teacher boffing student agian

i wonder why this stuff always makes such a big story when it is a female teacher porking a 14 yr old boy. i imagine that there are male teachers getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar, too, but you don't hear much about it.

is it because she looks like this?:


i don't think the kid will be too emotionally scarred from the incident, do you?

Woman, 23, busted for "encounters" with boy, 14

JUNE 28--Meet Debra Lafave. The 23-year-old Florida teacher is facing a host of felony charges for allegedly having sex with a 14-year-old male student. According to investigators, Lafave met the boy at Greco Middle School--where she taught reading--and had sex with him in her classroom, Isuzu SUV, and Tampa-area home. A probable cause affidavit prepared by the Marion County Sheriff's Office details Lafave's alleged involvement with the boy, who was interviewed by cops (as was his cousin, who was present for two of the auto encounters). According to the affidavit--portions of which were redacted by investigators--Lafave told the boy that she was "turned on by the fact that having sexual relations with him was not allowed." Since the incidents occurred in different jurisdictions, Lafave has been named in two separate criminal complaints. As such, she has posed for two booking photos: the below left mug shot was snapped at the Marion County lockup, while the picture at right was taken by Hillsborough County sheriff's deputies.

source

It's ridiculous that she's up for a jail sentence. Leave prison for the real criminals.

Even if she does manage to get out of jail time somehow (I don't know how Florida works in this situation), she'll still have to deal with the Court of Public Opinion, as long as there's enough coverage.

Originally posted by Cyber Wolf
the Court of Public Opinion,

In other words, every teenage boy in the neighborhood will be walking nonchalantly by her house every 15 minutes.

As LJ mentions, if it were a 23 year old guy going after a 14 year old girl, they would be stringing him up by his balls.

14 years old is really pretty young. What she allegedly did is against the law, and she deserves jail time if she's guilty.

We can't know based on the article, but that boy may be messed up emotionally as a result of this. He could have a future of failed relationship after failed relationship to look forward to as a result of this warped relationship. Then again, he could be happy as hell to get some action. Either scenario is very possible. Boys of that age are very curious about sex, but almost all are still virgins, even in this day and age.

Originally posted by Catwoman
It's ridiculous that she's up for a jail sentence. Leave prison for the real criminals.

Are you saying that women should be exempt from statutory rape laws or are you saying that male teachers should be allowed to have s3x with 14 year old female students?

Hang on one second. This is not a rape allegation. As far as we are aware the boy was perfectly willing, no doubt delighted. Think back to when you were 14. Imagine a nubile young teacher spreading her legs for you in the back of a car. Don't think we'd be screaming rape now, would we?

I know some places will call it rape if the juvenile is below a certain age, regardless of the juvenile's consent. Does Florida do that?

all states have an age of consent. it varies between 14 and 18 depending on state. if you taste of the unripened fruit, you will pay.

I saw this on the news this morning. Is it because she looks like that, well not entirely, she also had a great rack. I think the victim will be OK.

are you familiar with the term 'statutory'? he can be willing, even initiate it, and she's still guilty. in the US it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor. 14 years old is not even close to 18.

that said, if i was the kid, i'd have kept my mouth shut. i didnt read beyond that one page, so i dont know who blew the whistle. anyone?

also, i agree that there should not be jail time served, as she does not pose a physical danger to citizens, but that's just me.

Originally posted by Catwoman
Hang on one second. This is not a rape allegation.

s3x with a minor is statutory rape. Legally speaking, minors are not able to grant consent so legally, there is no such thing as consensual sex with a minor. I don't know the legal system in England other than ours is based upon it so it may even be the same in your neck of the woods.

And you didn't answer my question: is it ok for a 23 year old male teacher to bang your 14-year old daughter (hypothetically speaking, of course)?

Oh, and using your logic, if the teacher gave the boy some good weed, it would be ok if he really enjoyed it.

morally or legally, beestie. yay, weed!

The cousin who was in the car with them blew the whistle.

OK - legalities aside, can we agree on a definition of rape? I think it is if the rapee is unwilling, i.e. does-not-want-to. A 14 year old hormone pumped boy is more than likely very-much-want-to-yes-please. Is this still rape?

Originally posted by Beestie
And you didn't answer my question: is it ok for a 23 year old male teacher to bang your 14-year old daughter (hypothetically speaking, of course)?

Oh, and using your logic, if the teacher gave the boy some good weed, it would be ok if he really enjoyed it.

I posted the last one before I read this.

I am going to sound awfully hypocritical now but I do think it's different for girls. They get emotionally attached and fall in love and that kind of thing. My experience of young boys is that they just want sex. And she gave it to him. Isn't this every school boy's fantasy? A schoolgirls fantasy is for the 23 year old male hunky teacher to sweep her off her feet and marry her. If he had sex with her then went back to his wife he would have destroyed her fantasy and this may well impact her future relationships. With this scenario, the female teacher fulfilled the boy's fantasy.

And yes to the weed thing, obviously.

Sorry, but there are plenty of 14 year old girls who would love to give it up to the married guy next door, or their teacher, etc just as there are plenty of 14 year old guys willing to do the same. It doesn't matter if they were willing, both are considered rape because they are too young to give consent.

But in the case of a woman who sleeps with a 14 year old boy, she'll get a slap on the wrist...if that, while a guy will spend the next 30 years getting beaten and gang raped on a daily basis.

It's just another example of how the justice system in America is geared in favor of women.

Originally posted by Catwoman
I am going to sound awfully hypocritical now but I do think it's different for girls. They get emotionally attached and fall in love and that kind of thing. My experience of young boys is that they just want sex. And she gave it to him. Isn't this every school boy's fantasy? A schoolgirls fantasy is for the 23 year old male hunky teacher to sweep her off her feet and marry her. If he had sex with her then went back to his wife he would have destroyed her fantasy and this may well impact her future relationships. With this scenario, the female teacher fulfilled the boy's fantasy.

And yes to the weed thing, obviously.

oh bullshit - chicks "sportfuck" just as much as guys do. i was pretty surprised to learn that one, but it is absolutely true.

i'm sure the boy did want it. the cousin probably blew the whistle because he didn't get any even though he had to sit in the back seat while they went at it.

if i had that teacher i would have wanted her, and would have kept my silly little mouth closed about it afterwards. but it still doesn't change the fact that it was statutory rape. he was underage. end of story.

as kind of a side note it sounds like you are prepared to throw the equality that women have fought so hard to gain right out the window? you can't have it both ways. if it is a crime for a man then it is a crime for a woman.

in adult life the same thing holds true. sexual harassment is the scourge of the workplace. i've hooked up with a couple of my female bosses over the years, but i am a guy, i enjoyed it for what it was. even when i got let go from one of the jobs i wouldn't have turned around and sued, but legally i could have. just like lots of women do after screwing the boss.

i'm listening to the radio in my office. here is a prime example of why statutory rape laws exist.

a 9 year old girl is pregnant. the sperm donor is the ice cream man. her friends have stated that "she wanted to do it, he didn't force her"

he should have is dick cut off before he is thrown into a hole in the desert and left to die.

Originally posted by lookout123

if i had that teacher i would have wanted her, and would have kept my silly little mouth closed about it afterwards. but it still doesn't change the fact that it was statutory rape. he was underage. end of story.

Can no one here think for themselves?? Just because it is LAW doesn't mean it is RIGHT. I am only 21 and remember being 14. I remember boys at 14. Don't try and tell me sex with someone of this age (UNLESS they are emotionally maladjusted for some reason) is wrong. Most of my friends lost their virginity younger than 14. I waited till I was 17 not because I couldn't COPE with it at 14 but because I didn't want to with any of the boys that offered it to me. I had a crush on a teacher and it wasn't about sex - more admiration/idolising. Boys crushes on female teachers were about sex, discovery, the female body. There IS a difference and it has nothing to do with equality but the fundamental differences between the sexes. We should be treated equally but not the same.

Originally posted by lumberjim

also, i agree that there should not be jail time served, as she does not pose a physical danger to citizens, but that's just me.

lumberjim, that's an interesting way to look at it.

Jail is generally regarded as 1) a way to punish someone and 2) also a way to protect society by keeping dangerous people locked up.

So you think that people should only be locked up when they are a danger to others? If the answer is yes, how do you feel about oh, let's say: someone who breaks into an empty house and steals personal belongings from said house? Should they go to jail? Just curious here, not judging you.

Equally IS the same.

And just because for YOU it was about love and not sex doesn't mean it's that way for anyone. I don't care what age you were or your friends were when they lost their virginity.

A grown man having sex with a 14 year old girl is absolutely no different than a grown woman having sex with a 14 year old boy. Both are equally wrong and the punishment should be the same.

Originally posted by Catwoman

Don't try and tell me sex with someone of this age (UNLESS they are emotionally maladjusted for some reason) is wrong. Most of my friends lost their virginity younger than 14. I

we could argue about whether sex is right or wrong and never agree, but that is not the point.

two 14 yr olds on mom's bed. a 14 yr old and a 25 yr old is completely different. some 25 yr old men (and women) are pretty skilled at getting the opposite sex in their own age group to do what they want. unleash those skills upon someone at age 14? that is brutal.

