her terms were pretty black or white. She knew the terms. She agreed to these. She violated them.

1. A stupid self promotion by the criminal justice system trying to show how tough they are on crime so that the public will somehow ignore the more serious crime issues in the area.

Maybe true, but she still violated. There is typically very little leniency (sp?) here. I have little doubt that if it were anyone else, then they would have been written up for VOP as well.

2. Probation is all about revenue the longer the probation the more revenue. It is never about rehabilitation only about how many times they can create situations that will cause the probationer to remain a ward of the state. Of course this just costs the taxpayers even more money. All about job justification

To a certain degree, you are right. It really depends on the person, and the crime.

3. LeFave is extremely attractive and "national news" what better promotion of the Hillsborough County justice system even if they look most foolish.

"Extremely attractive"? I wouldn't go that far. Regardless.......... She violated her probation. It's pretty freaking simple.

As to Common Sense whoever wrote those terms of probation has none!!

I'd imagine that she actually had a lttle more room to wiggle (no pun intended) than most sex offenders, but I may be wrong. Read the terms of her probation. It does not state anything like "No contact with any person under the age of 18, whatsoever". The original article embellished this a bit, and you (amongst others) were gullible enough to bite.

[Tampa Bay Todd]

Again, teachers didn't look like that when I went to school.

[Runole]

No, it isn't that simple. You continue to miss the point of what I am saying. Whether or not she was buying cigarettes and was arrested for violating her probation that way she is STILL VIOLATING IT IF SHE DID THAT. So, in the eyes of this condition on her probation it doesn't matter if she was talking with someone underage to buy cigarettes, ID them, tell them she can't talk with them, etc. That's unacceptable. She was talking with a co-worker. Everybody talks with co-workers. If the rule on her probation was no minors to her house or no contact with minors except at work or in passing I would understand. That's not what it says. It says she can't talk to minors. Anybody would violate that condition.

Amen!  Stupid laws and probation conditions set up by IMO people who really need a reality check.. 

[OpTiOnMaStA]

She knew the conditions of her probation, and she violated them. Pretty freakin' stupid........

No, the conditions of her probation were extreme. You cannot be given a punishment that is impossible to carry out. She was bound to talk to someone under the age of 18. These are unusual conditions which should be thrown out.

[MrFreakinMiyagi]

She knew the conditions of her probation, and she violated them. Pretty freakin' stupid........

No, the conditions of her probation were extreme. You cannot be given a punishment that is impossible to carry out. She was bound to talk to someone under the age of 18. These are unusual conditions which should be thrown out.

According to what I have read, it was not a simple "hello" being exchanged.

She knew the conditions of her probation. She AGREED to the conditions of her probation. She violated those conditions. It is VERY simple.

If this was a male pedophile, would your opinion be different?

[OpTiOnMaStA]

No,  my opinion wouldn't be different. You cannot tell someone that they can't talk to anyone under the age of 18. I wrote about this already. Think about it this way: if she were to ID every person who she talked with to make sure they were 18+ she would be in violation of this condition of her probation. And you think that makes sense? It doesn't matter if that's what she was doing or not because the conditions are still the same. She violated a condition which was IMPOSSIBLE for her NOT to violate. If she went into a store to get a pack of cigarettes and the person running the register was under the age of 18 she would be in violation of her probation. That's extreme and unusual punishment for her. She can't escape violating that condition.

As far as if this was a male child molester, my opinion wouldn't be different. I realize people tend to look at her different because she is attractive but that's not my argument. She was treated differently because of the circumstances of her case and secondly because (in my opinion) she is an attractive person. Should that have happened in the first place? No. I can't control that because I didn't sit on her jury. What's done is done; she was sentenced to what she was sentenced to. You are right that she should have gotten a harsher sentence potentially, however, that's over. This isn't and she's being done wrong this time (and I would argue that for anyone who received this stipulation male, female, ugly, attractive, etc.).

[MrFreakinMiyagi]

According to a police report, Lafave spoke with her teenage co-worker numerous times about family problems, friends, high school, boyfriends and sex.

She didn't buy a pack of smokes from an underage kid running a cash register. According to the report, she was developing a somewhat close relationship with this child, and that is a clear violation of her probation.

She KNEW the conditions of her probation. She AGREED to these conditions. She VIOLATED.
When you are on probation, and you don't adhere to the standards set forth, then you get in trouble.

It is so freaking simple!!





 

[OpTiOnMaStA]

No, it isn't that simple. You continue to miss the point of what I am saying. Whether or not she was buying cigarettes and was arrested for violating her probation that way she is STILL VIOLATING IT IF SHE DID THAT. So, in the eyes of this condition on her probation it doesn't matter if she was talking with someone underage to buy cigarettes, ID them, tell them she can't talk with them, etc. That's unacceptable. She was talking with a co-worker. Everybody talks with co-workers. If the rule on her probation was no minors to her house or no contact with minors except at work or in passing I would understand. That's not what it says. It says she can't talk to minors. Anybody would violate that condition.