Female teacher spared jail for having sex with 16-year-old student after prom party because she wrote letter of apology to his mom By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
PUBLISHED: 22:06 EST, 21 February 2014 | UPDATED: 08:10 EST, 22 February 2014
A 10th grade english teacher at a Houston high school has managed to avoid going to prison despite admitting to having a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old student.
Nikki Scherwitz, 25, pleaded guilty to having an inappropriate relationship with a student and was sentenced to 10 years probation.
She was also fined $5,000, KHOU reported.
Scherwitz resigned from her job at Brazosport High School last year when she was questioned about the relationship.
According to KHOU.com, authorities were tipped off after Scherwitz turned up to an after-prom party on April 20 at a student's house.
One of the students who was at the party told the TV station: 'She was wearing no shoes when she showed up…like a cut up, cut off shirt and everything.'
She is also believed to have been drinking.
Another student told her it wasn't right for her to be there and asked her to leave. She and the 16-year-old student then allegedly left together.
Some students were shocked when they learned she got probation.
'The men get 25 to life, but a woman gets a slap on the wrist with only a $5,000 fine,' said Mario Salinas, a student at Brazosport High School.
'If it was a guy, a male teacher with a female student, it wouldn’t be the same,' agreed Oscar Guttierrez, another student.
Prosecutors said they agreed to the plea deal because the student was nearly 17 and Sherwitz agree to send apologies to the mother and the district.
In that letter she said: "I apologize for the behavior I engaged in with a student. I crossed an ethical boundary I never should have crossed. I’m sorry."
'I think she should get more than just probation because that’s a kid,' said Robert Anderson whose grandchild attends the school.
'I think she should get more than just probation because that’s a kid and you shouldn’t have relationships with a young minor.'
Scherwitz has been ordered to stay away from minors and she won’t be allowed to ever teach again.
Reasoned discussion and at least one South Park reference to follow below.
If this was a guy, he would have been skinned. Im sorry, but this is just WRONG. She should be sharing a cell with a female skinhead twice her size.
I think the reason we dont is because we want to see male teenagers as "Sexual Conquerers" like when my dad kept asking me to get laid, but warned my sister to save herself. So it is obvious he was not taken advantage of because he wanted it. UGH
hotsauceman1 wrote: If this was a guy, he would have been skinned. Im sorry, but this is just WRONG. She should be sharing a cell with a female skinhead twice her size.
I think the reason we dont is because we want to see male teenagers as "Sexual Conquerers" like when my dad kept asking me to get laid, but warned my sister to save herself. So it is obvious he was not taken advantage of because he wanted it. UGH
I would imagine the extent to which he attempted to consent (because minors prior to the age consent can't actually do so) is a factor in the sentencing.
I"m gonna take a wild guess and say that when you put a victim on the stand, and he testifies that he was totally into it, that's tough for a jury to swallow.
Maybe, I mean you also have to remember she is a person of authority (still pretty hot though) and I think it's a little weird for someone like her having sexual encounters with a Grade 10 student I can't imagine someone of that age really leaving her feeling satisfied sexually.
There are actually 2 separate crimes here. The first, obviously, is statutory rape since the age of consent in Texas is 17. The second is Texas section 21.12which prohibits sexual contact between educators and students regardless of age of the victim. The average sentence for that is pretty severe.
I"m gonna take a wild guess and say that when you put a victim on the stand, and he testifies that he was totally into it, that's tough for a jury to swallow.
This. We might set the age of consent at a specific age, but I think by 16, most teenagers probably have some idea what they're getting into. While unethical I don't think that these situations stack up to criminal conduct a lot of the time.
At least she'll never be in a classroom again. What an absolute disgrace to the teaching profession. Abusing the power and influence of our position to take advantage of a student is utterly unconscionable.
Corpsesarefun wrote: As much as I hate to blame the victim, I'm not sure that she was the one to initiate the relationship.
I'm not clear from the article, was the 16 year old a student of hers or went to the school in which she worked? If so, then it's a misuse of authority. That should be treated a lot more seriously. It doesn't matter who 'initiated' the relationship, she knew the boundaries and was the adult in authority.
