twitter facebook stumble upon rss

Life in Prison for Woman Who Forced Boy to Fondle Her

sign up for the momlogic newsletter Tweet This

If there's one thing we all can agree on, it's that child molestation is a despicable act. In Nevada, engaging in any kind of lewd behavior with a minor could get you thrown in jail ... for life.

michelle lyn taylor

Michelle Lyn Taylor, 34, was sentenced to life in prison by a Nevada judge, even though her defense attorney argued, "This is cruel and unusual punishment. She put his hand on her boob while she was wearing a bra ... now she's getting life?!" 

Taylor was convicted of forcing an underage boy to fondle her breast while she was under the influence of alcohol back in November. The sentence is said to be the harshest ever given to a female sex offender in the state of Nevada.

What do you think? Does the punishment fit the crime?


next: When Did Your Child First Tell a Lie?
88 comments so far | Post a comment now
bwsf April 28, 2010, 4:50 PM

IDK, seems a touch harsh, though I am not that child’s parents. Maybe she is a repeat offender?

Lori Bishop April 28, 2010, 5:23 PM

About time!!! Maybe if a state takes a stand against predators other states will follow.

Anon April 28, 2010, 5:32 PM

but he just touched her boob!

Lori Bishop April 28, 2010, 5:46 PM

Yea, a boob this time, but who’s to say that if she got away with it now what she would try later, or maybe what she has gotten away with and the kids haven’t come foward. That shows she is sick. What woman wants a child to touch her?

Bekah April 28, 2010, 8:12 PM

FINALLY! I AGREE because these sick people might really think next time they want to mess up another childs life! GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i wish it was like this in EVERY STATE!

SassyScorpio73 April 28, 2010, 10:04 PM

It may be harsh, but it’s time a message was sent. She acted in the same as male sex offenders even though the actual act wasn’t the worst thing she could have done. It’s still disgusting and WRONG. If she did that to my 13 yr old boy I would SLIT HER THROAT and save the taxpayers a whole lot of $!

Anna April 28, 2010, 11:22 PM

her lawyer sucks, the crocodile tears are probably the only reason why any firm would hire her. Woman who cry like that are clearly only being manipulative, anyone with half a brain could see that - seriously they did not even look like real tears. She should also take some community college classes on public speaking… she lost her place numerious times and the rest of it was a combination of mumbling and stuttering.

Elliott E April 29, 2010, 1:29 AM

Wish it was like this in Arizona. There’s a statewide epidemic of paedophilia. What does a paedophile get? Maybe a few years PROBATION. Not even one day in jail/prison! Well, that’s what happened to the last people they caught. One was a female (lesbian) school faculty member. No Deterrent here!

Elliott E April 29, 2010, 1:39 AM

Wish they had some kind of deterrent here in Arizona. There seems to be a statewise epidemic.

The last two sentenced received not even one day jail/prison. All they both got was Probation!!

As in this instance, one case included a female (Lesbian.) She was on faculty at a local school; a sports coach.

Our school systems don’t seem to be vetting paedophiles as readily as they could. They should enforce tough background checks.

Another most recent paedophile’s trial is not even announced. Where, when, etc.?

There seems to be a culture of acceptance of these kinds of acts here.

Media sadly calls these incidents “affairs or relationships” rather than the crimes that they are.

diana April 29, 2010, 1:46 AM

so drunk drivers that kill people, or repeat sexual offenders raping minors don’t get life - but she does?

Lyndsay April 29, 2010, 10:52 AM

I don’t think we probably have the full story here… BUT, that doesn’t make it right. What about the rapists and child molesters out there, though, who only get 5-10 years in prison? Don’t you think this is a bit backwards?

ohioborn April 29, 2010, 11:12 AM

It is unreasonable that she should get life, it was a 13 year old boy, through her shirt and bra. If a man had a girl touch his chest through his shirt their wouldn’t even be a case/issue. For there to be only 1 option of sentencing is ridiculous, 6 months jail time max just to teach her a lesson not to force anyone to do something like that.

