House arrest for school teacher

  • Thread starter Gokul43201
  • Start date

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,316
1,929
ONJ's Noble Steed said:
Why is it that when a 14-year-old sleeps with a teacher, the teacher gets severely punished because, well, the student was just a little kid. He didn't know what he was doing, and the evil teacher had scarred him for the rest of his life. But when a 14-year-old murders a teacher, he is treated as an adult and sentenced to 30 or so years in prison because, well, he's a reasonable being and he knew perfectly well what he was doing.
Having an affair and murdering someone are not really comparable. The first is a negotiated act between two people, while the second is the act of only one person, and is not negotiated (i.e. one's judgement did not influence the other).

In the case of the sex, we must decide who is at fault. Clearly, the teacher, who knows better, is to be faulted. Regardless of whether the child is considered to be capable of making such a decision, the fact is that the teacher is responsible for exercising better judgement.

In the case of the murder, we ask who is at fault. Well, it clearly isn't the teacher, is it? The child is judged to be at fault. He sure wasn't coerced or seduced into murdering by a guding hand, was he? The child was acting without guidance, whereas in the sex, the child was acting with the guidance of an adult.

What would happen if the child murdered the teacher under the guidance of an adult? You can sure bet it would be the adult that would be punished.
 
I think the previous post misses the point that it is hypocritical to treat 14-year-olds as kids when it comes to sex, but treat them as adults when it comes to murder. So just what exactly should the teacher have known better? That a person who is deemed sufficiently mature to be sentenced as an adult for murder is not mature enough to consent to sex?
 
Gokul43201 said:
I believe the law assumes the position that a minor is not legally capable of giving consent. That essentially makes sex with a minor the equivalent of rape ("statutory rape").
Once it's defined that way, you should have to put in time of the order of what you would if you were convicted of rape...no matter what the sex of the offender/victim is (as long as there is no unprotected intercourse). Only in the case of unprotected intercourse do I think there should be a difference in the outcomes.
I agree mostly but with only one adendum. That being that the desire of the "victim" be taken into account aswell. There are situations where the "victim" is clearly desirous of the act and those where the victim was pressured or coerced in some manner (ie, "date rape"). I think that those who pressure or coerce minors into sexual relationships should be punished more harshly.

Pengwuino said:
Wait wait wait, the judicial system should not have to take into account hte ignorance of girls and their stupid ideas as to what equality is. I mean I don't see anyone in court saying women should be paid less because of some stupid stereotype. Laws should not depend on stereotypes
Like I said above there is a difference between engaging in consentual sex and pressuring/coercing someone into sex. Essentially I see it as there being "statutory rape", simply meaning that someone had sex with someone under the age of consent, and "date rape" or non-violent rape, where one pressures/coerces an individual into sex though doesn't necessarily physically force the individual to have sex.
My main point regarding the difference between males and females in regards to sex was that if the male achieves a state of arousal and preforms normal sexual intercourse it is quite difficult to declare that the "victimizer" coerced the "victim" into having sex. A female can engage in normal sexual intercourse without being aroused but ofcourse the problem here is that it would be quite difficult for a defense to prove that the female was aroused and desirous to protect their client from further charge if the court were to handle these cases the way I'm suggesting.
Males can obviously be coerced into sex just the same as females. This is often the case when a male is "raped" by another male. Like I said before though if a female were to sodomize a young male I doubt she would receive much leniency.
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,316
1,929
ONJ's Noble Steed said:
I think the previous post misses the point that it is hypocritical to treat 14-year-olds as kids when it comes to sex, but treat them as adults when it comes to murder. So just what exactly should the teacher have known better? That a person who is deemed sufficiently mature to be sentenced as an adult for murder is not mature enough to consent to sex?
It doesn't miss the point at all. It is demonstrating why the two scenarios do NOT count as hypocritical. Hypocracy occurs when you treat two situations that are otherwise the same, as if they were different. My post points out that the two situations are quite different, i.e. not to be viewed with the same set of criteria, i.e. not hypocritical.

The onus is not upon me to demostrate why the situations are different, the onus is upon you to demonstrate how they are the same and thus why they should be treated the same. So far, your rationale for equivalence seems to consist entirely of "in both cases, the defendant is 14 years old". Not good enough in my books.
 
DaveC426913 said:
It doesn't miss the point at all. It is demonstrating why the two scenarios do NOT count as hypocritical. Hypocracy occurs when you treat two situations that are otherwise the same, as if they were different. My post points out that the two situations are quite different, i.e. not to be viewed with the same set of criteria, i.e. not hypocritical.
The onus is not upon me to demostrate why the situations are different, the onus is upon you to demonstrate how they are the same and thus why they should be treated the same. So far, your rationale for equivalence seems to consist entirely of "in both cases, the defendant is 14 years old". Not good enough in my books.
And if a person is over 18, why would the two situations be treated the same? Because in both cases the defendant is over 18 and is considered mature enough, no? But apparently, a 14-year-old is considered mature enough to be held responsible for murder as an adult, but not mature enough to consent to sex. It seems to me that to be held responsible for murder as an adult requires greater maturity than consenting to sex.
 
16
0
I can't believe people still get prosecuted for having consensual sex. I guess the dark ages have not entirely left us...

And before you ask, yes, a 15yrold is capable of giving consent. The cut-off age should be 14.
 
ron damon said:
I can't believe people still get prosecuted for having consensual sex. I guess the dark ages have not entirely left us...
And before you ask, yes, a 15yrold is capable of giving consent. The cut-off age should be 14.
Yes, I tend to agree. A 14-year-old is not a little kid. At least in some US states, people start driving at age 15, while the age of consent if typically 16-18. I think in some states, the age of consent is normally 16, but it's 18 if the other person is in a position of authority (like a teacher, I suppose).
 
