Um...her rack ain't all that.
If that's "all that" to you, you needa get out more.....

With that I agree. I am assuming she used protection. If she didn't, and was willing to risk pregnancy and his premature fatherhood, she deserves no sympathy.

Abuse of authority is a separate issue. He may have thought he was obliged to bone her because she was a teacher. Arguably that is wrong, as it constitutes manipulation, misrepresentation, deception, etc. It may also have given him a misguided sense of authority, leading him to bone future bosses, superiors, etc. Emotionally he may now have formed the opinion that all women are domineering, conniving and out for what they can get. What better introduction to the real world? Most people never face up to this reality, believing their whole lives in a fairytale existence of white weddings and perfect love. I may not have a 14 year old son but I know enough about life to know it is nothing like the storybooks you get in school or the ubiquitous pink-filtered romantic comedies. Thanks to her he has been given a true picture of sexuality that is not all about love, respect or reciprocity, but is founded on power struggles, inequality and perversion. Sorry if that doesn't fit the view of the world you wish you could give your children, but hey, that's life. The sooner they learn, the better. Then maybe they can do something about it.

So everyone should be subject to the same rules, regardless of motivation, mental capacity, environment? Don't do the crime if you don't want the time? The law is a secular set of commandments and if you break one you receive your 'just' punishment? I assume you agree with all this.

If an action could be viewed in isolation from circumstance, I would concur.

But realistically, it can't. To answer lookout's question, if we were both driving at 25 over the speed limit, but you had just robbed a bank and I was rushing my contracting sister to hospital, should we both receive the same punishment? Should I be punished at all? On the surface, our actions look the same. Our motivations, however, are vastly different. Isn't this what should be 'punished'? Isn't this what the law should exist for? You might argue that taken to its natural conclusion this constitutes 'thought police' and is largely immeasurable. Maybe. But surely this is preferable to a backward, limited and often completely WRONG legal system that offers nothing in the way of prevention (other than deterrent, which of course is ineffective else why all the crime?). Painting every person and every crime with the same colour is equally if not more dangerous than exonerating individuals because of irrelevant differences (the what they had for breakfast bit, radar). No one seems willing to take the time to understand the root of crime (and I don't mean the part-time pot-smoking criminology students) in order to eliminate it once and for all. So, sorry if that's idealistic. Sorry if it means you might have to think.

said with no hostility, just want to make a point

Catwoman's original argument that raised my ire was based upon whether the “victim” enjoyed it or not. We shouldn't be determining the severity of the crime based upon the pleasure provided to the victim. What if she supplied heroin or taught him how to shoplift? Based upon this argument, the defense would only need to prove the level of enjoyment provided to the victim.

“I'm sorry I raped and beat her into a coma your honor. It was an S&M deal that went bad. For the record, she begged me to do it.”

All the jokes aside about boys being lead about by their dicks, does this provide an open season license on boys? Who should pay for the children that will get fostered from these unions? Should we take the crime more seriously if she didn't model bikinis? Who would be responsible if a disease was transmitted? Who should pay for future therapy? If the child is financially incapable, should the child's parents foot the bill? As a parent it would be cheaper to hire a prostitute periodically than worry about 18 years of possible payments for each infraction.

Much discussion was directed at man-on-girl or woman-on-boy situations. So OK... what if the child was uncertain as to their sexual orientation at the time of the incident? Can they come back with charges at a later date if they determine their unknown orientation identity was used against them?

Parents would be negligent if they allowed their children to enter into activities that might prove harmful. While sex in itself is not physically harmful, many other problems could occur. Pregnancy at first does not appear to be a significant risk for boys. However, it does exact a toll on their future both emotionally and financially. Without fully knowing the consequences, he could risk his opportunity to enter college, find a good job, buy a home, or even meet a future spouse. Children live in the moment and it's our job as their parents to look at the broader scope.

Girls do have the additional risk of pregnancy. What if the teacher took it upon himself to get a documented vasectomy? Would that be OK for him to prey on girls in the classroom? What if it was for love?

