Usually when you hear about a settlement (and not a plea deal) that means this was a civil case and not a criminal one. A civil case doesn’t weigh in on whether or not criminal charges will be brought.
If enough people push the Attorney General of that state to pursue charges they still could (Edit: it’s been 14 years and the Statute of Limitations is 5 years for wiretapping which I think is the highest possible charge). But there is a higher standard for evidence in criminal trials. Not to mention the defense’s argument would likely be that schools have the right to wiretap students’ issued laptops, so the AG probably doesn’t want this to go to court and end up enshrining such a right when it currently holds civil liability due to the civil case succeeding.
Is there any evidence of it? The Wikipedia page says “which may include unclothed or partially clothed photos” but doesn’t necessarily mean there is any.
In our court system, precedent (an existing ruling by a higher court on a similar case) often weighs heavily in future court cases. IIRC the point of this doctrine is fairness and legitimacy by consistency of rulings.
Its weaknesses, however, include the ability to set a bad precedent. For this reason, our AGs sometimes ignore potential cases if they’re not sure they can win.
In other words, this case might not have been quite the slam dunk the headline would suggest.
So… Someone is going to jail for that, right?
Right?
Settled for $610,000…so no. I feel like, given that minors were involved, the settlement should have been on top of criminal charges.
deleted by creator
Always.
And also didn’t go to any of the victims
Says at the bottom, 175k to the first victim to open a case, 10k to the second case and… 475k to the lawyers.
Well, I stand corrected… But Jesus those lawyer fees…
I hate this country.
dont hate your country, hate lawyers.
here’s a quick one: Q: what do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of a river? A: A good start.
and one more for fun
Q: How do you keep a lawyer from drowning? A: Take your foot off their throat
I feel ya, but it’s way more than just lawyers.
Usually when you hear about a settlement (and not a plea deal) that means this was a civil case and not a criminal one. A civil case doesn’t weigh in on whether or not criminal charges will be brought.
If enough people push the Attorney General of that state to pursue charges they still could (Edit: it’s been 14 years and the Statute of Limitations is 5 years for wiretapping which I think is the highest possible charge). But there is a higher standard for evidence in criminal trials. Not to mention the defense’s argument would likely be that schools have the right to wiretap students’ issued laptops, so the AG probably doesn’t want this to go to court and end up enshrining such a right when it currently holds civil liability due to the civil case succeeding.
Well if they recorded and student jerking it then the school made cp and. I doubt theor is a limitation on that.
Wouldn’t the highest charge be all that child pornography they intentionally created?
Is there any evidence of it? The Wikipedia page says “which may include unclothed or partially clothed photos” but doesn’t necessarily mean there is any.
If you run always-on cameras in thousands of teenage bedrooms, you will get child porn.
Great answer
Why tf are your AGs allowed to just ignore crimes? Aren’t there laws to prevent selective enforcement like this?
In our court system, precedent (an existing ruling by a higher court on a similar case) often weighs heavily in future court cases. IIRC the point of this doctrine is fairness and legitimacy by consistency of rulings.
Its weaknesses, however, include the ability to set a bad precedent. For this reason, our AGs sometimes ignore potential cases if they’re not sure they can win.
In other words, this case might not have been quite the slam dunk the headline would suggest.