Last edited:

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
14
ron damon said:
I can't believe people still get prosecuted for having consensual sex. I guess the dark ages have not entirely left us...
Actually it would be more of a progressive issue of being prosecuted for having consenual sex then some dark age idea. The argument is that "kids are psychologically manipulated to agreeing under peer pressure". Sounds like progressive BS to me
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
14
But that was in the UK.
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
14
Yah but im still amazed at what this ruling is...
 
152
0
In India a boy runs away in a friend's car (without owner's permission) with a
girl probably to marry her. He probably got this idea after watching an overdose of tamil movies. The boy lands up in jail for stealing the car but the girl goes scot-free.
 

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
TheStatutoryApe said:
My main point regarding the difference between males and females in regards to sex was that if the male achieves a state of arousal and preforms normal sexual intercourse it is quite difficult to declare that the "victimizer" coerced the "victim" into having sex. A female can engage in normal sexual intercourse without being aroused but ofcourse the problem here is that it would be quite difficult for a defense to prove that the female was aroused and desirous to protect their client from further charge if the court were to handle these cases the way I'm suggesting.
Actually, this is not a reliable indicator of consent. It's not hard to imagine that a 14-yr-old boy would be physically aroused by a pretty woman, but not actually have the intention of having intercourse or consenting to it...afterall, 14-yr-olds often find themselves in a state of arousal that leaves them rather embarrassed because they do know acting upon it would be inappropriate.

In cases of rape against women, rapists have tried to claim that it wasn't rape because a woman has sufficient (trying to think of a way to say this without being overly graphic)...secretions...that she must have "wanted it." [Sorry, no source on this, I was told that by a college rape counselor who was training the residence life staff on how to handle sexual assault victims if we were the first person they came to. She added that sometimes this arousal left the women confused as well, thinking maybe they did "want it" if they had that reaction, and somehow they felt they were to blame, or felt guilty over that reaction.] However, the problem with that is that any general arousal, such as fear, can translate into such a physiological state in a woman. Beyond that, even if someone is attracted to someone else, it doesn't mean they've consented (such as in the case of date rape).

As for a schoolteacher, the authority that person holds over the teen is the bigger issue, as with any older adult luring in a 14-year-old. Lots of 14-yr-olds, of both sexes, have crushes on teachers, but it doesn't make it a healthy thing to encourage them to indulge in that and let a crush turn into a sexual encounter. Sex with a student isn't even considered acceptable if they are a 21-yr-old college senior and you're their professor. There's both an unfair balance of power and the resultant conflict-of-interest. The kid may have even said yes if he was told he could get an A in the class for it too. Then it's about the same scenario as the secretary sleeping with the boss to get a promotion, which is at least defined as sexual harassment. The difference is that a 14-yr-old is not emotionally mature enough to make such an important decision. At that age, impulsiveness often wins out over forethought.

As for the argument being presented that a 14-yr-old can be tried as an adult for murder, that simply is not true in every case. For the most part, they are still tried as juveniles unless it can be proven they had sufficient maturity and understanding of what they were doing to merit being tried as an adult. A psychiatric evaluation would be involved in making such a determination.
 
533
0
wow luckily for you guys and this arguement, i am 13, in junior high, and turning 14 in june, so i can be your little example person thingy.

i go to an honors school and the kids at my school are good kids blah blah blah... theoretically the way i see it, if i were to have sex with my english or history teacher, who are both pretty young, then i would probably just recieve counseling and the teacher would probably get the whole house arrest-probation thingy like the original post stated, and also stripped of the teaching degree and not be allowed to see children blah blah blah. She might be put on a registerded offenders list, but because i am a boy and supposedly i wouldn't be scared the way a girl would and all this other biased stuff blah blah blah

but if one of my friends who are girls were to sleep with my gym coach or math teacher, even if my friend wasn't really affected by it or maybe even enjoyed it (*winces at thought of PE teacher getting a friend of mine*) even if she shows no damage from it she will recieve a lot of counseling. meanwhile the teacher is doing some serious time in a state prison for at least 10 years, and will then be registered as a sex offender, be watched closely by the authorities, wont be allowed near children, and will never be allowed within 300 feet of a school again
 
Moonie said:
Actually, this is not a reliable indicator of consent.
Oh I know that it's not a reliable indicator but in a court case it would be difficult to try proving otherwise. It's more or less your word against the other person and the fact that your body was reacting the way it was makes it difficult to back up your word on the matter.

Pengwuino said:
whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...888035,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...888035,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...888035,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...888035,00.html

A High Court judge yesterday threw out the case of a student who claimed that she was raped while drunk and unconscious on the basis that “drunken consent is still consent”.
There's a girl I know who was in a similar situation except that she was told what happened afterward by her friends. She had drank quite a bit and a friend placed her in a room by herself so that she could sleep it off. Later her friend found a guy in the room with her. She was apparently saying to the guy "**** me". Her friend chased the guy out of the room. Apparently he went back to the room again later and had sex with her. In her drunken state she was quite willing and even demanding (from what I remember she was the one who initiated the whole thing) but did not remember a thing about it the next day. Her friends had to tell her what happened. She asked me if she should try to bring the guy up on charges for rape. After she told me that he was drunk too I told her that my opinion was it would be wrong to do so. I think that if a woman is not expected to be able to make proper decisions while under the influence that it is unfair to expect that men WILL be able to make responsible decisions while intoxicated.
In the situation in the article though I have no idea if the man involved was intoxicated. Apparently he was working so he shouldn't have been.
 

Related Threads for: House arrest for school teacher

  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
154
Views
10K
Replies
1
Views
339
Replies
2
Views
129
  • Last Post
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
360
Replies
1
Views
305
Replies
1
Views
466

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Top