Nancy April 29, 2010, 12:07 PM

Okay it’s just a breast under a bra. What’s to say it doesn’t esculate to more next time. Usually it starts simple and then becomes more complex and more often. AND THERE YOU HAVE IT A SEX OFFENDER IS BORN!

Mike April 29, 2010, 12:54 PM

I am rather frightened by the several people who have posted something akin to, “it was only a bra this time, but what if she does more in the future?”

This is the United States of America, people. We don’t convict people of crimes they’ve not committed. Locking her up for life because she -might- do something worse in the future…are you kidding me? Are you for convicting a drinker for murder, because you think that another time in the future he might get in a car and kill someone? Are you for convicting a shoplifter for grand larceny because she might in the future decide to rob a bank?

Please…have some sense. Yes, what she did was wrong, but our justice system is intended to have the punishment fit the crime. Yes, she deserves to be convicted, and probably to spend a bit of time behind bars in order to learn it was wrong. Yes, a signal should be sent that the state takes this seriously. And yes, those who do REAL harm, by raping kids, should be locked up for a good, long time. But a life sentence for a silly woman doesn’t make up for light sentences in previous, more weighty cases—that is not fair and not proper. This sentence is ridiculous and a distraction, and furthermore will probably cause the law in Nevada to be struck down.

Please—be angry about pedophiles, be angry about light sentences. But don’t misdirect that anger, or you do more harm than good.

Richard B April 29, 2010, 1:46 PM

If she was better looking she could have charged money instead of being in jail. I think it’s discrimination against ugly people.

Lori Bishop April 29, 2010, 3:37 PM

Mike, I do see your point, but the problem is how often do we see on the news that such and such little girl could have been saved if the child rapist wasn’t released. It is a catch 22. I say they shouldn’t be given the chance to do it again. Once you do something to an innocent child it should be automatic life. Same thing for rapists. I know prisons are full already but what about putting everyone who sexually abuses someone else on an island (I am sure plenty of people would donate to the cause) and have them maintain life. Growing their own food etc. Or even a mental institution where they have to earn their money (working in fields or some form of hard labor). They shouldn’t be reintroduced to society. Your saying she may not do it again, and she may not, but would you allow your son to go over to her house? If you were her neighbor and saw a teen walking into her house would you not wonder?

stacie April 29, 2010, 4:21 PM

If it had been a male grabbing a girls hand and putting it on the outside of his pants to touch his private part everyone would be happy if he got life. This is no different.

Lothar April 29, 2010, 9:16 PM

Dear Lori Bishop,

Thank you for reminding me why I hate the Internet, and why I pray before Almighty God that no one’s “arguments” on it are taken seriously by any public official. Especially yours, because I would really rather not live in The People’s Shiny Police State of Soccer-Momia.

Regards,

Lothar

Mike April 29, 2010, 10:53 PM

Sorry, Lori, I don’t think you get my point.

My point is that we live in a society with laws, and those laws are intended to be reasonable ones, sensibly applied. In this case, the law is absurd, and its application was absurd. The judge himself essentially said so: he was mystified why the state had charged her under a law that forced him to sentence her to life, instead of something more reasonable that fit the “crime.”

And setting that aside, are you kidding me? You think this 13 year old boy was damaged by having his hand touch a bra? No, sorry, Lori…a boy touching a bra is NOT up there with a priest having oral sex with an altar boy. It is NOT up there with a girl kidnapped and raped in a van. It was a silly moment in which a drunk woman got carried away, that’s it. The boy wasn’t hurt, wasn’t damaged, wasn’t threatened. I’d much rather see the law thrown at a drunk woman who drives, than at a drunk woman who tries to get sexy with a teenager.

Mark Trail April 30, 2010, 5:26 AM

How about a special island for people who haven’t read the Constitution and are too ignorant of (or disrepectful of) the American justice system to function as citizens? They could grow their own food, form their own bizarre system of government, banish people to other islands if they seem likely of committing crimes in the future…. ;-)


Back to top >>
advertisement