Originally posted by Catwoman


We should be treated equally but not the same.

equal but not the same, equal but not the same... why does that phrase ring a bell?

edit: oh yeah - that was separate but equal.

Originally posted by glatt


lumberjim, that's an interesting way to look at it.

Jail is generally regarded as 1) a way to punish someone and 2) also a way to protect society by keeping dangerous people locked up.

So you think that people should only be locked up when they are a danger to others? If the answer is yes, how do you feel about oh, let's say: someone who breaks into an empty house and steals personal belongings from said house? Should they go to jail? Just curious here, not judging you.

in that specific example, he does pose a threat to people's possessions, but i don't think jail is necessary unless he is a repeat offender. house arrest would be better.

actually, here's what i would do with that kind of criminal if i was king:

the convict of a nonviolent crime, or a victimless crime would be placed under house arrest, and made to work for the state with whatever skills they posessed or hard labor if they had none. their wages would be garnished until their financial sentence was satisfied, and the house arrest would continue until their punative sentence was satisfied. the two being seperate sentences. at the same time, the jails would be much more unpleasant than they are now, and rehabilitation would not be as big a priority. granted, you'd have to do some really bad shit to get put in there. rape ( viloent rape) murder, arson, voting for bush, etc...

just sketching here, but i like it so far

OK.

Would you have any concerns that the financial aspect of it might lead to abuse by the state? These criminals are basically indentured servants. It's in the state's best interest to have as many of them as possible. $$

how about if the money is only used for the prison system. paying for them while on death row, legal expenses for appeals, etc. the money cannot be used outside the judicial or prison system?

yes, good point. ...... but that would be balanced by the fact that i'd be using criminals to catch criminals. rewarding them with bonus credits or time off for good arrest ratios, etc. there would have to be a watchdog process in place, of course. i think the current basic legal system could handle that. another advers impact would be the loss of jobs that private citizens currently hold with the state. have to re-employ those people in the private sector, with tax breaks to companies that hire our cast offs......

You though going to the DMV was bad before. Now you have to deal with the dregs of society sitting behind the desk. :)

I would have sold my grandmother into slavery to have had a shot at that lady when I was 14.

crap. I spelled 'again' wrong. UT?

I'm not savin' yer ass on this one!

HB was right! You gotta take more time when composing your subject lines!!!

[COLOR=indigo]The states have determined what age a minor can consent to sex. It differs from state to state. If the AoC is 14 in Florida, what she did is not illegal. Since it appears the AoC is 16 in Florida, what she did *is* illegal.


This is a case, by her own admission, of "I did it, in part, because it is against the law".

What makes this situation worse IMO is that she is a teacher. Things like this give teachers a bad name, just like priest/child abuse give Catholic priests a bad name.

I hope they strip her of her credentials, force her to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life, and if she even looks sideways at a minor again, nail her on pedophile charges.

What would a 14 year old have to offer a 24 year old? She's got a rack, she's pretty, why would she be attracted to a 14 year old? What are they going to have in common?

I don't think the 14 year old is going to be scarred for life, but his consent or non consent is irrelevant. The law in Florida says it's illegal, regardless of consent. Period. [/COLOR]

Originally posted by Radar

A grown man having sex with a 14 year old girl is absolutely no different than a grown woman having sex with a 14 year old boy. Both are equally wrong and the punishment should be the same.

There is one BIG difference. A mature woman having sex with a 14 year old boy is implicitly taking the birth control issue onto herself. The 14 year old girl that ends up getting or risking pregnancy from a mature guy might have no clue what she is risking.

Originally posted by Undertoad
I'm not savin' yer ass on this one!

HB was right! You gotta take more time when composing your subject lines!!!

PLICK!

i only got 3 1/2 hrs of sleep last night. gimme a break

Just to throw a few disturbing anecdotes into the mix...

1.) A good friend of mine's brother had a relationship with his English teacher in high school. They were never caught; and what's more, after he graduated she quit teaching and they moved in together. Still "soulmates" after... hell, must be 4 or 5 years now.

2.) We had a student teacher in my high school (for those whose states don't have student teacher programs, it means he was in college training to be a teacher, temporarily assigned to our school for hands-on experience, and about 21 or 22 years old) who wanted to date a girl at the school. They petitioned the school board for permission, and it was granted, as long as they were discreet and he was never directly in charge of grading any of her work.

3.) Our theatre teacher in my high school (male) was extremely well-known for having relationships with girls in his classes. All of these girls thought at the time that it was something they wanted, as Catwoman was suggesting, but later on every one of them realized they had been used and were angry that no one ever stopped him.

Originally posted by Radar
Equally IS the same.

And just because for YOU it was about love and not sex doesn't mean it's that way for anyone. I don't care what age you were or your friends were when they lost their virginity.

A grown man having sex with a 14 year old girl is absolutely no different than a grown woman having sex with a 14 year old boy. Both are equally wrong and the punishment should be the same.

God help me, this is the second time this year that I've agreed with Radar. With no reservations.

Wolf, prepare a room, I'm comin' home! Gimme some o doze good meds too!

I'm sorry Catwoman, but equal is just that. Same pay for same work, same dry cleaning charge for a shirt, same jail time for the same crime. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Unless you're in Alabama, sex with someone under 16 or 18 (I'll look up Florida's consent law and fix this later) is a crime. Period. They cannot legally give consent and this should be prosecuted regardless if the boy enjoyed himself or not. Sexual abuse of a child is morally and criminally reprehensible. :mad:

Brian

First one I found that was recent.

I'm not vouching for it's accuracy, just posting what I found.

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

Originally posted by lumberjim
crap. I spelled 'again' wrong. UT?

:D See I told you you didn't have your shit togethor.

indeed

note to self: eat more paste

Originally posted by blue

[quote]Originally posted by lumberjim[b]
crap. I spelled 'again' wrong. UT?

:D See I told you you didn't have your shit togethor. [/B][/QUOTE]

That's "together."

:angel: sorry, couldn't resist!

steve, you have to read the less is more thread to get that joke

Originally posted by SteveDallas


That's "together."

:angel: sorry, couldn't resist!

I'm pretty sure togethor is correct, maybe old english. Or might be PA dutch.

Originally posted by Radar
Equally IS the same... (snip) A grown man having sex with a 14 year old girl is absolutely no different than a grown woman having sex with a 14 year old boy. Both are equally wrong and the punishment should be the same.

Originally posted by BrianR
I'm sorry Catwoman, but equal is just that. Same pay for same work, same dry cleaning charge for a shirt, same jail time for the same crime. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
I don't think the 14 year old is going to be scarred for life, but his consent or non consent is irrelevant. The law in Florida says it's illegal, regardless of consent. Period.

Right.

Deep breath.

Just for reference:

Equal

Same

Men and women are not the same. Come one I'm not exactly saying anything new here. You cannot deny there are fundamental differences between the sexes in terms of attitude, emotion, aptitude, skill set, physicality etc etc. So given these differences, why should we be treated the same? I wouldn't expect a man to talk make-up just as a man wouldn't expect a woman to lift a 100kg weight. [Apologies for obvious example - I actually detest women who talk about make up, but for some reason I was struggling to think of something a woman could do that a man can't, other than give birth. Oh dear.].

Anyway, the point is if we are different, we are unequal. Not in a linear, hierarchical sense - 'if a man does not keep pace with his companions perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer' - Thoreau.

True equality of opportunity will never happen because of these differences. And is that wrong? I think a man should be a man and a woman should be a woman. Where have all the curves gone? Where have all the real men gone? Instead we have straight-up straight-down boyish women with power jobs and pussified, effeminate men who couldn't save you from a pussy cat let alone a tiger. We should stop trying to merge with each other in the name of equality. We ARE equal, just not the same. We should relish our differences, not seek to abolish them on some misguided feminist power trip.

In the context of the teacher case, I do think she should be treated differently than if a male had done the same. Yes, she should be reprimanded - she broke the law, oh dear. We've all broken the law in one way or another. And she gave pleasure to a young lad who probably had to pinch himself to check he wasn't dreaming. 14 is not a child. It is not paedophilia. Surely those of you who believe in an 'eye for an eye' would advocate punishment to fit the level of suffering endured? If the boy enjoyed it, according to your rules, she should be rewarded!

And Onyx, just because a law exists does not mean it is right or applicable in all circumstances. I'm not too well informed about American law, but British law is full of flaws. My very good lawyer friend is one of those people who campaigns for law changes all the time, because every case is different and to attempt to categorise all similar crimes (which of course is necessary for a 'fair' and simplified justice system) is inevitably going to cause problems.

Men and women are not the same (and thank god). Any legal system should seek to reflect this.

