A former bus driver convicted of molestation in my current city of residence is now free on bond for a short time. Her lawyer convinced a judge that a technical error during her sentencing was important enough to void the sentence. The judge was forced to agree, and has scheduled the offender, Nancy Smith, for re-sentencing. Until the re-sentencing, she has been released on bond.

Newspaper article.

Curiously, the printed edition of that newspaper has this article as today's front-page story, with the words "FREE ON BOND" in an abnormally-large font typically reserved for the most momentous of stories.

Read the article. Bear in mind it wasn't the conviction that was voided, just the sentencing. She is, and will remain, a convicted sex offender. However, during the re-sentencing, if the judge decides to impose a sentence of fifteen years or less, Nancy Smith will no longer be incarcerated, since she has already served 15 years of a 30-to-90-year sentence. That is what he lawyer refers to as a "ray of hope". If the judge issues a new sentence of more than 15 years, of course she will return to prison to finish the term.

In any case, there's a snippet in this article that really bothers me - should bother anyone, really. See if you can find it.

There are two things in the article that bother me:

1) The downplay that the gal is a threat, whereas in my mind she IS a threat to children...

2) But more importantly, the author reports the children as "allegedly abused," as if the author is attempting to discredit the claims of those hurt by this perp.

That's it, exactly. Nancy was convicted of the crimes; there is no more "alleged". It is public record.