Ix, Bonanza....Usually I'd be right there with you guys...but Honestly I don't think gender had anything to do with this one.

It the point of her going out of control? So? I'm male and I get road rage. Stupid drivers annoy me, and honestly if I was older and had a more stable income, and if my insurance was better, I would more than likely just hit people that I thought were stupid.

And I don't think her being male or female had anything to do with her sentencing....If you mean to imply that a man would have gotten a heavier sentence I think you're wrong...But hey, that's just my opinion.

Bo. A jury is there to interpret the law. That's how they decide guilt. While that might not be what it sounds like, I assure that's what it actually is. A jury has the free will to interpret a law based on the facts they recieved during the trial. They can also pass down a recommended sentence. While you are correct that it is hard to dispute a minimum sentence attached to a law, the jury, if they felt strongly, could have ignored that charged and merely recommended a sentence for the charge of reckless driving or assault. Therefore, the defendant could have still been conficted and sentenced, however, the sentence would not have been so outrageous and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Thus my beif with the judicial system as a whole.

Their hands were not tied. They could easily have chosen to ignore one sentence and target another. It happens all the time. And the legal obligation of a jury is convict on the grounds of crime and punishment. That's why a jury gives recommended sentences. The jury in this case chose to convict her for 2 years, either because they thought she deserved, wanted to be malicious, or were simply to stupid to realise that they had other options.

If they could have recommended a different sentence then I am in complete agreement with you. Rather than it being that thery were to stupid to realize other options, isn't this up too the defense attorney and judge to inform them? Also do they all have to agree? I find it hard to imagine that none of the jury would feel the way EVERYONE else does about this case.

Alas, that is the point of the jury. Unanimous must the vote be, young one. However, I assure you that if they are serving on a jury they know exactly what they are in legal right to do.

And I assure you that the defense attorney more than likely argued his best in a case like this, which should have honestly been considered a joke. IMHO, the judge should have immediatly passed his own ruling and then dismissed the case.

This isn't the first time a case like this has come up. It's just the first time anyone has been stupid enough to give real jailtime to it.

I found a picture of the convicted mom.

Update, guys.

I'm actually slightly shocked that she got off that easy. Not that I'm saying that she desirves worse... actually, probation sounds about right. But what shocked me is that the judicial system didn't screw her over.