When's the last time you heard of a (natural) man lactating? :D

Men and women are not the same. Come one I'm not exactly saying anything new here. You cannot deny there are fundamental differences between the sexes in terms of attitude, emotion, aptitude, skill set, physicality etc etc. So given these differences, why should we be treated the same?

We're talking about equality UNDER THE LAW and whether the man or the woman has sex with a 14 year old minor, it is equally a crime and should carry equal punishment. If a man steals a television and a woman steals a television, they should get the same punishment because they have committed the SAME CRIME. We're not talking about equality of attitude, we're talking about people being treated equally under the law and the law should never change based on a person's race, gender, religion, etc. A crime is a crime is a crime and the punishment should be equal regardless.

A man who has sex with a 14 year old girl is no more or less guilty of a crime than is a woman who has sex with a 14 year old boy.

But since you don't think men and women should be treated the same, I'm sure you won't mind if male police or firefighters are paid more than female ones since thier "fundamental differences between the sexes in terms of attitude, emotion, aptitude, skill set, physicality" mean men can more easily taken down a violent criminal or carry a person from a burning building.

I'm sure in an office building, you think men should be paid more because they do the heavy lifting in an office (loading the sparklets bottle, moving furniture, etc) even though that isn't in their job description. I'm sure you think men should be paid more in all areas since they are subject to the draft and women aren't. You must feel that way or you'd be a hypocrite.

Actually, I do. If you can prove that someone is doing the SAME job, in terms of physical or mental exertion, of course they should be paid the same. But I don't think this is true, and it's not always the men who exert more.

Come on radar, you believe in just rewards and just punishment don't you? Why should some lazy ass woman painting her nails at an office desk be paid the same as the hard working dad of three? (By the way, gender is transferable in that sentence).

In terms of THE LAW, surely reparation should be measured in terms of suffering caused (be it physical or material). If there was no suffering, why is there punishment? And before you spout off about the age of consent, yes I am aware what the law currently is, I'm just questioning it. Or is that something you're not familiar with?

I don't think men and women do commit crimes in the same way, with the same kind of intent, or with the same physical or emotional intensity. [/end huge generalisation]

The only difficulty is proof. But that's nothing new.

Originally posted by Radar
We're talking about equality [b]UNDER THE LAW and whether the man or the woman has sex with a 14 year old minor, it is equally a crime and should carry equal punishment.[/B]

I would add that to suggest otherwise would amount to a flagrant Constitutional infraction since it would provide for unequal protection under the law (just like hate crimes do).

Come on radar, you believe in just rewards and just punishment don't you? Why should some lazy ass woman painting her nails at an office desk be paid the same as the hard working dad of three? (By the way, gender is transferable in that sentence).

I'm all for paying people according to meritocricy. Those with the most marketable skills and who perform the best are rewarded while those who are inept, and lazy are punished regardless of gender. If Sally and Bob are working in a loading dock and Sally can load twice as much as Bob in the same amount of time, she should earn twice as much Bob, and the same is true the otherway.

In terms of THE LAW, surely reparation should be measured in terms of suffering caused (be it physical or material). If there was no suffering, why is there punishment?

I know you aren't claiming that statuatory rape is a victimless crime. You couldn't be. Even if the 14 year old offers consent, there is still a victim because the 14 year old hasn't reached an age of maturity sufficient enough to offer that consent. But assuming there were no victim as in prostitution, gambling, suicide, drug use, etc. there should be no law against it.

If you think a 14 year old girl who chose to have sex with a 30 year old man is a victim, you must also agree that a 14 year old boy who chooses to have sex with a 30 year old woman is equally a victim.

I don't think men and women do commit crimes in the same way, with the same kind of intent, or with the same physical or emotional intensity.

Motives and intents are irrelevant. I don't care WHY someone stole my car. They could be stealing it to take dying orphans to a hospital to save their lives and it wouldn't matter to me. My car was still stolen. And the "emotional intensity" of the sexual encounter is also irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not the crime was committed. If it was committed, the punishment should be the same regardless of the gender of the criminal or the victim.

I would say that motives and intentions carry weight but not in the determination of the crime itself. If one man shoots and kills another, he should be charged with the crime of killing another person. After its been proven that he did kill the other man, his reasons and motives can come into play and determine how severe the punishment should be. If he shot the man because he wanted the guy's Eddie Bauer jacket, he should have the book thrown at him with a catapult at close range. If he shot the man because the man was in the process of killing (or trying to kill) him, then less severe disciplinary action should be taken. The bottom line is he killed the guy and nothing can change that.

In this case, the teacher did the horizontal BOP with a person well under the legal age of consent. That's not going to change. Whether or not he said "OH GODS YES!" doesn't matter on the whole. She's already stated that she did it because it was against the law. "See this here law? Watch me break it!"

Originally posted by Radar
Motives and intents are irrelevant. I don't care WHY someone stole my car. (snip) All that matters is whether or not the crime was committed. If it was committed, the punishment should be the same regardless of the gender of the criminal or the victim.

The law fluctuates incredibly at the mere mention of mental instability (insanity). What is the difference between making allowances for someone's abnormal psychological condition and being flexible to the more subtle psycho-chemical fluctuations with regard to gender differences. Please don't assume the crux of my argument is that all women should be let off crimes because they're emotional and all men should be paid more becuase they're stronger. But think about that sentence. Wouldn't it be stupid to ignore the differences? Your quote above just about sums up everything I detest about the legal system - 'it doesn't matter why'. Of course it damn well matters why. If you know why someones has happened, its cause, you can prevent it happening again. There is resolution, progress.

In this country statutory rape applies when sex occurs against the victim's will or if they are incapable of forming a will (ie a child). I do not think a 14 year old boy is a child, and I think he would have been willing (and my argument is based on this assumption). In that case, the woman is guilty of nothing.

A 14 year old girl, as someone mentioned earlier, could get pregnant. She is also more likely to get emotionally involved. She is also physically powerless to stop him. The woman did not force herself on the boy, she lay back in the car with her legs open, naked from the waist down. He was on top of her. And the presence of his cousin in the car - if he really wasn't willing it wouldn't have been that difficult for two 14 year old boys to overthrow a 23 year old woman. There is no way that can be called rape.

[SIZE=1]edit spelling[/SIZE]

Whether or not a girl can become pregnant is irrelevant and whether or not she can overpower the person she is willingly having sex with is irrelevant. We're not talking about forced rape, we're talking about statuatory (legal) rape. And a 14 year old boy is every bit as much a child as a 14 year old girl. And a 14 year old girl is not any more interested in "love" than a 14 year old boy, but if she were, it would still be irrelevant.

The young woman or young man are equally victims, regardless of the size or strength of the person having sex with them, the location they had sex at, the gender of the attacker, whether or not they wanted an emotional attachment, whether or not someone else was in the room, what religion they happened to be, what they ate for lunch, when was the last time they went to the bathroom, etc.

None of that matters. All that matters is whether or not the adult had sex with a 14 year old. If they did, they committed a crime. Nothing else matters, and no situation you can mention will change that.

If you don't think a 14 year old is a child, you'll have to argue with the court about it. I think 17 year olds are children and until they turn 18 they have no say what-so-ever in their own lives and may not consent to sex. Until they turn 18 they are basically the property of their parents, and their parents have sole decision making authority over thier lives.

When I was 14 or 15 I'd have fucked a snake if you held it, but does that mean if the horny lady next door let me bang her 9 ways from Sunday, it wouldn't be rape? No, it doesn't. I was so filled with hormones I couldn't make a rational decision and perhaps she would have gotten pregnant and I'd be stuck at an early age having to raise a child? Pregnancy can happen both ways and in neither case is the child responsible enough to make such decisions.

Having sex with 14 year olds is wrong. If the teacher was that horny, there's plenty of 18 year old guys who would have helped her out.

If you were honest, you'd admit that a 30 year old man having sex with a 14 year old girl, is not even one bit morally, ethically, or legally different than a 30 year old woman having sex with a 14 year old boy.

But the problem is that crime is not regardless of motive or circumstance. It is dictated by the very two things you refute. A crime does not stand alone nor can you put it in a box and extricate all variables. Human crime is just that - human. Irrational, chaotic and subject to change without notice. How then can you apply a 'one size fits all' mentality to law?

if we look at the variables as you want - both of us are driving 25 over the speed limit. do the reasons why really matter? should one of us get a lighter penalty? or should we both be treated as adults who knowingly chose to break the law

High fives radar.

Brian, I'll be sharing that room with you ...

Age of sexual consent in Florida is 18.

It is lowered to 16 if the other adult is less than 24 years of age. If the parties are married, the age of sexual consent is 16 regardless of the age of the elder partner.

Since the kid was 14, she lost all around.

Statutory rape.

Oh ... and one other thing.

Why is it when a catholic priest does this it's child molestation, but when this teacher does the same, it's treated as rape?

(most of the cases of "child molestation" of which priests are accused are with adolescent boys, not children.)

Originally posted by Catwoman

I do not think a 14 year old boy is a child, and I think he would have been willing (and my argument is based on this assumption). In that case, the woman is guilty of nothing.

