(Orange County, California) Following up on previous reports (here and here), former teacher and prominent child molester, Sarah Bench-Salorio (photos), was sentenced to six years in prison after pleading guilty to 29 counts of lewd conduct with three schoolboys.

From NBC4.tv:

In pronouncing sentence, Orange County Superior Court Judge Richard Toohey said Sarah Bench-Salorio, 29, had violated the trust parents put in teachers.

"One thing the court cannot escape as it relates to this matter ... is it involved the violation of trust ... the defendant being a teacher in the school system," Toohey said.

The judge said parents "expect there will be appropriate conduct" when they put their children in school.

"I realize there is no excuse for what I did," Bench-Salorio said Friday.

Bench-Salorio, an English teacher, entered her guilty plea Sept. 28 and could have been sentenced to a term between three and six years. She would have faced up to 64 years in prison had she gone to trial, defense attorney Allan Stokke said.

According to evidence at a hearing, Bench-Salorio molested three boys ranging in age from 12 to 14.

We must also remember that one boy "estimated the number of times he and his teacher had sex by the condoms in a box that he went through -- 22 of them, he said -- and added that sometimes no condom was used." Bench-Salorio experienced no momentary lapse of judgment. She was engaged in the seduction and long-term, serial sexual molestation of children. The victims' parents called her a "pedophile and sexual predator." I agree.

Given all the circumstances, is six years reasonable punishment? I don't think so. Not even close. Bench-Salorio should be looking at double or triple that amount or more.

Nonetheless, her attorney, Allan Stokke is planning on wheelbarrowing a buttload of boo-hoos on the judge to get her sentence reduced. He'll say the married mother of three foster children is bipolar and suffers from depression and he will present doctor's reports and "all kinds of information" from "various people to show her absolutely excellent background."

What happens next is anyone's guess. Will the judge reduce the sentence? Maybe. It's a California judge in a California court.

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 06:58 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Could you imagine what sentence I, a 40-something male teacher, would get if I did something like this with female students? Or male students, for that matter.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at January 08, 2006 10:38 PM (iy7Eg)

2 Hmmn. I think it's very interesting that you haven't heard anything in the media from the boys involved. I wonder if they feel victimized, or if this was consensual. If they feel no harm, and they do not feel victimized, six years is far too harsh a sentence. J

Posted by: Jordan at January 08, 2006 10:55 PM (kTN4S)

3 Jordan, by law an underage child cannot be "consensual". Feeling "no harm" or not "feeling victimized" has no merit on child rape.

Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at January 09, 2006 05:57 AM (maXzk)

4 Sara made mistakes in her life, and we cannot let it go unpunished. Does she deserve 6 years NO. She needs to be sentenced to a program where she can get the help she needs. I think it runs far deeper then we will ever know. Maybee look to her parents, and what happend to her as a child. Who can ever tell, but Sara is a good person, and has done 2 year almost in OCJ, I think she should be in a program where she can get the help she deserves, instead of set to prison where she will learn nothing, and have no responsability for her actions, in prison you only lose time, and DONOT get the help that as a human being you should recieve.

Posted by: PC OCJ 01 at January 09, 2006 03:13 PM (D+Me0)

5 Yes, "BY LAW" no minor may be consensual. I think that's pretty stupid. What exactly happens.. .what epiphany occurs on your 18th birthday? I know there's no easy answer to this (and I'm playing devil's advocate a bit , but I think that it's somewhat silly to arbitrarily set an age. I just think it's interesting that the world is drawn to these "newsporn" stories... but we never get to hear from the "victim". I think it's because we want to impose an innocence on them that may or may not be there. And we're afraid to hear the truth. J

Posted by: Jordan at January 09, 2006 11:48 PM (kTN4S)

6 I think she just went into the wrong line of work.

Posted by: Cindy at February 23, 2006 11:32 AM (sMpRz)

7 No matter what anyone thinks, the boys were victims. They were underage and the teacher is in a position of authority over them. You might consider now what are parents or society to think if our morals and values are no longer upheld or respected. It's a shame that our society has anyone who pursues children to satisfy their deviant sexual behavior. What puzzles me is how many view a female predator differently from a male one. This woman got 6 years because she should have known better first of all, and secondly she was an authority figure. She is NOT a victim herself. I agree she may have underlying conditions which lead to her deviant behavior, but it was also her responsibility to seek help when she first realized her thoughts towards the young boys was more than acceptable friendly. We can't feel more sorry for her because she is female. A male or female should be given the same punishment for the same crime. I see some have also questioned why 18 year old is the age that society has chosen to use as the magic age children become adults. This was the most logical age based on mental development of MOST, not all. Maybe it's not the best age to choose, but society needs to set an age for many legal reasons. Some states say as young as 16. But, in order to give children the best chance at being ready to face lives in society as adults that line the sand is drawn at 18 years old as being the age an child is mentally capable of making a reasonable, educated decision for themselves. Consider just how ready is a 14 year old to make a decision that will affect them long term like having a child ??? I think most of us when we're young understand that what we thought we knew at that age.. when we got older we understood things in a different light. So, yes, those boys were victims and they may not realize it until later in life. The fact that the one boy told her parents of the incident says something to that effect. Nobody forced him to talk. Just my 2 cents worth. She got what she deserved...and it probably should be been more considering it was 3 boys.

Posted by: Bob at March 16, 2006 12:45 PM (zz9te)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

(London) Authorities have initiated an investigation into an alleged sex-for-visas scam by British immigration officials.

From Sky.com:

A former worker at an immigration centre in Croydon told The Sun that women were allowed to stay in the UK in return for sex.

Anthony Pamnani, 23, said he quit after four years in disgust at the goings-on.

He said "ugly" applicants were often made to queue for hours while those considered good-looking would be seen straight away.

The whistleblower also told the paper that vital security checks on immigrants were not carried out.

It will be interesting to see how the British public reacts if it's found that people are discriminated against because they're ugly.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 11:37 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.