teacher boffing student agian

[xoxoxoBruce]

Damn twotimer.

[lookout123]

oh - you are talking about the other teacher - i missed the subject change, sorry.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by blue
She looks better in the mugshots actually, but hey did I or did I not mention her great rack?

And y'all just ignored me.

Is there any way we could sign up for adult education classes? What subject did she teach, anyway?

[Beestie]

Here are some pics (including one with her husband). Rich, liker of wild women, will thank me later

Debra Beasley Lafave

[cowhead]

hmmm... one thing, I lost my virginity to an older woman (when I was 14. long story) and well.. it kinda put me off the whole sex thing for a while.. mentally and emotionally.. of course being 14 physically it was a whole 'nother ball game (no pun intended)..

the main question I have.. why a 14year old? I mean she's an attractive woman and all, I'm sure there would have been no shortage of men willing to uh... 'assist her' in her 'maritial woes' with out the threat of any real jail time (and as far as I know they would (more than likely) be much more discreet)


people are a strange lot

[OnyxCougar]

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

[Radar]

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.

[Catwoman]

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.

[Radar]

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.

[Cyber Wolf]

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!

[Catwoman]

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.

[BrianR]

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

[Catwoman]

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.

[Radar]

A crime is a crime is a crime. A crime is not like a snowflake where each one is different.

A murder is a murder. The crime isn't "killing a man", it's "murder". Not all killing of a man is "murder" and that's what trials find out. But two people found guilty of the same crime like "murder" should get the same punishment regardless of motive.

If person "A" kills an old lady because he wants her purse and person "B" kills an old lady because she's Jewish, the punishment should be the same. The victim is no more dead in either case. And in the case of statuatory rape, the victim is no more or less victimized regardless of their gender.

If one guy robs a store to feed his children and another robs a store to buy crack cocaine, they should get the same punishment.

[lumberjim]

If one guy robs a store to feed his children and another robs a store to buy crack cocaine, they should get the same punishment.

But do they? really?

the trials set the tone for the sentence. if a man desperate to feed a starving family expresses deep remorse for stealing during the trial, and the crack head just sits there drooling, looking like he'll do it again in a minute, do they get the same sentence? i dont think they do. jury's remember the connection they feel toward a defendant, and will mitigate their findings to suit, no? I mean that's why we have that word, MITIGATE, isnt it?

cat is saying that the fact that this went woman / boy is in itself a mitigating circumstance. i disagree with her on that, but just to be clear, not everyone gets the same sentence for the same crime in america.