I guess you don't have a 14 year old boy. I have one, and I can assure you, while he may fantasize about having sex with an adult woman, but he is not emotionally ready, and I expect the incident would be a net negative for him in the long run. If this deranged woman had touched so much as a hair on my son's head, not only would we be pushing to prosecute to the fullest extent allowable by law, but we would also probably seek some more personal forms of 'justice.'

In the US, different states have different legislation regarding statutory rape, but in addition to defining age of consent for both genders, most states stipulate a minimum age difference between the parties, eg; if the age of consent is 17, but the difference in ages is less than two years, an 18 year old might face second or third degree charges for consorting with a 16 year old. In addition, while not explicitly spelled out in statute, the community has less tolerance for those who hold positions of authority in childrens' lives, and abuse that authority or proximity.

These statutes are set at the state level so that different states can express their community standards, which is fine by me. Just remind me not to live in YOUR community, if your beliefs and behavior are reflected in your local laws.

Originally posted by Catwoman
But the problem is that crime is not regardless of motive or circumstance. . . . How then can you apply a 'one size fits all' mentality to law?

That's the whole point of an effective justice system. EVERYONE is subject to the laws, and should be charged if they break them. If the accused's peers determine that there is enough evidence to support the charge(s), the defendant is guilty. All the subjective motivation/extenuating/mitigating/aggravating/whining excuses stuff comes into play during the SENTENCING phase. That's when the bimbo can explain that the 14 year old was unusually mature and able to give consent, etc, etc.

Living within the law IS and SHOULD BE a "one size fits all" game; that's where the "equal protection under law" part of the constitution comes into play.

ok - i can't get the photos to post, but this teacher was a bikini model for some car magazine before this happened. you can see the shots on foxnews.com (it's good for entertainment, if not exactly fair and balanced)

she isn't really my cup of tea, but what 14 year old wouldn't jump at the chance to hook up with her? it's not even fair.

Did any of you happen to read that she was newly married, too? Can you imagine the trauma this chick's poor husband is going through??

Ah, this did make the national news.

Here she is!

Here, Radar, I'LL make the claim you're disbelieving:

Statutory "rape" is often a victimless crime. (to be fair, it often is not)

In no case does it really deserve the term "rape".

At what age DOES it become rape then, russotto? 12 years old? 8? 6? Or do you believe it is never rape to have sex with a child of any age?

Originally posted by Clodfobble
Did any of you happen to read that she was newly married, too? Can you imagine the trauma this chick's poor husband is going through??

It gets worse. She claims her husband was bad in the sack.

This police report says that her husband was sexualy inadequate.

Ouch.

Oh, and after I read the police report, I'm changing my tune. The boy is not scarred for life. He enjoyed it. I love the Smoking Gun.

Originally posted by wolf
Brian, I'll be sharing that room with you ...

Why wolfie! I didn't know you cared! :o

Brian

Originally posted by 99 44/100% pure


In addition, while not explicitly spelled out in statute, the community has less tolerance for those who hold positions of authority in childrens' lives, and abuse that authority or proximity.

Teachers should be exempt. It's just another example of the selfless things teachers do to give your child an education.:p

To those who think the law is or should be equal between men and women, let me bring back the following marriage laws chart that I posted in the gay marrriage thread a few months ago.

Note that 9 states and territories have different ages of consent for men and women for marriage with parental consent. Mississippi has different ages for marriage without parental consent.

So the states can legally distinguish between men and women when it comes to consent for underage marriage. This appears to be legal and has not been constitutionally challenged.

I'm not taking any side in this debate, I just thought I should clarify that it is legal for states to have different rules for different sexes for age of consent for marriage. Age of consent for sex is a related category which is also left up to the states.

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.

There was far less question as I recall of this teacher's sexual relationship with her student being a crime.

And he did get her pregnant.

pregnant??? i missed that

Originally posted by wolf


And he did get her pregnant.

Twice!

Damn twotimer.:D

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

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?

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

Debra Beasley Lafave

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

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

Radar wrote:

Pregnancy can happen both ways and in neither case is the child responsible enough to make such decisions.

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.

99 44/100% pure wrote:

I guess you don't have a 14 year old boy. I have one, and I can assure you, while he may fantasize about having sex with an adult woman, but he is not emotionally ready, and I expect the incident would be a net negative for him in the long run. If this deranged woman had touched so much as a hair on my son's head, not only would we be pushing to prosecute to the fullest extent allowable by law, but we would also probably seek some more personal forms of 'justice.' (snip) In addition, while not explicitly spelled out in statute, the community has less tolerance for those who hold positions of authority in childrens' lives, and abuse that authority or proximity. (snip) Just remind me not to live in YOUR community, if your beliefs and behavior are reflected in your local laws.

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.

99 44/100% pure wrote:

Originally posted by Catwoman:
How then can you apply a 'one size fits all' mentality to law?
That's the whole point of an effective justice system. EVERYONE is subject to the laws, and should be charged if they break them. If the accused's peers determine that there is enough evidence to support the charge(s), the defendant is guilty. All the subjective/motivation/extenuating/mitigating/aggravating/whining excuses stuff comes into play during the SENTENCING phase. That's when the bimbo can explain that the 14 year old was unusually mature and able to give consent, etc, etc. Living within the law IS and SHOULD BE a "one size fits all" game; that's where the "equal protection under law" part of the constitution comes into play.

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.

[SIZE=1]said with no hostility, just want to make a point[/SIZE]

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...

Catwoman wrote:

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.[/SIZE]

... 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.

Catwoman wrote:

Thanks to her he has been given a true picture of sexuality that is not all about love, respect or reciprocity,...

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.

Griff wrote:

Any chance we could talk you into staying away from guys for awhile? :eek:

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.

Joe FauxWe 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?

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.

99 44/100% pureI'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.

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.

Joe FauxOriginally Posted by Catwoman
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.
... 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.

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?

99 44/100% pureI 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.

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.

[SIZE=1]edited for quote marks[/SIZE]

"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?

Cyber Wolf wrote:

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.

I don't agree that motive is a factor.

If the law says that no one can eat apples after 10pm or before 6am, no exceptions, then that is the law.

It applies to men, women, children, regardless of motive.

Therefore any person that breaks the law should face the same penalty.

If you want to mitigate responsibility for following the law, then change the law. Not the punishment.

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.

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.

In the context of this thread, I think the Teacher should be prosecuted the same as a man, and it's irrelevant what the kid thinks.

But I wonder, What about intent? Or motive? They are basically the same thing.

If I have the runs, and the poop slides down my leg (I'm wearing boxers and shorts) onto a sidewalk before I can reach a bathroom, do I deserve to be punished the same amount as someone who craps on the sidewalk on purpose?

glatt wrote:

In the context of this thread, I think the Teacher should be prosecuted the same as a man, and it's irrelevant what the kid thinks.

But I wonder, What about intent? Or motive? They are basically the same thing.

If I have the runs, and the poop slides down my leg (I'm wearing boxers and shorts) onto a sidewalk before I can reach a bathroom, do I deserve to be punished the same amount as someone who craps on the sidewalk on purpose?

no, you'd deserve to be ridiculed and publicly humiliated like I was......oops....i mean....like my friend was when that happened to him. ;)

did i tell the 'holy shit' story on here?

I'm not saying everyone gets the same punishment for the same crimes in America. The legal system in America is very much geared in favor of women. The legal system should be blind to race, religion, gender, etc. It should punish all crimes equally regardless of motive.

Hate crimes are a perfect example of laws that need to go away immediately.

If a white man kills a black man because he caught him in bed with his wife, he will get far less prison time than a white man who kills a black man because he is a black man. The mans thoughts are being punished and this puts the police in the dangerous position of being the "thought police".

And if a black man kills a white man just for being white, he won't get as harsh a penalty as the white man would under similar circumstances.

The fact that people stupidly try to say the EXACT SAME CRIME committed by a woman and a man should be punished differently only shows that they have no regard for fairness or equality under the law. But these are usually the same people who would jump up and down and scream the loudest if they were on the losing end of one of these situations. If suddenlly courts started locking up women 5 times longer than men for the same crime, they would demand equality under the law. This is hypocritical to say the least.

These are the same people who tried to make excuses for Andrea Yates. This woman should have been lowered feet first into a woodchipper. She's pure evil.

I don't buy insanity as a defense, and I especially don't buy "temporary insanity". I don't care if someone is insane or not. If you murder people, too bad so sad, you've got to go away. If the person who did it is insane, fine, don't tell them it's an electric chair, tell them it's a roller coaster, strap them in and fire it up.

Ambiguity creates inequality under the law and causes a host of nightmare situations. We wouldn't be having this discussion if we were talking about a black male teacher versus a white male teacher. Why? Because the race of the person committing the crime is irrelevant and so is their gender.

Radar,
My post earlier wasn't a joke. Do you think there should be a difference in the punishment or determination of guilt for two people who crap on the sidewalk? Person A can't control themselves, and person B does it on purpose. Are they equally guilty?

