Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Video: Calif. mom faces sex charges

42-year-old Christine Hubbs is accused of having sex with boys who were barely teenagers when the activities started in 2008. She's being held on more than $4 million bail.

By Washington Post Editors  |  August 10, 2010; 2:09 PM ET
Categories:  Around the Nation , Sex Crimes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: 40 years for Pr. George's robber
Next: Life without parole for Md. woman

Comments

67 underage sex charges? she's just another victim of bieber fever.

Posted by: steampunk | August 10, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Why couldn't I have had a neighbor lady like that when I was a kid.

Posted by: JadedCynic | August 10, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

My name is Sam Ferris, I'm a registered sex offender (consentual sex with a 15 and 17 year old in 1984). My bail wasn't even $15,000.... got 3 months in jail for 6 or so charges. I challenged the laws but lost. http://openjurist.org/891/f2d/715. More info about me at samdeathwalker.com.

Lets see the "poor victims", both 13 or 14, were victimized by her once; then they went back to her again for more sex and more money, then went back again for more sex (and some oral copulation) and more money, and then went back again and again, like 30 times each....

The victim here is the taxpayer. In San Jose, police officers earn well over 4 million dollars of taxpayer money over a 30 year career and 90 percent pension (one guy got ½ million in unused vacation pay). Basically everyone involved in this prosecution is going to make millions from you and me. We need to focus our money on cases where the victim is actually a victim and not cases like this where there is no harm whatsoever.

The law is wrong

What have so much extra money that we want to work to pay more taxes to arrest and send people to prison who are doing no harm to anyone? The 13 year olds have a right to have sex with whomever they choose and not to have law enforcement or you or me put a gun to their head and tell them who they can or can't have sex with.

If we all don't have the right to do as we please when we harm no one else then what rights do we have?

As to violence lets see what law enforcement does to the 13 year olds if they change their story or refuse to testify.

The bottem line is that although the state has a compelling interest to protect minors from HARM the state has no compelling interest to protect minors from BENIFIT.

Posted by: Samdeathwalkerdotcom | August 10, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Hey Sam - can't get a date with someone your age? ='(

Posted by: steampunk | August 12, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Im 56 and have no plans to marry.

What would be the advantage of me dating a 56 year old?

On the other hand 18 is more then young enough for me at my age so I have no intention of violating the current law, even though it wrong. Most of the females I am with are in their mid 20's now days. Go to the very bottom of my web site.

http://samdeathwalker.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22

Posted by: Samdeathwalkerdotcom | August 12, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company