If you have never heard of this case, here is a summary of the events leading to the conviction:
In October 2004, substitute teacher Julie Amero finds out that porn pop-ups are showing up, and she is unable to stop
it. Earlier, she was told by an IT guy to not turn off the computer (which she does not know how to). She tries to
prevent the children from looking at the porn-filled monitor and asks for help from others. After complaints from
parents, Amero is arrested for "risk of injury to a minor." She maintains her innocence, but the judge and the
jury do not see it her way. She is guilty because of evidence that shows that Amero went into the porn websites. They
neglect to consider the fact that the evidence does not show whether if the websites came from going directly there or
from pop-ups. She is going to be sentenced on March 29 and she could possibly be given a 40-year sentence. Do you think
that she is guilty? Do you think that she deserves going to prison?
I really believe that she is innocent. The so-called evidence that the prosecution gave does not show that she deliberately went into porn websites. Some say that she didn't do anything to prevent this from being exposed to the children, but they neglect to consider that she might have panicked. Should some be convicted for panicking or being tech-illiterate? I don't think so.
-----
UPDATE: Amero's sentencing has been moved to April 26. This would be the second time in March that her sentencing has been moved.
-----
UPDATE 2: Amero's sentencing has been moved (again) to May 18.
-----
UPDATE 3: Amero's sentencing has been moved (yet again) to June 6.
-----
UPDATE 4: After months of delay, the Amero's sentence has been overturned
and has been given a new trial. She has pleaded not guilty.