Yes, they are equally guilty. But if they both pay for the cost of the cleanup, I don't see it as a problem.

If I have a child, or a dog, who takes a dump on the sidewalk, I'm responsible to clean it up. If I am an elderly person who doesn't have much control over my bowels I must do the same. And if someone does it just because they feel like it, they are equally responsible.

Some people just have a hard time comprehending the meaning of personal responsibility.

glatt wrote:

If I have the runs, and the poop slides down my leg (I'm wearing boxers and shorts) onto a sidewalk before I can reach a bathroom, do I deserve to be punished the same amount as someone who craps on the sidewalk on purpose?

It's not the same act, even though the result is the same. The two would not be charged with the same offence, therefore subject to different penalties. :)

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

It's not the same act, even though the result is the same. The two would not be charged with the same offence, therefore subject to different penalties. :)

so one is littering, and the other vandalizing. i bet the fines are comparable:smack:

OnyxCougar wrote:

If you want to mitigate responsibility for following the law, then change the law. Not the punishment.

I agree Onyx, and thank you for recognising the wider spectrum of my debate.

I do think the law should be changed. And it is constantly evolving. In fact, the law currently supports my argument in favour of different punishment for different sexes: women's prisons, for a start.

Radar wrote:

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.

Yes, I agree. It is determining whether it is murder - if there can be one kind of murder - that is the problem. Surely murder is killing with intent? It is the 'intent' bit I am interested in. Where does this come from? Can we eliminate it? We are arguing for the same side here. All that everybody wants is for crime to be significantly reduced, ultimately eliminated. It is imperative we spend more time working on root causes rather than handing out inconsequential, deconstructive and largely futile punishments that serve no more as reparation to the victim as a deterrent.

Radar wrote:

Some people just have a hard time comprehending the meaning of personal responsibility.

Again, I agree. Nothing annoys me more than pathetic whiney excuses from people who are incapable of thinking for themselves. I am talking about genuine and uncontrollable mitigating circumstances such as genetic make-up. The 'face' of a criminal is not a new topic - if we can already be this specific surely gender must also come into it? I'm not saying men are bad and women are good or the other way round. Just that we're different, like it or not, and as such should have distinct legal and social systems. Not unequal, just different.

Glatt your example demonstrates my point about an action on its own being just that - an action. Only when you attach a motive or intent does it become a crime or otherwise. We should move away from study and punishment of action and concentrate on catalystic intent. This is what the law should reflect.

As for thought police; the exact opposite of this would be total anarchy. Which would you prefer?

Catwoman wrote:

Yes, I agree. It is determining whether it is murder - if there can be one kind of murder - that is the problem. Surely murder is killing with intent? It is the 'intent' bit I am interested in. Where does this come from? Can we eliminate it? We are arguing for the same side here. All that everybody wants is for crime to be significantly reduced, ultimately eliminated. It is imperative we spend more time working on root causes rather than handing out inconsequential, deconstructive and largely futile punishments that serve no more as reparation to the victim as a deterrent.

But murder isn't just murder* ...

It's murder, homicide, manslaughter, and actually a host of other legal definitions. Which you get charged with and ultimately convicted (or exonnerated) of does vary based on the circumstances of the crime.

The other guy is still dead. It's all in how you got him there.

*Note to the lazy ... the first one is a link to the legal definition of murder. The second is a link to the legal definitions of the sub-types.

It is imperative we spend more time working on root causes rather than handing out inconsequential, deconstructive and largely futile punishments that serve no more as reparation to the victim as a deterrent.

If the punishments were less arbitrary, they would serve as more of a deterrant, but even if they don't, at least if we get rid of the people who kill others, that's one less murderer in the world.

I am talking about genuine and uncontrollable mitigating circumstances such as genetic make-up. The 'face' of a criminal is not a new topic - if we can already be this specific surely gender must also come into it?

No, gender does not come into it. Attitudes are not gender based, they are learned through the environment when growing up. Gender is no excuse for any crime at any point ever. Those who claim it is are the same idiots who try to excuse a woman murdereing her kids due to depression, or killing her husband because she had PMS. That's utter crap! If a man were in court and said he killed his wife because he lost his job, nobody would say he should be let off.

Gender is NEVER a mitigating circumstance!

I'm not saying men are bad and women are good or the other way round. Just that we're different, like it or not, and as such should have distinct legal and social systems. Not unequal, just different.

Sorry, but there is no such thing as different but equal or separate but equal. Those are false premises. You're equal or your not. You are subject to the same laws or you're not. You've raped someone or you haven't.

As for thought police; the exact opposite of this would be total anarchy. Which would you prefer?

That's an utterly false assertion. The opposite of having thought police is not anarchy. It's order and reason and equality under the law.

If one man commits a murder because he hates Jewish people, and another does it because he likes to see the color of blood their crime is equal. It is murder. Once the court proves that either of these men committed murder, the punishment should be the same.

As wolf pointed out, there are different crimes such as murder, manslaughter, etc. If two people are found guilty of the same crime such as murder 1, they should get the same punishment regardless of their motives.

It doesn't matter why this woman slept with a 14 year old boy just as it wouldn't matter why a man slept with a 14 year old girl. Both are guilty of the exact same crime, and the gender of the attacker and victim are NOT a mitigating factor.

If you'd like an example of a mitigating factor, there was a story in the news years ago about two friends in CA who were having beers together. They ran out of beer and one guy asked the other to watch his 2 year old daughter while he went to get some more beer. When he came back he found his buddy having intercourse with his baby. He promptly beat his friend to death with his bare hands. THAT is a mitigating factor.

If it had been a woman coming home and found her friend violating her two year old son and she beat her friend to death it would be THE EXACT SAME CRIME!!!! The gender is irrelevant. The fact that they walked in and caught someone violating thier child is a mitigating factor, the gender of the child or attacker is not.

I think maybe the difficulty here is use of the word 'mitigating'. It implies innocence, or a lesser crime. This is not what I am talking about. To use your example, god I don't know if I can bear to go into details, but lets say the man with the female child could have caused internal damage as well as psychological. Chances are a female performing a sex act on a male child would not. I am not saying either act is right or excusable in any way, or detracting from the sadistic, abhorrent, vile nature of the crime. I just think the two crimes are indeed different, and should be treated differently. I am not saying the woman should receive a lesser punishment, just a different one. Punishment to fit the crime. A response, co-ordinated, deliberate and functional, not merely retaliation.

Alert the media.

I'm in agreement with Radar. (actually there are a lot of times that I'm in agreement with radar)

Good post.

Sounds all good catwoman - until (God forbid) its your son. Since your value system is relativistic and based on little more than personal opinion, I have no doubt that you'd be all for bringing the Tower of London out of retirement the minute some shit happened to you or yours (again, God forbid, knock on wood, etc.).

Don't be so dismissive of the harm done to a certain class of victims simply because you, decider of things, proclaim that their harm done unto them is less than the harm done unto another when the criminal acts are indistinguishable. Its awfully presumptive, grossly unfair and hopelessly arbitrary.

It is because judges incompetently deployed the discretion that was made available to them in sentencing criminals that sentencing guidelines were implemented (each crime has a certain sentence - mitigating circumstances may not influence the sentence handed down). My point is that it is nearly impossible to properly exercise that discretion (you are advocating) fairly as evidenced by the fact that the only people we could dream of entrusting it to blew it.

russotto, here's the thing of it.

I don’t want some 30 year old guy making the decision about when statutory rape is and isn’t a victimless crime. Have you ever listened to a child molester speak about their crimes? I have. It twists your mind around. They never think it was a bad thing. They always think that they were lovingly introducing the child into the world of sex, or that the child was instigating it by “flirting” with them [I just threw up in my mouth a little]. They also see the crime as victimless.

It’s just not effective to say to someone “Sometimes sex between a 30 year old and a 14 year old is victimless, and sometimes it isn’t. You go ahead and use your best judgment, and we’ll let a jury referee later.” There has to be an established age of consent, it has to be applied across the board, and it has to be enforced consistently or it isn’t effective.

I have a little bit of skin in this game. One of my good friends was an English teacher at a private school. He had an inappropriate relationship with one of his students – she was 16, he was 25. She was definitely the aggressor, the instigator, the one controlling the situation. But he went to jail for 9 months. He’s an honest guy, and a good guy, but what he did was wrong, and he was justly punished for it.

It doesn’t matter that she looked and acted like a grown women. She wasn’t – legally and morally. There are protected categories under the law, and those categories need to be clearly defined and consistently applied. “No” should always mean “No”. 17 is not 18. You should never have sex with a cloven-hoofed animal.

-sm

Should a teenager who got caught stealing a car for a 'joy ride' get the same jailtime as the career thief whose been caught five times before and has been selling the cars to a chop shop? Both are grand theft auto, but as serious as the first case is, the second case has to be dealt with even more seriously. Radar, you make it abundantly clear that to you, both crimes are identical and should be treated in a cookie cutter fashon. But instead of saying the first case has mitigating circumstances, isn't it the case that the second one has circumstances that might call for MORE punishment?

smoothmoniker wrote:

russotto, here's the thing of it.

