Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Mar 26, 2011
It is a shame that she only gets 5 years, when people who have committed far less serious offenses served more time. It also is a shame that so many of the charges were dropped. Let's see how much time she will actually serve. Our judicial system is so arbitrary .
Completely agree, Lisa.
Follwed this a little bit; I think 5 years is to harsh, these were teenaged boys and not girls like the situation with the Livermore soccer coach. I hope she gets the treatment she needs. It is actually very sad.
I agree with Lisa. It's a shame to say this, but if this was a male he would have got a much harsher sentence and no one would feel remorse. Why is it when a female does it,everyone thinks "O poor her. She just needs help"? And personally, I think her husband is just as nuts for staying married to her.
"I agree with Lisa. It's a shame to say this, but if this was a male he would have got a much harsher sentence and no one would feel remorse. "
Are you sure? The guy who kidnapped the Dugart girl had been convicted of kidnap and forcible rape and got only 18 months in jail, then got out and kidnapped the little girl, whom he raped and abused for years.
This woman, although she did something horrible, did not commit forcible, violent rape as the guy who kidnapped Dugart and yet she is getting a tougher sentence.
All sexual predators, whether female or male, should get tougher sentences. Right now, the legal system we have in place protects the rights of the abusers and ignores the victims.
Just look at the number of sex offenders we have living in Pleasanton, they are free to roam around and can hang around children, and the police won't do anything because they are already done with their "punishment."
The punishment is a lifetime of shame, embarrassment and anger for the entire family.
5 years and she won't serve that. If her husband had sex with teenage girls of the same age as his wife's victims (4 years old), he'd have gotten 2-3 times the sentence (10-15 years).
There is definitely a disparity in how male and female sex offenders are treated.
That said, I think five years is an appropriate sentence under the circumstance; Mrs. Hubbs ought to be given a chance to rehabilitate herself, and a 10-15 year prison sentence is pure punishment, with no chance of rehabilitation. This was a case of statutory, rather than forcible, rape, but rape nonetheless.
This case does bring up a troubling aspect of our society: If a 42 year old man (one that was handsome and in good shape, let's say, a George Clooney lookalike) had sex with two 14 year old girls who were friends of his daughter, we wouldn't read comments about how "lucky" the girls were to have had sex with this older "stud".
Yet in the Hubbs case, I've read many comments about how "lucky" the boys were to have lost their virginity to a hot "cougar".
Why the difference in attitudes? There should be none. In both cases, it's clearly wrong, an adult having sex with a minor who cannot consent.
I do feel sorry for Mrs. Hubbs' husband and children as well as for the two boys she victimized. This must be a very difficult time for them.
"Why the difference in attitudes? There should be none. In both cases, it's clearly wrong, an adult having sex with a minor who cannot consent."
I agree there should be no difference, since they are both wrong. This Livermore mom should have received a tougher sentence. But a male has the ability to rape (forcibly) a girl, whereas a woman would commit statutory rape (but not of a violent nature). That is why we probably, as a society, tend to condemn men more than women. I don't agree with either scenario (woman with boy, man with girl), but I think that a man raping a girl (forcibly) is much worse than the crime committed by this Livermore mom.
Justice has been served. It's time to moveon.com
Nothing here...who cares, just a over sexed soccer mom who made a bad choice, I doubt the kids are scarred for life.
I was at the courthouse one day when I saw attorney Michael Cardoza walk by and so I followed into the court room to see who had hired him (he's expensive). He was defending Christine Hubbs and I noticed very few, if any, supporters or family were there. Mrs. Hubbs looked sad, worn, and tired, and ultimately is paying a very high price for this crime. Her husband must have paid a fortune to have Michael Cardoza defend her and obtain this light sentencing. It is a very sad case for both the Hubbs' children, family, and for the victims and their families. She received a light sentence because she was able to hire an excellent defense attorney. The legal system, like life, is not fair.
No chance that the boys would get pregnant.
And if the Anti Abortion people have their way, girls could be forced bear and raise the unwanted children.
It's interesting; when I saw her in court, she was smiling, well made up and looked totally unrepentant. Maybe she got some advice about how to behave for sentencing.
The state water board missed the mark
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 612 views
By Roz Rogoff | 5 comments | 439 views
Home & Real Estate
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
© 2017 Pleasanton Weekly
All rights reserved.