If this was a bloke
He'd be put on the sex offenders register.
A 34-year-old mother who stole her teenage daughter's identity and used it to enroll in high school to pursue her dream of becoming a cheerleader was yesterday committed to three years in a psychiatric unit, the Times reports. Wendy Brown. Pic: Brown County Sheriff's Office Wendy Brown (pictured), signed up at Ashwaubenon …
At least she didn't do what so many mothers do and live vicariously through their daughter. Why force your daughter into cheerleading or beauty pageants when you can do it yourself. Granted it's a little off either way but this is less likely to scar the poor child since the kid has proof that her mom is a bit bonkers.
C'mon El Reg. It's just a sad story, not a funny one. I'm given to believe psychiatric illnesses aren't all that funny if you're suffering from them, whatever school children (or those purporting to be) might think.
(That said, can I suggest a "Comedy Kids with Cancer" category?)
Working in a school I would like to think I could tell the difference between a 15 year old and a 34 year old, but the amount of makeup she would have to cake on to hide the wrinkles and other signs of ageing is the same amount as the average 15 year old girl has to cake on to hide the spots
I think the point was exactly that it wouldn't matter whether he had sexual motives or not. That a male pretending to be 15 and using false ID to get into a position where he 'might' be able to do something would be enough for a lot of people to get into a frenzy.
You are right that a lot of threads are going down the 'us poor men' road at the moment though, I tend to agree with the underlying logic but don't think it has to dominate every thread with a tenious link.
If the doctors decide she's stable and safe enough for society they can petition the court to reduce her sentence (unlike people sent to prison). The court has to pick a term and 3 years is typical for non-violent offenses.
And the story is a bit funny if in a twisted fashion. I'd point out that people getting dead *shouldn't* be funny but the annual Darwin Awards is a well visited site.
Three years in a mental hospital?
Since when was hospitalisation based on time? Surely she should be in until treatment is completed? I mean, if you go in for emergency heart surgery, you aren't subject to a time limit, so why should you be time limited for mental health issues?
It sounds like the mental health system in that state (at least) is like a poor extension of the prison system, (ab)used as a possibly under-regulated, under-inspected place to keep unbalanced criminals, rather than actually treating people so that they hopefully cease to be a danger to themselves and those around them.
I'm frankly disgusted by the thought that mental health issues are still treated like some sort of plague in the 21st century.
"muy lame to start bleating"
I take it you have met at least one man. We're all like that. Surprised you hadn't noticed.
You were still wrong though weren't you? I don't think the 'OK' at the beginning of your retort qualifies as acknowledging this fully, do you?
All men have a tendency towards the pedantic too...
Well, I didn't have the whole legal acknowledgement disclaimer to hand. I figured 'OK' would do in the circumstances (ie that I could just have rejected any comments daring to point out any wrongnesses on my part).
I met a man once. It wasn't memorable.
This woman may well and truly be nuts but given her background I very much doubt it and I'm stunned they gave the three years in a hospital. This is the kind of crap that often keeps people who are mentally ill and genuinely need that space in the hospital from getting in. It also quite possibly means someone who is actually in need of treatment ends up in jail cell where they don't belong because grifters like this woman found an easy way out of their sentence. I swear I don't know how our legal system gets so far off the rails sometimes but I suspect it's got lots to do with bottom feeding lawyers.
BTW, Who can at El Reg can I write to petition that Sarah get hazard pay for moderating article comments. She deserves it after dealing with all of us (myself included).
The cop in the article (and all of his ilk, methinks) is genetically incapable of believing that actions taken by members of the public have no underlying criminal motives - do not forget that we are all criminals in their eyes.
Any sane person is able to understand that her actions were clearly not criminal. But, oh no - "guilty until proved innocent" is how it works today. For example, the guy in this thread who says he likes "to dress up as a 15yr old cheerleader at weekends" needs to be careful. If the police had any opportunity whatsoever he would be in a cell pending investigations of X, Y and Z. Somehow the media would find out and that would be the end of his job, his career. Is that how it should be - in a so-called civilised, caring society?
We don't need harsher sentences - we need more resources and thought put into the rehabilitation services (for criminals and people with mental problems). Let's begin with the premise that people are basically 'good', occasionally needing help when they fall by the wayside. The bad guys can easily be spotted (unless the professionals involved are completely naive and stupid) and can be dealt with as society sees fit.
There are too many individuals languishing in prisons and mental institutions who really should not be there. And if that isn't your cup of tea, well think about the vast quantities of taxpayer's money that is involved in housing them there to no good purpose.
This poor woman really can't go stealing people's ID, but otherwise is was no different from men beginning to feel youth slip away and rushing out to buy a Kawasaki, etc etc.
On the point, chaps: if a 34 year man had borrowed his daughter's ID to be a cheerleader, would you really have bought that? 'But officer, I was only studying her pom pom work...'
p.s. 34 is not old. It is not even wrinkly. Now, if she'd been 44, I would have been impressed.
How do we know that she did not have a sexual motive? I believe that some women are interested in girls (I read it somewhere)... Maybe she gets a high from being with girl, I guess she was in the changing rooms with them at least. As a parent of a girl I would especially question the motive of any woman that wanted to be with girls.
If this is a sensitive subject then why was it reported on El Reg and left open for comments? This is a free-for-all, surely?
I was thinking the exact same thing, so I thought I would lookup the story from last year of a man doing a similar thing in the UK, which is what we all clearly had in mind. The story is here:
Turns out the police didn't even charge him, nor did they recommend treatment or sectioning (when he was 19). They did charge him for having sex with a 12 year old girl, sometime later (when he was 21/22). However they turned a blind eye to the faking of the birth certificate and enrolling at the school. So I think we can all safely get off our high horses.
BTW, the tone of the article seems to imply that the parents thought it was okay for their 12 year old daughter to sleep with him, when they thought he was 16, but not now they know he was 21. I know that teenagers (or near teenagers) can be difficult, but whether he was 16, 21 or 12, surely they have a responsibility to put a stop to it.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020