I don’t want some 30 year old guy making the decision about when statutory rape is and isn’t a victimless crime.

You prefer the 50+ year olds in the legislature doing it?

Have you ever listened to a child molester speak about their crimes? I have. It twists your mind around. They never think it was a bad thing. They always think that they were lovingly introducing the child into the world of sex, or that the child was instigating it by “flirting” with them [I just threw up in my mouth a little]. They also see the crime as victimless.

Yeah, the NAMBLA people do turn your stomach. But statutory rape isn't child molestation. Child molestation is sexual activity with a sexually immature (physically) child. Statutory rape is sex with a sexually mature adolescent below a certain age. Two entirely separate issues.

I have a little bit of skin in this game. One of my good friends was an English teacher at a private school. He had an inappropriate relationship with one of his students – she was 16, he was 25. She was definitely the aggressor, the instigator, the one controlling the situation. But he went to jail for 9 months. He’s an honest guy, and a good guy, but what he did was wrong, and he was justly punished for it.

What he did was illegal, but not wrong in itself. And once you let the law control your beliefs about right and wrong, you've surrendered your moral judgement to people like Richard Nixon, Jesse Helms, any Kennedy, or Thomas Druse.

Unlike gender, age can be a mitigating circumstance. But for the sake of argument let's say it's a 19 year old teenanger who is an adult. Yes, they should get the same punishment (assuming the person whose car it was wants to press charges) as anyone else who steals a car. The career criminal will do more jail time because he'll get the same amount of time that the other guy got for each car he steals. Less ambiguity means more justice and equity under the law.

Judges have already shown that they can be outright dishonest and exceed thier authority as in the case of the Supreme Court which routinely makes unconstitutional rulings so I don't think they should be given much latitude at all in terms of sentencing.

They already have mandatory minimum sentencing for some crimes, but what if it weren't mandatory minimums, but just mandatory sentencing. For instance...

Steal a car = 1 year in jail with no early release.

The boy who steals a car will do 1 full year and everyone who knows about it will make sure they don't do it. The career criminal who is found to have stolen 10 cars will get 10 years; one for each car.

Catwoman wrote:

I think maybe the difficulty here is use of the word 'mitigating'. [/B].

No, the difficulty here is that you fail to understand that you are completely, 100%, absolutely wrong. :rolleyes:

statutory rape is bloody difficult because there are so many mitigating circumstances, often the younger person is the dominant one and it is totally victimless but sometimes it isn't and getting that difference right is bloody hard. Australia has a fairly good system , after 16 you can screw anyone you want and before that there is a two year leeway system, for example a 15y.o can have sex with a 17y.o. I think that strikes the right balance between giving people freedom and protecting them from exploitation, by 16 you should be capable of making your own choices. I've got a few friends who had flings or relationships of one sort or another with people in their 20s while 16 or 17 and no harm came of it.

But jag, do you agree there ought to at least be a special case regarding teachers/coaches/other people in authority positions in the teenager's lives?

I'm the father of a two year old and a five year old. Both boys. If either of them were placed in this situation I would want the fullest extent of the law leveraged against the adult. I would not want race, religion, or gender to intervene and reduce the punishment. Even if the child was sexually mature enough to engage in this activity, he was not legally responsible to make this decision. Too many far-reaching factors from this single event could alter their future hopes and dreams.

I'll admit that I'm more disappointed when a person abuses their authority to take advantage of someone. However I feel the penalty for this type of predator should be the same. They prey on our children and should be removed from society.

The crux of this discussion is based on the myth that men are mere beasts with raging hormones while women search for “love” and follow their heart. It doesn't matter. Even if one excuse sounds more romantic, both results are the same.

(By the way, if this were really true, shouldn't men get a lesser sentence since they are biologically helpless and predisposed to commit such crimes. After all, women are consciously making the choice to follow their heart and “make love” with a minor. Men can't help but follow the dumbstick. Ridiculous!)

We are not slaves to our heart or sexual desires and should be held culpable for our actions equally.

By having a different scale for men and women, aren't we stating that women, once overcome with the passion of love, are the weaker of the sexes and should receive extra protection from society? To justify this argument you would then need to consider that females are emotionally irresponsible and mentally incompetent. Therefore, society has extended far too many rights to them. Absolutely ridiculous!

What happened to equality in the eyes of the law? If we are to consider the sexes to be equally responsible and accountable for their sexual behavior, then we must try them using the same legal rules.

Enough isn't done to protect the children. Sex offenders of children rarely spend much time in jail. Sadly, these types of criminals repeatedly offend and releasing a convicted child molester back into society shows complete indifference to the children of the community. Just check out your local city, county, or state sexual offense web page and you'll see just how many of these people, both men and women, move in and out of the system.

Not only do we need to make the penalties equal, but severe enough that at the very least the chance for a repeat offense is small.

I am just trying to push boundaries. Sorry if people can't cope with this level of discussion. Lets get back to safe ground quick.

And by the way - personally, I do think men and women should receive the same punishment, if it is the same crime. I merely question whether the same crime is possible, whether it is a man and a woman, or two different men. I also question methods of punishment, and the concept of punishment itself, but this is perhaps food for a different debate.

I have stated before that the perspective I present here is not necessarily my opinion. I was interested to see how far we could take this one. Maybe this is it. Such crimes are perhaps too emotional to discuss with much clarity.

I am just trying to push boundaries. Sorry if people can't cope with this level of discussion. Lets get back to safe ground quick.

For the record, I'm glad someone is.

Savage Love knows what he's talking about.

Well said Joe.

And by the way - personally, I do think men and women should receive the same punishment, if it is the same crime. I merely question whether the same crime is possible, whether it is a man and a woman, or two different men. I also question methods of punishment, and the concept of punishment itself, but this is perhaps food for a different debate.

It IS the same crime. It's the same crime regardless of their gender. It is EXACTLY the same crime and gender doesn't change that. If a man with a gun shoots an unknown old lady just walking down the street without cause, is it a different crime when a woman shoots an unknown old lady just walking down the street without cause? NO!!! It's the same crime. If a woman has sex with a 14 year old it is EXACTLY THE SAME CRIME as when a man has sex with a 14 year old.

I'm not making an emotional argument. Emotion has nothing to do with it. This is a logical and rational argument based on indisputable facts.

No matter how you try to package it differently, or what kind of a pretty bow you put on the box, it's still got the same thing in it. No amount of dodging, or squirming, or rationalizing will change it. If you put a baseball on top of your car, it's still a baseball. If you put it in your shoe, it's still a baseball. If the person throwing it is an old woman, or a young man, it's still a baseball. If the baseball is shot out of a cannon it's still a baseball.

Without question, and without a doubt the crime is the same and the punishment should be also.

what if you put the baseball into orbit? then it's a sattelite
in your ass? a suppository
in your lover's ass? a buttplug
in your bra? a falsie

Same crime if the victim is touched by a hand, versus harshly sodomized?

Same crime if the predator/victim are both men? Both women?

I think sometimes the differences matter.

Catwoman wrote:

I am just trying to push boundaries. Sorry if people can't cope with this level of discussion. Lets get back to safe ground quick.

Ouch.

I'm not emotional regarding this issue. Rather, I'm stating that this crime be calculated the same across the board regardless of genders involved.

Existing social paradigms do hold the genders in different respect. This is often reflected in the sentencing. People find it hard to accept a woman is capable of being the aggressor and offer her built-in excuses such as "love" or "passion". If the tables were turned and a man stated that he “loved” his victim, the public would have called for a hanging. Yet, when the accused is a woman, society assumes that some altruistic reason transcended the age difference. Her gender alone will automatically and wrongfully mitigate the severity of the crime. (By the way I wonder what the child's parents think.)

The teacher involved in this crime willfully and knowingly acted against the law to satisfy her sexual desires. Period. This cannot be tolerated by the legal system and she should be measured by the same legal tools as any other individual that commits this crime.

The only boundary to explore would be the dissolution of the archaic belief that women should be coddled and protected from themselves. Maintaining the belief that women are incapable such acts is outdated to say the very least. Grown women deserve the credit of being treated like adults.

Undertoad wrote:

Same crime if the victim is touched by a hand, versus harshly sodomized?

Same crime if the predator/victim are both men? Both women?

I think sometimes the differences matter.

That's where sentencing comes into play. The judge takes(should?) that into consideration, but no matter what kind of soap opera comes with it, it's still the same crime. :p

In case you'd been wondering what Mary Kay LeTorneau's been up to ...

It seems as though the no contact order remains in place, and the kid is quite focused on violating it.

wolf wrote:

It seems as though the no contact order remains in place, and the kid is quite focused on violating it.

The kid is 21 now. How can the court forbid them to see each other?

Courts frequently forbid adults to have contact .

