Debra Jean Beasley (born August 28, 1980) was a reading teacher at Angelo L. Greco Middle School in Temple Terrace, Florida, when she was charged with several counts of having illegal sexual relations and statutory rape with a minor in 2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debra_Lafave
Arrest and trial Investigating officers pursued the case after being notified by the 14-year-old boy's mother. Officers tape-recorded conversations between Debra and the boy, then arrested Lafave at their next rendezvous. Compelling evidence was provided by the boy in the form of accurate and detailed descriptions of private characteristics of Lafave's body. One European newspaper published the boy's name and photo; legal action by his mother led to its being removed from the paper's website.
Because the illegal sexual activity occurred in two different counties, two separate sets of charges were filed. A trial date was set for December 5 at a court hearing after the prosecution and the defense could not agree on a plea bargain. The prosecution's plea deal involved prison time, which Debra and her parents found unacceptable. Debra's defense attorney caused a national stir that made headlines by remarking to the media that "to place Debbie into a Florida state women's penitentiary, to place an attractive young woman in that kind of hellhole, is like putting a piece of raw meat in with the lions." In a book written by her ex-husband Owen Lafave, he suggests that this statement was an intentional ploy by the attorney.[1]
The Tampa Police Department also came under scrutiny when it was revealed they took graphic nude photos of LaFave while she was in stirrups in a jail cell. John Gillespie, the lead detective who requested the nude photos of LaFave, was arrested before the trial in an unrelated prostitution sting.[2]
Shortly before the trial was scheduled to begin, the boy's mother, who had been insisting that Debra serve time in prison, learned that the trial was to be covered by Court TV and changed her stance, agreeing to a plea bargain with no prison time to prevent her son from having to testify in court. A new plea agreement was quickly worked out.
On November 22, 2005, Debra pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years of Community Control (house arrest) and seven years of probation, along with a string of other requirements.[citation needed]
On December 8, 2005, the judge in the second county refused to accept plea-agreement terms that included no prison time and set a trial date for April 10, 2006. In an unusual act, the prosecutor announced the charges were being dropped.
After the trial On September 29, 2006, Backstreet Boy Nick Carter claimed on The Howard Stern Show that he lost his virginity to Debra Lafave when they were classmates.
Lafave is referenced in the documents submitted to NBC in April 2007 by Cho Seung-hui, who carried out the Virginia Tech massacre[4]
Lafave later attributed her indiscretions to bipolar disorder, which is associated with intense and irregular mood swings, and with hypersexuality and poor judgment during manic episodes.[5]
Debra Lafave was arrested on December 4, 2007, for violating her probation. The violation listed says she talked to a 17-year-old female restaurant coworker on "non-work related issues such as family problems, friends, high school, personal life, boyfriend issues and sexual issues. ... (Lafave) received no permission from the court to have any contact with minors." She was released from jail later that day on her promise to appear in court for a hearing later.
While I'm normally rather unrelenting when it comes to child exploitation of any kind, this new case is ridiculous.
Those on parole are normally expected to report employment changes to the parole officer, especially while under house arrest. Since officials in this case were aware of Debra's employment, part of the blame belongs to them. Maybe all of it.
Just about everyone knows that restaurants regularly recruit teenagers to staff their establishments. How does one work side by side with a minor without establishing contact?
Restauraunt employees are expected to communicate and work as a team. Waitresses, hostesses, kitchen employees and management are always communicating with each other in order to expedite hot food and cleanliness expectations of the customer.
This case is a sham, as it would appear at this point that parole officials are either dumber than a rock, unrealistic in their expectations, or simply fell asleep at the wheel.
The Parole Officer could have rejected this employment arrangement altogether, knowing that contact with minors was an unrealistic expectation of this kind of employment. Instead, thousands upon thousands of tax dollars will be spent prosecuting a case where the arrangements were dubious from the start.
Danny Vice The Weekly Vice http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
The city has two sons. Only one can rule The Hill.
First Snow 2006
What if someone looked into your future and didn't see tomorrow? - A psychic's ominous reading sends a man into a tailspin
Mini's First Time (2006)
Sex. Murder. Blackmail. There's a first time for everything-A rebellious girl hooks up with an escort agency where her stepfather is a client.
Unknown (2006)
Trust no one. Fear everyone. -Five men wake up in a locked-down warehouse with no memory of who they are. They are forced to figure out who is good and who is bad to stay alive.
1 comment:
While I'm normally rather unrelenting when it comes to child exploitation of any kind, this new case is ridiculous.
Those on parole are normally expected to report employment changes to the parole officer, especially while under house arrest. Since officials in this case were aware of Debra's employment, part of the blame belongs to them. Maybe all of it.
Just about everyone knows that restaurants regularly recruit teenagers to staff their establishments. How does one work side by side with a minor without establishing contact?
Restauraunt employees are expected to communicate and work as a team. Waitresses, hostesses, kitchen employees and management are always communicating with each other in order to expedite hot food and cleanliness expectations of the customer.
This case is a sham, as it would appear at this point that parole officials are either dumber than a rock, unrealistic in their expectations, or simply fell asleep at the wheel.
The Parole Officer could have rejected this employment arrangement altogether, knowing that contact with minors was an unrealistic expectation of this kind of employment. Instead, thousands upon thousands of tax dollars will be spent prosecuting a case where the arrangements were dubious from the start.
Danny Vice
The Weekly Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
Post a Comment