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/9001405.htm?1c

It's important to note that the accused willingly admitted she committed the action in defiance of the law. It should not matter the crime, this behavior cannot be tolerated. For the most part, laws were designed to offer protection to the people. We must respect the laws in place or work to change the laws that fail.

Finally, Catwoman...

... wouldn't this be a useful lesson for girls too? Why should we throw the book any harder at adult men that commit this crime?

The truth is that children are not legally competent to make these decisions. Until these laws are changed, and I don't believe they should be, she should be measured under the same laws with the same penalties, as anyone who may have committed the same crime, regardless of the genders involved.

Any chance we could talk you into staying away from guys for awhile? :eek: Sexuality while biologically driven is what you make of it. You can choose relationships based on whatever values you want, but a 14 year old boy is not prepared for that choice.

I'm glad someone else brought it up first, but I do think it germane that Catwoman has a rather, er, unique set of values when it comes to acceptable and appropriate sexual behavior. I'd like to think that most of my peers and members of my community do not share her view on the dog-eat-dog world of human sexuality or her flexible views on morality and justice.

Catwoman, your very own response to lookout's hypothetical '25-MPH-over-the-speed-limit' case shows that you haven't really read or thought about Radar's point about equal protection. What he and I are saying is YES, in ANY instance, the speeder should be stopped. It is not at the time of the violation of the law that all the moral relativism should come into play, but after the accused is actually found guilty. Should a traffic cop have to predict if a speeder is on an altruistic mission? Based on what? That you're driving a minivan with kiddie seats in the back? While the bank robber is in some beat up piece of shit, with ink-stained dollar bills flying out the window?

Sorry, both of you should be stopped. You are both operating outside the acceptable practice of your community, as dictated by statute, and nothing less than our constitution requires that the cop stop you both*. You've got some good explanation that mitigates your guilt? Tell it to the judge. I hope she's locked up, stripped of her teaching credentials and required to do copious and meaningful community service, in addition to paying appropriate restitution to the kid, just as I would wish for a male teacher who had done this with a female student.

*or, as is too often the case, stop neither of you.

Why not? You are eliminating the notion of choice. At 13, I was presented with the opportunity to use heroin (and other hard drugs). I chose not to. Now, should the dealer who offered me heroin have been punished? What if I had taken it, ended up a crack recluse on social security, pregnant by some pimp and a drain on society? That simple choice could have changed my life. But at 13, I still made it. Rational, capable, objective. Your argument suggests that he should be punished merely for offering it to me, because I was incapable of that choice.

If you argue that the dealer should be punished regardless of my action, you automatically deny the existence of choice, and must surely then be willing to write off every crime as a product of circumstance, beyond the individual's control. If you believe he should only have been punished if I had taken it, you agree that a crime is proportional to the victims experience or 'pleasure' as you term it, ie. he should get a lighter sentence if I didnt take it, because it had no long term effects, and a heavier sentence if I end up as the recluse. Either way, that is a massive contradiction.

I also had a couple of friends who shoplifted. I tried it a couple of times, discovered it didn't make me feel good, and stopped. Should my friends who influenced me to shoplift be held responsible? I don't think so. If I can exercise choice as a peer-pressured, hormonal 13 year old then anyone can. There's nothing special about me. We are all responsible for our own actions.

This is a debate about justice, a concept largely founded on retaliation, not resolution. All I am asking you to do is question this paradigm. I'm not saying I agree either way. Too often in a discussion like this it is assumed that an argument is a personal opinion. I can assure you my argument here is devoid of personal feeling, I am merely suggesting an alternative. 99 I think your judgement may be slightly clouded by the fact you have a 14 year old boy and quite understandably any images are going to be related back to how you would feel if it was your little boy.

I am only sorry that you consider my argument little more than an emotional reaction. It has nothing to do with my current situation (which, btw, is more or less resolved, and genuine thanks to you especially 99 for helping me through that one :) ).