I work in a secondary school, there are many impressionable 16-17 year old girls there. If I had sex with one, even if she initiated it, I would be toasted for it. And rightly so.
Relapse wrote:It's a fairly disgusting situation. On top of abusing a position of power and trust , it looks like she's married, also.
dogma wrote:I don't see how her marital status is relevant.
In terms of it being disgusting it would be relevant. Unless you consider cheating to be okay and perfectly ethical behavior. I'm operating under the assumption it was not an open relationship. If it was, well different strokes.
In terms of it being disgusting it would be relevant. Unless you consider cheating to be okay and perfectly ethical behavior. I'm operating under the assumption it was not an open relationship. If it was, well different strokes.
I assume it was either open, or unsatisfying. Open means "cheating" is fully acceptable, the lack of satisfaction creates a grey area.
Some ethical boundaries are more equal than other ethical boundaries.
In this case...
...by reason of hotness.
But, on a more serious note: everyone claiming that this case is an abuse of power...you're assuming that she initiated the relationship. That may not necessarily be the case. Not every teacher-student sexual relationship is an abuse of power or coercion. Sometimes it's just two people making a bad decision.
In this case, it looks like she did something incredibly stupid by showing up to a party for high school students. Abuse of power? I mean...he left a crowded area with her so it's not like she touched his peepee in the office or anything. Anyway, horseshoes to hand grenades I'm willing to bet that this woman has some kind of mental illness. What attractive 25 year old wants to get slutted up and bang a 16 year old? Might be a domestic dispute issue - husband and her have an argument, she goes out to "show him up" or something along those lines.
South Park was the first thing I thought of too. She's hot as hell. The kid's father should have pressed charges against the law if she got in trouble. Most guys would give their left testicle to sleep with her. She did the kid a solid. Literally and figuratively.
Normally I'd get up in arms about this...but right now I'm just seriously jealous of that kid.
Seaward wrote: I'm pretty okay with the "double standard." Pretending that males are exactly the same as females and need the same protections? Not so much.
I am as well, to an extent.
As Polonius said before, case-by-case review should be the norm.
I'm willing to bet that this woman has some kind of mental illness. What attractive 25 year old wants to get slutted up and bang a 16 year old? Might be a domestic dispute issue - husband and her have an argument, she goes out to "show him up" or something along those lines.
How does a perceived desire to embarrass a husband lead you to conclude that the woman in question may have been suffering from a mental illness?
dogma wrote: I don't see how her marital status is relevant.
It's relevant on many levels.
She is betraying the trust of her husband, leaving room fo the consequences the betrayal and scandal that come to him emotionaly, physically, and sociologically.
The same is true for any children she may have.
When the kid she had her fling with has time to reflect on what part he has possibly played in the wreck of a marriage, if it falls apart, and he has a shred of concience, it's going to burn him badly.
The fact that she cheapened the sanctity of marriage comes into play for many people, myself included.
If the kid had a disease, she could have given it to her husband.
I'm willing to bet that this woman has some kind of mental illness. What attractive 25 year old wants to get slutted up and bang a 16 year old? Might be a domestic dispute issue - husband and her have an argument, she goes out to "show him up" or something along those lines.
How does a perceived desire to embarrass a husband lead you to conclude that the woman in question may have been suffering from a mental illness?
I mean, aside from sexism.
Get the sand out of your crack.
A 25 year old woman OR man who will go to a highschool party and have sex with a student to get back at his or her spouse is probably suffering from some kind of mental illness, diagnosed or undiagnosed. How is it that you always manage to get offended for the most idiotic reasons?
In terms of it being disgusting it would be relevant. Unless you consider cheating to be okay and perfectly ethical behavior. I'm operating under the assumption it was not an open relationship. If it was, well different strokes.
I assume it was either open, or unsatisfying. Open means "cheating" is fully acceptable, the lack of satisfaction creates a grey area.
No, it doesn't. If you are not satisfied attempt to reconcile, get a divorce or at the very least separate. At no time is cheating acceptable or even in a "gray area."