PFAs require no contact, as do many probation/parole orders, as is the case here.

wolf wrote:

Courts frequently forbid adults to have contact .

PFAs require no contact, as do many probation/parole orders, as is the case here.

The thing that I have to wonder is whether the court has justice in mind or simply punitive protocols? They may genuinely be for each other and I think that they should be able to find out now that both parties are, legally at least, adult.

I think that an in pertuitum decision of this nature is out of bounds.

This story is back. Do you think this chick is nuts? she is hoping a jury thinks she is.

ya gotta click here

Despite the amount of press they generate, insanity defenses are not usually successful.

Without searching, I seem to recall that they work less than 2% of the time as a criminal defense.

With or without twinkie consumption as a factor.

With searching it seems that insanity defenses are presented in only about 0.9% of criminal cases (9 out of 1000, to save you the math), and that it is successful in less than 20% of those cases (1.8/1000).

ya gotta give them props for trying though.

She's not nuts, she's a pedophile. This girl is nuts!

snip ~ BRIDGEPORT, Conn. -- A 29-year-old woman pleaded not guilty Tuesday to charges that she had a sexual relationship with an 8-year-old boy who was her daughter's playmate.

Tammy Imre, a part-time receptionist, is charged with first-degree sexual assault, fourth-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor. She remains held on a $250,000 bond.

If convicted, Imre could serve more than 20 years in prison. She requested a trial by jury.

According to the arrest affidavit, Imre told investigators she considered the relationship "like a fantasy and she was the girlfriend and he was the boyfriend and that someday they could end up together in a relationship."

Prepubescent boy = pedophila

Adolescent boy = hebephilia

Or pederasty.

Why do I feel we're seeing more of these crimes?

Are the predators becoming bolder as the shame factor reduces?
Am I just paying more attention now that I'm older?
Is it now socially or financially more acceptable to report such crimes?

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=2551500&nav=3YeXT0ZE
http://www.nbc5.com/education/3907461/detail.html?z=dp&dpswid=2265994&dppid=65172
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/20425.htm

And here I thought hebephilia was the opposite of anti-semitism.

russotto wrote:

And here I thought hebephilia was the opposite of anti-semitism.

:) :thumbsup:

The happy couple has gone through some difficult times, but they still love eachother after it all...

Wedding of the Century

Just think, kids! One day you can MARRY your abuser! Lovely Valentine's Day message. I'm all verklempt. or however you spell it.

I'm also verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves. Here's a topic. The civil war was neither civil, nor a war, discuss.....

no, mr noodle you missed the point - they are in love. or maybe his mother is telling him that they are inlove so she can quit raising the kids...

Where's the problem? He's twenty-two now. Let him have a taste of marriage to see if he really means it.

i'm all for him getting his shot, it is still just plain creepy though.

Especially when you consider that she might be older than his mother.

I heard on the news this morning (abc) that a lot of the things they registered for at Macy's have been bought! Don't you think this is ALL a publicity stunt? Supposedly there is a book in the works as well as a 'Movie of the Week' :yelgreedy :yelgreedy

She also strikes me as a little out there..cukoo :confused:

All together now:

"Young love! First love!"

I think this case was remarkably tawdry, what with her being a schoolteacher and him being her 12 year old student when it all began. Without question, she was committing rape, according to the law.

Now I just think it is remarkable. I mean, what can you say? The lad is of legal age and then some. If he wants to marry his rapist, that's his business.

cjjulie wrote:

She also strikes me as a little out there..cukoo :confused:

Ya think?
Hey, here's another one.

Doesn't Mary Kay have a lot of kids from her first marriage? I wonder how those poor kids are doing. How embarrassing-to say the least!

And what is with all these women being so gorgeous? What is with that?? Pam Turner is gorgeous and so was LaFavre or whatever her name was.

Is it me, or is the tone in this thread today a little different than the tone in the NAMBLA thread?

In the NAMBLA thread, the accused men only planned to do what the women in this thread actually did.

You have posters in the NAMBLA thread calling for life in prison. You have people in this thread wishing the couple well.

Even Ms. LeTourneau is pretty attractive when she's not in prison garb.

I wasn't going to be the first to mention the appearance factor, but now that Brianna has spoken up (all the better since she's...well...a she), you would think that attractive young women would be aiming a little higher. Is there much research on female child molesters? Certainly, the greatest majority of offenders are males, or so it would seem.

Perhaps it is the male nature, rampantly present even at the tender ages of 10, 11, or 12 that causes us to appear to have fewer such cases? I mean, if someone who looked like that gym teacher had wanted to do me when I was 11, I would have fallen to my knees and thanked Jesus. No way would I have told anyone and risk being cut off.

Is this *why* we have fewer apparent cases of female child molestation?

Here's a fox story linked from the NAMBLA thread

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147179,00.html

Female teachers accused of sex crimes against underage male students have been grabbing headlines lately. Many of them are young and beautiful, their stories sordid and intriguing.

But to law enforcement, they're something else — criminals who have committed statutory rape against a minor.

This week alone, two cases have hit the news: Cops say one Texas teacher, Kathy Denise White (search) had sex with a 17-year-old, and Tennessee teacher Pamela Rogers Turner (search) had sex with a 13-year-old boy.

They join at least three other recent cases: Florida teacher Debra LaFave (search), 24, is expected to plead insanity to charges she had sex with a 14-year-old student, according to her lawyer; California teacher Sarah Bench-Salorio (search), 28, allegedly molested two boys when they were 12 and 14; and 33-year-old California teacher Rebecca Boicelli (search) was arrested last month on statutory rape and related charges after DNA tests confirmed that a former student fathered her 2-year-old baby when he was 16.

All of them follow the trail laid by Mary Kay Letourneau (search), whom the media tracked again last year when she was released from prison after more than seven years. The former Seattle teacher said she’s still in love with her now-21-year-old student (who was 12 when she was 34 and fathered the first of the two children they had together); the pair have since reportedly gotten engaged.

If the kid, now 22, wants this, loves her, wants to be with her, and keeps wanting this (theorizing, here, since I can't see into the future), and wanted it them, is it terrible now? If they're married 30 years from now, was she still a rapist (not legally, because legally she is, but in your eyes), was she still doing something wrong?

Abso fucking lutely.

Why?

6sickchix wrote:

If the kid, now 22, wants this, loves her, wants to be with her, and keeps wanting this (theorizing, here, since I can't see into the future), and wanted it them, is it terrible now? If they're married 30 years from now, was she still a rapist (not legally, because legally she is, but in your eyes), was she still doing something wrong?

In my eyes, yeah, she did something very wrong. The fact that she was a teacher makes it even more offensive. I am the mother of a 15 year-old boy and although he thinks he's ready for sex, believe me, he is not. I don't care if they live "happily" ever after-she used that boy. The relationship is sick.

So even if the kid involved [who is no longer a kid] spends the rest of his life happy with her, and in love with her, and informing anyone who asks that he is happy, and actually is happy about what happened, it's still bad?

So, even at 50 he doesn't have the right to know what he wanted through his life?

I'm not saying this is a way to justify boning preteens, that they might, later in life, not think that it was bad.

But...

I'm saying she ABUSED him. Some people confuse abuse with love, like this kid. IT's WRONG to have sex with children. Do you see that? Or, in your mind, the end justifies the means?

Having sex with a 12 year old is WRONG. I don't care how long they are together.

It is illegal, and it is wrong. But that doesn't really answer the question of the validity of their present relationship.

This is a damn twisted, and damned interesting set of circumstances.

Imagine if the situation were reversed-a man coming out of prison marrys the woman he raped while she was a girl-the shit storm that would be! I read a newspaper article where a friend of the family says how it's "long overdo" and how great it will be to see them "finally get hitched"-! Tainted love indeed.

Brianna wrote:

IT's WRONG to have sex with children.

What is your reasoning for this? I'm not saying I think it's right; I just want to hear a reason (besides "it just is") why it's wrong.

Children are not mentally, physically or spiritually prepared to have sex. They are immature beings. An person who has little experience with the world, a person who's brain is still growing, forming new neural pathways related to experience, cannot give consent to something like sex. That is why we don't let children own guns, vote, drink alcohol or sign legally binding contracts. They DO NOT understand the ramifications of their actions. They are practicing who they are. To engage a child in sex interferes with their development as whole human beings. My son is a big kid-6'4" and 190 pounds. He may LOOK like a man, but he THINKS like a child. Wouldn't you agree that children THINK differently than adults? They live more in the "moment"? A child simply cannot give consent based upon their relative immaturity.

Drew and Adam used to say that it is taking advantage of and a violation of a certain trust between children and adults. And furthermore very much a trust relationship with a teacher involved. Children look to adults for appropriate behavior and depend on the supposedly-responsible adults to act in ways that do not prey on their weaknesses.

At what point does every child become an adult? 16? 18? 21? Is there a clearly defined line? I know some 17 year olds who are more mentally mature than 22 year olds I know. But, those 17 year olds cannot legally have sex with anyone over 17, at least in my state. Because they're not mentally capable. "Feel any different now that it's your 18th birthday?" "I feel mentally, spiritually, and emotionally capable of making decisions for myself!"