It's not that I want to think of the world in these terms. Come on 99, you're a parent. You're older than me. One could argue by that merit you know a hell of a lot more about the way the world works than I do. Surely you recognise society and sexuality in particular is not always moral and righteous, and that justice is not always fair? Have you never been subject to a disfunctional relationship or been involved in a grossly 'unfair' situation? Why give a child the impression that this doesn't happen? Is it not better to equip them for failure by making them strong rather than bubble-wrap their childhood so they bruise at the slightest adult knock? The most well-formed, competent people I know have experienced some kind of turbulence in childhood or young adulthood, and I am of the opinion that this helps them develop, and doesn't automatically 'scar' them - indeed, it is the reaction to adversity that maketh the man, so to speak.

Yes it would be a useful lesson for girls, and one that many do learn. We should throw the proverbial book harder at a man for the following reasons:

1. A man can physically overpower a women;
2. A man can force sex (the woman doesn't need to get a hard-on first);
3. A man can get a woman pregnant then bugger off.

All of the above are not transferable to women, which is why a man should receive a more severe punishment.

99, with regard to the speeding analogy, I agree that the act of speeding should be taken as a symbol of a crime (given our current accepted judicial code) and motive should be looked at afterwards. But punishment, surely, should not be reparation for benevolent motive? Isn't this incredibly primal? 'You stole my car to save a man's life - you should be tried for theft?' For god's sake, where is your humility, morality?

Now this I agree with. The abuse of authority, as I mentioned earlier, is separate. She should be reprimanded for that. The act of having sex with a willing partner, however, is not a crime. The fact that she did it because it was illegal says more about her sexual preferences than anything malevolent, and the fact still stands that if the lad wasn't willing, he certainly wouldn't have been 'up' for it, if you know what I mean. I think the largest disparity in this debate is at what age a child is capable of exerting rational choice. I would argue that 13/14 is probably about the cut off mark, and I can assure you having spoken to many male friends about this that there are lots of things 14 year old boys don't tell their mothers. I wouldn't assume he is emotionally or sexually undeveloped just because you see no evidence.

edited for quote marks

"1. A man can physically overpower a women;
2. A man can force sex (the woman doesn't need to get a hard-on first);
3. A man can get a woman pregnant then bugger off.

All of the above are not transferable to women, which is why a man should receive a more severe punishment."

Catwoman,
Doesn't this go back to the whole thing you're talking about in terms of choice? Correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but from the tone of the rest of the post, it seems that man should be more severely punished because of what he's capable of and not necessarily because of what he chose to do, like the person who offered you herion.

Besides, not all physical rape is man on woman. There are male rape victims as well. In those cases, because the above list isn't completely transferable to women, should the women get off lighter because they forced/coerced a man to have sex with them?

Oh this is getting tiring. My fundamental arguments are:

1. There are intrinsic differences between men and women that the law should reflect;

2. Punishment should be determined by motive, not a 'one-size-fits-all' philosophy.

If a women forces a man to have sex with her against his will she should receive the same punishment as a man who does the same. All I'm saying is it would be a lot harder for a woman to force a man in this way, for the reasons mentioned in my last post. Coercion is different, and should be treated differently by the law.

I apologise if I am not being coherent. Does this make it clearer?

No amount of rationalization will make it any more or less of a crime for a 30 year old woman to have sex with a 14 year old boy or a 30 year old man to have sex with a 14 year old girl.

Whether or not one person is strong enough to force themselves onto the other is irrelevant since we're talking about both parties being willing, and this being statuatory rape which is merely having sex with those who are too young to give their consent because they are not prepared for such decisions.

All attempts to mention pregnancy, the strength of the person, or the gender of the person are irrelevant.

It is no more and no less a crime when a man does it or a woman. They are equally offensive, and should be punished equally under the law.

NOTHING will change that.

If I were you, radar, I would read your post, ignore it, and repeat my own. But I can't be bothered to cut and paste it so just read it again will you.