In terms of it being disgusting it would be relevant. Unless you consider cheating to be okay and perfectly ethical behavior. I'm operating under the assumption it was not an open relationship. If it was, well different strokes.
I assume it was either open, or unsatisfying. Open means "cheating" is fully acceptable, the lack of satisfaction creates a grey area.
No, it doesn't. If you are not satisfied attempt to reconcile, get a divorce or at the very least separate. At no time is cheating acceptable or even in a "gray area."
And at no point should cheating affect a case like this, it is really irrelevant to her punishment by law. She can get divorced and if she had a prenup or something then it would have an effect, but as it is, it shouldn't change anything.
In terms of it being disgusting it would be relevant. Unless you consider cheating to be okay and perfectly ethical behavior. I'm operating under the assumption it was not an open relationship. If it was, well different strokes.
I assume it was either open, or unsatisfying. Open means "cheating" is fully acceptable, the lack of satisfaction creates a grey area.
No, it doesn't. If you are not satisfied attempt to reconcile, get a divorce or at the very least separate. At no time is cheating acceptable or even in a "gray area."
And at no point should cheating affect a case like this, it is really irrelevant to her punishment by law. She can get divorced and if she had a prenup or something then it would have an effect, but as it is, it shouldn't change anything.
It's not affecting the case. The discussion involving her cheating involves moral, not legal ramifications.
And yeah, if the boy didn't mind, I don't see the problem. Hell, I know I wanted to tap one or 2 of my teachers back at that age.
Man, such double standards.
Nobody would care if it was a young female initiating, if she initiated and the male teacher wanted it too, we'd slap him with 25 to life and that'd be the end of it.
Disgusting double standards and the people who perpetuate it.
So, a teacher broke the law on two counts- one having sex with a student and two having sex with a minor.
In a fair and equal society that is the extent of the information you need to sentence the perpetrator. If you adjust your sentencing based on the gender -whichever way you do so- you are showing your bias.
And yeah, if the boy didn't mind, I don't see the problem. Hell, I know I wanted to tap one or 2 of my teachers back at that age.
Minors cannot consent. Sex without consent is rape.
Kojiro wrote: So, a teacher broke the law on two counts- one having sex with a student and two having sex with a minor.
In a fair and equal society that is the extent of the information you need to sentence the perpetrator. If you adjust your sentencing based on the gender -whichever way you do so- you are showing your bias.
And yeah, if the boy didn't mind, I don't see the problem. Hell, I know I wanted to tap one or 2 of my teachers back at that age.
Minors cannot consent. Sex without consent is rape.
I have a sister in law that had a much older gym teacher in her high scool cultivate a relationship with her. Such people, male or female are nothing more than pond scum in their actions.
Kojiro wrote: Minors cannot consent. Sex without consent is rape.
Am I the only one who finds it strange that sex with a minor is defined as rape rather than it's own distinct crime? It often overlaps with rape but that's no reason to just lump the two together.
Kojiro wrote: Minors cannot consent. Sex without consent is rape.
Am I the only one who finds it strange that sex with a minor is defined as rape rather than it's own distinct crime? It often overlaps with rape but that's no reason to just lump the two together.
It's not different than having sex with a woman who has passed out; in that the other party is incapable of giving consent.
Seaward wrote: I got raped a lot as a teenager, in that case. Don't regret it.
Are you proposing that when adults abuse their positions of trust and power shouldn't be charged? Because not everyone has no regrets. I suppose you're lucky your partner (assuming she was female) didn't get pregnant and force you to deal with the consequences of that affair, or give you a disease or otherwise impact your life negatively.
A 25 year old woman OR man who will go to a highschool party and have sex with a student to get back at his or her spouse is probably suffering from some kind of mental illness, diagnosed or undiagnosed. How is it that you always manage to get offended for the most idiotic reasons?
I'm not offended.
I'm asking a pointed question, which you did not answer, regarding how you arrived at the conclusion that the woman in question has a mental illness.