Legally mature and true maturity are different things. Yes, some 17 year-olds are more mature than some 22 year-olds. Some 12 year-olds are more mature than some 42 year-olds. It still doesn't change the fact that children are experiencing the world differently than adults and to have sex with them is predatory. Period.

Do you feel it's right for the state to decide (aka making laws) when I person becomes a spiritual or emotional adult?

Without concrete definitions, laws cannot be applied equally. And 'equally' is as close as we can get to 'justly' in the real world.

What about a mandatory ten year sentence for an 18-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old?

If you're asking me, I think the law should include an age difference requirement for statutory rape, as it does in many states.

He wasn't in for 10 years. I bet we hear from this guy again.

Let me ask you a question, 6. It's of a personal nature.

You're 24 now, if your profile is correct.
At what age did you first have sex?
Was it consentual?
How old was the other party?


How is this different in your mind from a teacher who sexually molests a student?
How can a 12 year old know what they are getting into? A 12 year old is generally in the FIFTH grade!!

Imagine you have a child in the 5th grade.
You're saying it's ok for the teacher to have sex with your child as long as they end up married for 30 years?

I think comparing then and now is a bad idea.

OC: If I could guarentee for a fact that my 5th grade would spend the rest of his life happy and in love and emotionally well, then sure, go at it.

Of course, there's no way to guarentee it. There is no possible way to guarentee anything.

People used to get married at 12-14 all the time. *gasp* everyone must have been a monster back then. I'm so glad we're aware of it now.

6sickchix wrote:

People used to get married at 12-14 all the time...

Not of their own free will. Many if not most of those were "arranged" marriages where the female of the couple was assigned a husband. Today, men ask dads for their daughter's hand in marriage as a courtesy (if at all). Back then, the dad actually made the decision. You don't really think that those marriages were actual 'boy meets girl and asks her for her hand and then daddy throws them a big wedding' did you???

Those 12-year old girl getting married things were often social relationships between families and not simply 'husband-and-wife' things.

Why its wrong is self evident: a child cannot be assumed to have the faculty to adequately deploy reason over emotion in personal or business relationships requiring either a commitment, an understanding of the risk/reward or the consequences arising from the relationship/agreement. Neither can the child/young adult be expected to assume full responsibility for the consequences of the relationship or commitment. Enough minors have been taken to the cleaners such that a law banning the practice was finally enacted.

Did you even consider the consequences if he had gotten her pregnant. I think its well within the purview of the law to forbid relationships where one of the parties is clearly not able to support a child emotionally or financially.

Repeal the law, watch the atrocites mount and then you shall have the answer to your question.

All right. One more case doesn't make an epidemic, but holy cow. Don't these people read the news?

This one gets high stupidity marks for having her two year old in the back seat while doing it in the front.

Teacher Has Sex with Pupil While Baby in Car

Beestie wrote:

I think its well within the purview of the law to forbid relationships where one of the parties is clearly not able to support a child emotionally or financially.

You're talking about things which have little or any relevancy to age. How would you write such a law? How would you enforce it?

6sickchix wrote:

OC: If I could guarentee for a fact that my 5th grade would spend the rest of his life happy and in love and emotionally well, then sure, go at it.

But you can't. No one can. The child in question's parents can't, either. Out of all the marriages that end in divorce, (2 out of 3 I think the latest statistic is running), do you really think they'll make it? You're willing to gamble a 5th grader's life on it?

Of course, there's no way to guarentee it. There is no possible way to guarentee anything.

Exactly my point! You said, "if I could guarentee for a fact my 5th grader ..... then sure, go at it" but you can't. So is it no longer "sure go at it"?

People used to get married at 12-14 all the time. *gasp* everyone must have been a monster back then. I'm so glad we're aware of it now.

People used to get their daughters pregnant all the time back then, too. Just because something was "back then" doesn't make it ok.

SteveDallas wrote:

You're talking about things which have little or any relevancy to age. How would you write such a law? How would you enforce it?

The laws are already written - every state has one - an age minimum for marriage. I was basically providing some rationale for the existing laws not proposing anything new. Sounds like I didn't make my point very well.

All I'm saying is there are plenty of people over the age of 18 who aren't able to support a child, financially or emotionally. What's the law supposed to do about them?

SteveDallas wrote:

All I'm saying is there are plenty of people over the age of 18 who aren't able to support a child, financially or emotionally. What's the law supposed to do about them?

Nothing. Unless abuse is involved. And I don't have that big a problem with financial deprivation. Poverty doesn't kill people in America (generally speaking) - heck, some of us were poor growing up. Emotional deprivation, however, ruins lives and is difficult to repair even in adults. But, that is not an area for legislative intervention until and unless it results in abuse.

Five students.

Teacher in West Virginia accused of sex abuse.

Yikes!

Now that IS abuse. :scream:

Did we hear about this one here yet?

Teacher busted on sex charges

Blonde beauty faces 13 counts of statutory rape with teen

By Jake Easton
R A D O K N E W S
Posted: February 8, 2005 3:12pm EST
Updated: February 24, 2005 12:04pm EST

MCMINNVILLE, Tenn. - Authorities have arrested a female teacher from a Warren County, Tennessee school, charging her with having an ongoing sexual relationship with a 13-year-old boy. Pamela Rogers Turner was charged this week with 15 counts of sexual battery by an authority figure and 13 counts of statutory rape.

The 27-year-old Turner is a graduate of Tennessee Tech University with a degree in education. Bobby Cox, director of instruction for Warren County schools, said Turner had been a teacher in the Warren County system for about 1½ years. She taught physical education and worked with all grades at the K-8 grade school in McMinnville.

Prosecutor Dale Potter says some of incidents were alleged to have taken place at the school - others at the student's home. Potter says his office intends to prosecute the case to the fullest extent possible because it involves a child.

Turner is currently free on $50,000 bond, and has been placed on leave by the school system, with an arraignment set for Feb. 23.

Pamela's father, Lamar Rogers, has been the girls basketball coach at Clarkrange High School for 29 years, winning his first state champsionship in 1983, and coached his daughter Pamela's team to the state title in 1995.

Pamela Joan Rogers married Christopher Turner on July 26, 2003. Turner is currently in the process of a divorce from her husband, who is head coach for the Warren County High School boys varsity basketball team in McMinnville.

Conviction on all counts could be punished by up to 100 years in prison, although it is unlikely given her gender. At her court hearing on February 23, Pamela Rogers Turner's lawyer entered a plea of Not Guilty, unlike another teacher with similar troubles - Debra Lafave, who is expected to use an insanity defense.

A judge in McMinnville, Tennessee has set a November 15th trial date for Turner.

IMPORTANT: All the recent media stories on various charges and indictments of teachers are just that, charges - not convictions. It is important to keep an open mind and learn the facts of the case(s) in a court of law before coming to any conclusions of guilt. It would not be the first time overly-zealous prosecutors were wrong.

OK. I was wrong. It is an epidemic. :eek3:

Oh, yeah, we've heard about Pamela. And she is really beautiful. Almost as beautiful as the Debbie chick. Very weird that these women, who could've had pretty much anyone, chose children. Ba-Zar.

She looks a little like Paris Hilton, maybe that's her problem.

Ironically, Turner was supposed to be looking out for the teenager — who played school basketball, just as she did in her younger days. Her husband, the basketball coach at Warren County HS, had asked her to keep an eye on the eighth-grader because he expected him to start on the varsity team when he arrived at high school.

According to authorities, she kept more than an eye on him.

But the teenager was hardly an unwilling participant, according to his friend.

"He loved every minute of it," Grissom says. "He's a little pimp."

dar512 wrote:

OK. I was wrong. It is an epidemic. :eek3:

Epidemic? :eyebrow:
TEACHERS:
TOTAL PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS: 2,997,748
Elementary: 1,686,336
Secondary: 1,078,501
Unclassified: 232,911

TOTAL CHARTER SCHOOL TEACHERS: 36,019

TOTAL PRIVATE SCHOOL TEACHERS: 395,317
Elementary: 187,833
Secondary: 62,737
Combined: 144,746

TOTAL CATHOLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS: 149,600
Elementary: 100,565
Secondary: 41,301
Combined: 7,734

Hardly.

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Too much information.

Besides, it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. It just seems like we're seeing a lot of these lately.

I think they're just catching more of them recently because authorities have finally realized that it is possible for a woman to do these things.

dar512 wrote:

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Too much information.

Besides, it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. It just seems like we're seeing a lot of these lately.

Nothing personal, just a reminder of how many teachers are out there. :)
I think we have one of those situations where a news story pops up and makes headlines, then any similar story creates a media frenzy until something else comes into vogue.
Although, I guess any woman bites boy or teacher bites boy story will be widely circulated.

Man....how I wish Mrs Sornborger was that kind. :blush:
Maybe she was...but not with me. :(