I've read all of your posts and they're all ignorant ramblings trying to rationalize giving a more severe punishment to a man who commits the same crime as a woman. None of them holds any merit.

A man cannot commit the same crime as a woman. No two people can commit the same crime. No crime stands alone, separate from circumstance. An action on its own is just an action. It is motive and situation that determines whether or not it is a crime. If you kill a man at war it is not a crime. If you kill him for money it is. It's really not that complicated.

Yah, I understand what you're saying on the whole. It's just bits and details of what you're saying that doesn't mesh well, in my mind at least.

For example, in #2, about how punishment should be determined by motive...I don't see where the enjoyment factor of the victim comes in. Her motive was to find sexual satisfaction and break the law doing it. That is what her punishment should be based on, whether or not the boy couldn't keep clean sheets at night thinking of her or made a vow to go homo- or asexual for the rest of his life. I can see where the boy's reactions could determine the severity of the punishment, but I don't see how it has anything to do with the punishment determination. There's two basic steps from first court appearance to being locked away: 1) guilt determination in court, where we try and find out if the person really did it or not and, if guilty, punishment is recommended for that crime 2) sentencing, where we try and find out how accountable this person is, based on why they did it, victim's pain and suffering, their net gain for everything, so on. For example, to wit: What she did comes with the price of having a scarlet A slapped on her. The reason she risked that A and how the boy is doing afterwards determines how large and bright should that A be.

That's how I see it, that's the part of your argument I don't quite get. If all I did with all them words up there is restate what you meant, then never mind! :D

Catwoman, I gotta disagree with you again. Motive should not be a factor in determining guilt and punishment. To bring the state of mind of the aggressor into the equation requires the creation of "thought police" whose job it is to get into your head and know what you were thinking at the time. The same rationale applies to so-called hate crimes. Enjoyment of the sexual assault should not be a factor. Just as whether or not I was motivated by hate when I beat up some gangbanger punk, or if it was simple opportunity. Should I get a lesser punishment if I was simply in it for the thrill of violence, rather than an innate dislike of gangbangers? No. Assault is assault and unless mitigated by self-defense, should be punished as the law directs, without regards to what I may or may not have had in mind.

Going back to the original topic, what the teacher was thinking at the time isn't a factor...she sexually assaulted a child, his alleged willingness notwithstanding, and should be punished no more or less than a man who commits the same crime. The fact that she acknowledged that she was breaking the law beforehand only underscores the fact that she knew it was wrong to do and did it anyway.

She needs to be imprisoned and branded a sex offender just like a man would have been in that same situation.

In my opinion.

Brian

Brian I understand your point. Cyber I understand your confusion. I would like to try and explain my reasoning in more detail.

My difficulty with the justice system is that it treats the symptom not the cause. It sees a crime and imposes a suitable punishment. A punishment to fit the crime, not the cause of the crime. It's like taking a headache pill. The more severe the headache, the stronger the pill, or the more pills you take. It will make the headache go away. But it won't stop it coming back.

If the headache has been caused by dehydration, you should drink. If it has been caused by tension, learn to relax more, or get a massage. If it has been caused by a tumour, a more involved method of treatment will be required that could take years.

Treating every similar crime the same is like prescribing varying quantities and strengths of pills for every kind of headache. Sometimes a pill just isn't the answer. In fact, it almost never is.

Motivation is the single most important factor of law. If we remove the 'why' we remove any chance of redemption, or change. I do not advocate criminality, but I do feel very strongly that attempting to segment crime into easily manageable chunks defeats the object of any kind of treatment, if that is what it is. If we truly wanted to respond to crime, to reduce it, to prevent it, our justice system would not be based on revenge and retaliation. Does no one agree that this is in no way constructive?

Cyber, to address your point, I think the boy's willingness to hop on automatically reduces the crime from rape to a technicality with regard to his age, and I am merely questioning that technicality. Again, this is not necessarily my personal opinion. I'm sure I would feel differently if like 99 I had a son myself.