I find this ridiculous... honestly even if he did come on to her it's her responsibility to tell him where to go. I'm sick of the whole women getting away scott free when it comes to things like this. The point of statutory rape laws isn't really for post-pubescence it's for post adolescence because it's not whether you know what sex is and how to do it. it's more of the consequences and all that jazz.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm sick of anyone who gets off of rape charges for bullcrap reasons. Justice is just a word apparently .
Well she was drunk, so her sense of inhibition and responsibility was reduced.
She got probation, a $5,000 fine and lost her job, which isn't exactly getting away scot free. She will probably never work as a teacher again.
Looking at the Texas history of sentencing of such cases we see that "the whole women getting away scott free" is not a fact but something you've imagined. There are plenty of women in gaol for it.
well scott free was obviously an exaggeration my friend. Still Im am sick of the world and how it works, I am not complaining about my life because I know I have no room to complain , my life isn't as bad as others and IK that(though a lot of people in my country tend to think their lives are so bad(which they are far from anything bad). My point is all these jerks, these scumbags get less punishment then they deserve...like celebs n ATTRACTIVE women what not.. jail btw...
Kilkrazy wrote: Well she was drunk, so her sense of inhibition and responsibility was reduced.
I must confess, that is a compelling defense that should work in a variety of criminal cases.
However, since this had been going on for months (from that second article I linked... somewhere in here) I wonder if she was bombed all the time. A noble endeavor, to be sure.
Kilkrazy wrote: She got probation, a $5,000 fine and lost her job, which isn't exactly getting away scot free. She will probably never work as a teacher again.
Looking at the Texas history of sentencing of such cases we see that "the whole women getting away scott free" is not a fact but something you've imagined. There are plenty of women in gaol for it.
I don't dispute that some women have been jailed, my concern is that this one was not. Although, now that we're looking at that chart, it appears that men go to jail for that specific offense a little about 80% more than women, despite the fact that elementary school teachers in the US are 76% female. So, I think there's a possibility of some judicial bias after all.
Yes, she probably will never work as a teacher again. Is that actually a sufficient punishment? To my thinking, it is not. While the 20 years she could have gotten would have been too extreme, I think a sex offender registry should have been the minimum.
She is betraying the trust of her husband, leaving room fo the consequences the betrayal and scandal that come to him emotionaly, physically, and sociologically.
Well, she might be. Marriage does not imply the existence of a monogamous relationship, though I suppose placing oneself in legal jeopardy could also constitute a betrayal of trust.
When the kid she had her fling with has time to reflect on what part he has possibly played in the wreck of a marriage, if it falls apart, and he has a shred of concience, it's going to burn him badly.
If it would have bothered him at all, it would have bothered him at the beginning of the relationship.
Kilkrazy wrote: Well she was drunk, so her sense of inhibition and responsibility was reduced.
I must confess, that is a compelling defense that should work in a variety of criminal cases.
However, since this had been going on for months (from that second article I linked... somewhere in here) I wonder if she was bombed all the time. A noble endeavor, to be sure.
Kilkrazy wrote: She got probation, a $5,000 fine and lost her job, which isn't exactly getting away scot free. She will probably never work as a teacher again.
Looking at the Texas history of sentencing of such cases we see that "the whole women getting away scott free" is not a fact but something you've imagined. There are plenty of women in gaol for it.
I don't dispute that some women have been jailed, my concern is that this one was not. Although, now that we're looking at that chart, it appears that men go to jail for that specific offense a little about 80% more than women, despite the fact that elementary school teachers in the US are 76% female. So, I think there's a possibility of some judicial bias after all.
Yeah that's what I found interesting about the chart...
Also I find that being drunk is no excuse if anything it should play into increasing sentences...not lessening them. I could just go kill someone and be like" oh I was dwunk, im sowwy" . And possibly get manslaughter instead
No, it doesn't. If you are not satisfied attempt to reconcile, get a divorce or at the very least separate. At no time is cheating acceptable or even in a "gray area."
It's not different than having sex with a woman who has passed out; in that the other party is incapable of giving consent.
I think it's a disservice to sixteen year olds around the world to say that they have the decision making abilities of someone that's unconscious.
I am a guy so can't really call me sexist on this one but come on , a majority of teenage boys don't think with the head they should be thinking with if you know what I mean...
It's not different than having sex with a woman who has passed out; in that the other party is incapable of giving consent.
I think it's a disservice to sixteen year olds around the world to say that they have the decision making abilities of someone that's unconscious.
It's not a distinction that I have drawn, it's the one the citizens of Texas have decided upon for themselves via their duly elected state representatives. Those same citizens, I hasten to add, also saw fit to criminalize an educator having sex with their students regardless of the age of the student.
Kojiro wrote: Are you proposing that when adults abuse their positions of trust and power shouldn't be charged?
No. Merely taking issue with the notion that a 16 year-old can't give consent as a hard and fast rule. As 16 is the age of consent in most states, it rings false. As someone who had sex while 16, it rings false.
Corpsesarefun wrote: I think it's a disservice to sixteen year olds around the world to say that they have the decision making abilities of someone that's unconscious.
Except he's claiming it's universally true- clearly there are decisions a sixteen year old can make- but in terms of sex and the possible repercussions then no, they are not able to conset. They lack the maturity, foresight and appreciation of what they might truly be getting into.
By saying they can consent you're saying they're ready to decide to become a parent, ready to risk their lives with possible diseases and ready to potentially shoulder the financial burdens of child rearing. There may be exceptions who are ready at sixteen but they'd be few and far between. It's the same reason sex ed (in particular contraceptive use) is so terribly important. You can't stop teenages from having sex but you can damn well make it as safe as possible for them.
Kojiro wrote: Except he's claiming it's universally true- clearly there are decisions a sixteen year old can make- but in terms of sex and the possible repercussions then no, they are not able to conset. They lack the maturity, foresight and appreciation of what they might truly be getting into.
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia disagree with you. As does a hell of a lot of Europe, come to think of it.
Seaward wrote: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia disagree with you. As does a hell of a lot of Europe, come to think of it.
Funny I don't see Texas on that list.
Even so we're now arguing for the arbitrary legal age. I'm more than happy to say sixteen year old boys don't think straight when it comes to (the possibility of getting) sex. Feel free to disagree with that- like Texas does.
More over I would ask at what point do you draw the line?
No. Merely illustrating that a full-throated insistence that 16 year-olds aren't mentally capable of giving consent is something that not nearly everyone agrees with.
People mature at different rates. Some individuals are never ready for the responsibility of raising a child. How much will a 16 years old's desire to get laid and damn the consequences differ from an 18 year old or a 20 year old? Why is it legally acceptable for minors to have sex with each other, but suddenly it is an issue if an adult has sex with a minor? Aren't many of the reasons people are arguing against an adult having sex with a minor applicable to minors having sex with one another? It can still lead to pregnancy, you can still transmit STDs, and it can still be emotionally damaging for both parties.
Kojiro wrote: There may be exceptions who are ready at sixteen but they'd be few and far between.
Seaward wrote:No. Merely illustrating that a full-throated insistence that 16 year-olds aren't mentally capable of giving consent is something that not nearly everyone agrees with.
Hardly 'full-throated' when I've already acknowledged the existence of exceptions. And I fully accept that not everyone agrees. Not everyone agrees on pretty damn near everything. And my argument, to be particular, is that they're incapable of giving informed consent because they (largely) can't appreciate the scope of what they're doing and potential outcomes.
Does this disappear at 17, 18 or 21? Not necessarily but the age of consent is the age is also the age of responsibility. If you can consent to it you're responsible for it and as pregnancy (and to a lesser extent disease) is utterly inherent to sex, that is one consequence you have to be responsible for.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well have to agree to disagree- after all the localities of the world do. Also this is off topic.
LordofHats wrote: Aren't there a few states that have an age range instead of a set age of consent? Like someone within 3 years of your age or so is fine?
Some states have what are called "Romeo & Juliet laws" which are intended to rectify previous instances of (for example) a 17 year old boy being charged for having sex with a 16 year old girl. Usually there is a floating 3 year window, such as there is in this example, Texas. It's not applicable to this situation because she is too much older (and additionally because of the Educator clause).
I'm not arguing what age that sex should be legal at, I'm just saying a 16 year old is physically capable of giving consent regardless of whether it's a good idea or not. If someone reaches the age of 16 without being able to say "yes" then they are likely mentally handicapped.
Nonetheless there has to be a cut off point for the law to function, otherwise the police would not be able to determine if an offence might have occurred.
On conviction Judges have discretion to vary their sentence within the sentencing guidelines.
The reasons why this woman got off lightly seem to be partly that the lad involved was nearly 17, which is the age of consent in Texas, the sex appears to have been consensual, and there doesn't seem to have been a specific abuse of her position as a teacher. (As well as expressing contrition, etc.)
Going back to the chart of sex offenders, it's true that women outnumber men in elementary school teaching, however if you think about it, female heterosexual predators are unlikely to target pre-pubescent boys because they cannot give satisfaction. Male heterosexual predators of course can target pre-pubescent girls.
In senior schools there is a much higher proportion of male teachers. It is known that men are more sexually predatory then women.
Thus the fact that there are a lot more men in prison for such offences is not necessarily a reflection of institutional bias for women.
She is betraying the trust of her husband, leaving room fo the consequences the betrayal and scandal that come to him emotionaly, physically, and sociologically.
Well, she might be. Marriage does not imply the existence of a monogamous relationship, though I suppose placing oneself in legal jeopardy could also constitute a betrayal of trust.
When the kid she had her fling with has time to reflect on what part he has possibly played in the wreck of a marriage, if it falls apart, and he has a shred of concience, it's going to burn him badly.
If it would have bothered him at all, it would have bothered him at the beginning of the relationship.
Yes, and it clearly demonstrates that married, white men in their 40's cannot be trusted around girls
of high school age.
Marriage should, since a part of the vow is to "forsake all others", but I understand that not all people take that vow seriously. It still leaves room for the other consequences I mentioned that you didn't quote here.
As far as the kid not feeling anything, I heavily disagree with what you say. I think most people here on the thread have seen instances where a lot of regret comes about things done in youth when they are thought about at a more mature age.
The link I posted was not saying men can't be trusted around kids, as I think you well know, but was put there as an example of another case where trust was abused by a teacher and the fallout from that event.
The other points you didn't address illustrate, also, why it is worse moraly and by reason of consequence on all affected by this if she was married.
I really don't think the moral implications of her potentially cheating are relevant to this case anymore than any other moral wrongdoings she may have in her past.
Corpsesarefun wrote: I really don't think the moral implications of her potentially cheating are relevant to this case anymore than any other moral wrongdoings she may have in her past.
Legally, no. Morally, along with other potential fallout, absolutely they are.
Corpsesarefun wrote: Again, if we're talking about all her moral flaws then why not bring up the puppy she might have kicked when she was eight?
I see that marriage means nothing to you, so there is really not much point in talking to you about all the things that she could have potentially brought down on everyone by way of consequences. Just google some news stories of spouses reactions to finding out they were being cheated on.
Kilkrazy wrote: People get prosecuted for actual crimes, though, not for things they've done that aren't nice.
Once again, I am not talking about legal consequences, but moral implications and other things that come about when one spouse cheats on another, especially when the one cheating is resorting to having sex with children.
I'm somewhat confused here. Are people on this site arguing that this wasn't really rape? It wasn't "rape-rape"? Or are they saying it was rape, but if it happened to them, they wouldn't press charges/ mind at all?
I would have loved to bang my 10th grade English teacher when I was in school. Hell, Pamela Handerson was temporarily renamed in her honor at the time. However, the whole "it isn't rape because the dude wanted it" vibe I'm getting from this thread is pretty disturbing. Will it become rape later if the student in question comes to regret the encounter?
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: I'm somewhat confused here. Are people on this site arguing that this wasn't really rape? It wasn't "rape-rape"? Or are they saying it was rape, but if it happened to them, they wouldn't press charges/ mind at all?
I would have loved to bang my 10th grade English teacher when I was in school. Hell, Pamela Handerson was temporarily renamed in her honor at the time. However, the whole "it isn't rape because the dude wanted it" vibe I'm getting from this thread is pretty disturbing. Will it become rape later if the student in question comes to regret the encounter?
What if he grows up with the idea it's acceptable for him to have sex with 14 year old girls because of how this played out. Right now we have a precident that it's alright as long as a nice apology letter is written.
It was statutory rape. That is the name of the crime when a minor has sexual relations whether they are consensual or not.
It's clear that there is a difference between consensual and non-consensual sexual relationships. That's why we have "Romeo & Juliet" laws, and laws about enticement and abuse of positions of power.
It was legally statutory rape. Without a doubt. She's still incredibly hot, and each one of us would have done the same thing in his shoes. I give the kid props. Did she make a bad decision? Of course. Did the kid win the metaphorical jackpot? Oh yeah.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: I'm somewhat confused here. Are people on this site arguing that this wasn't really rape? It wasn't "rape-rape"? Or are they saying it was rape, but if it happened to them, they wouldn't press charges/ mind at all?
I would have loved to bang my 10th grade English teacher when I was in school. Hell, Pamela Handerson was temporarily renamed in her honor at the time. However, the whole "it isn't rape because the dude wanted it" vibe I'm getting from this thread is pretty disturbing. Will it become rape later if the student in question comes to regret the encounter?
Here's the problem. If instead of having sex that night, the woman had quit her job and waited a month, it would magically not be rape. She wouldn't be an educator, and he'd be 17. Has his ability to consent changed markedly in that time? Or have simply the circumstances changed?
Statutory rape laws are arbitrary, which is fine, because a big part of being adult is following arbitrary rules. Arbitrary doesn't mean bad or frivolous, but it also doesn't mean that somebody is morally bankrupt because they ended up on the wrong side.
Rape, at its broadest, is sexual contact without the consent of the victim. We have no reason to doubt that that boy gave consent, it was simply his age under Texas law, and the fact that the woman was his teacher, that prevented him from giving legal consent.
Maybe he is upset by this. Maybe he's in counseling because he was taken advantage of by a predator. Or maybe he's happy he slept with a hot 24 year old. We don't know, probably won't ever know, but I'm gonna take a guess that there's no real victim here.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: I'm somewhat confused here. Are people on this site arguing that this wasn't really rape? It wasn't "rape-rape"? Or are they saying it was rape, but if it happened to them, they wouldn't press charges/ mind at all?
I would have loved to bang my 10th grade English teacher when I was in school. Hell, Pamela Handerson was temporarily renamed in her honor at the time. However, the whole "it isn't rape because the dude wanted it" vibe I'm getting from this thread is pretty disturbing. Will it become rape later if the student in question comes to regret the encounter?
Here's the problem. If instead of having sex that night, the woman had quit her job and waited a month, it would magically not be rape. She wouldn't be an educator, and he'd be 17. Has his ability to consent changed markedly in that time? Or have simply the circumstances changed?
Statutory rape laws are arbitrary, which is fine, because a big part of being adult is following arbitrary rules. Arbitrary doesn't mean bad or frivolous, but it also doesn't mean that somebody is morally bankrupt because they ended up on the wrong side.
Rape, at its broadest, is sexual contact without the consent of the victim. We have no reason to doubt that that boy gave consent, it was simply his age under Texas law, and the fact that the woman was his teacher, that prevented him from giving legal consent.
Maybe he is upset by this. Maybe he's in counseling because he was taken advantage of by a predator. Or maybe he's happy he slept with a hot 24 year old. We don't know, probably won't ever know, but I'm gonna take a guess that there's no real victim here.
Okay, this makes sense. It was early in the morning and my only half my neurons showed up to work on time. Hopefully, the kid is all right and giving high fives to all his classmates etc.
Corpsesarefun wrote: I'm not arguing what age that sex should be legal at, I'm just saying a 16 year old is physically capable of giving consent regardless of whether it's a good idea or not. If someone reaches the age of 16 without being able to say "yes" then they are likely mentally handicapped.
Again it's not whether he can physically say yes...It's about if he knows what he's agreeing to and the aftermath.
Automatically Appended Next Post: because that's what consent is when it comes to sex.
The whole issue is really to do with parental/adult anxieties about emerging sexuality of teenagers. It's about a socially constructed view of whether a 16 year old is capable of giving informed consent to sex, or should be allowed to.
In many countries and states he can. He can't in Texas and many other countries and states.
Being 16 years and 364 days old and then waiting 24 hours does not magically imbue someone with the knowledge of good and evil. But we have to have a legal dividing line, and Texas chose 17.
It might be considered that "informed consent" cannot be properly "informed" without good quality sex education, whatever the age of consent. And vice versa.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: I'm somewhat confused here. Are people on this site arguing that this wasn't really rape? It wasn't "rape-rape"? Or are they saying it was rape, but if it happened to them, they wouldn't press charges/ mind at all?
I would have loved to bang my 10th grade English teacher when I was in school. Hell, Pamela Handerson was temporarily renamed in her honor at the time. However, the whole "it isn't rape because the dude wanted it" vibe I'm getting from this thread is pretty disturbing. Will it become rape later if the student in question comes to regret the encounter?
Here's the problem. If instead of having sex that night, the woman had quit her job and waited a month, it would magically not be rape. She wouldn't be an educator, and he'd be 17. Has his ability to consent changed markedly in that time? Or have simply the circumstances changed?
Statutory rape laws are arbitrary, which is fine, because a big part of being adult is following arbitrary rules. Arbitrary doesn't mean bad or frivolous, but it also doesn't mean that somebody is morally bankrupt because they ended up on the wrong side.
Rape, at its broadest, is sexual contact without the consent of the victim. We have no reason to doubt that that boy gave consent, it was simply his age under Texas law, and the fact that the woman was his teacher, that prevented him from giving legal consent.
Maybe he is upset by this. Maybe he's in counseling because he was taken advantage of by a predator. Or maybe he's happy he slept with a hot 24 year old. We don't know, probably won't ever know, but I'm gonna take a guess that there's no real victim here.
Or they could've just driven to the state line with Oklahoma and gone a foot across it to get it on.
Which of course necessitates a Reno 911 reference.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: I'm somewhat confused here. Are people on this site arguing that this wasn't really rape? It wasn't "rape-rape"? Or are they saying it was rape, but if it happened to them, they wouldn't press charges/ mind at all?
I would have loved to bang my 10th grade English teacher when I was in school. Hell, Pamela Handerson was temporarily renamed in her honor at the time. However, the whole "it isn't rape because the dude wanted it" vibe I'm getting from this thread is pretty disturbing. Will it become rape later if the student in question comes to regret the encounter?
So if you ever regret a sexual encounter it becomes rape? What?
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: I'm somewhat confused here. Are people on this site arguing that this wasn't really rape? It wasn't "rape-rape"? Or are they saying it was rape, but if it happened to them, they wouldn't press charges/ mind at all?
I would have loved to bang my 10th grade English teacher when I was in school. Hell, Pamela Handerson was temporarily renamed in her honor at the time. However, the whole "it isn't rape because the dude wanted it" vibe I'm getting from this thread is pretty disturbing. Will it become rape later if the student in question comes to regret the encounter?
So if you ever regret a sexual encounter it becomes rape? What?
I think what Sgt means is when the full implications of what happened sink in as he grows older and realizes what happened was, in fact, rape.
Marriage should, since a part of the vow is to "forsake all others", but I understand that not all people take that vow seriously.
Probably because marital vows don't necessarily include "forsake all others". People write their own vows all the time, and it isn't (to my knowledge) a required element of the ceremony at civil marriages.
As far as the kid not feeling anything, I heavily disagree with what you say. I think most people here on the thread have seen instances where a lot of regret comes about things done in youth when they are thought about at a more mature age.
I doubt this will be one of those things. I certainly wouldn't regret it.
Marriage should, since a part of the vow is to "forsake all others", but I understand that not all people take that vow seriously.
Probably because marital vows don't necessarily include "forsake all others". People write their own vows all the time, and it isn't (to my knowledge) a required element of the ceremony at civil marriages.
As far as the kid not feeling anything, I heavily disagree with what you say. I think most people here on the thread have seen instances where a lot of regret comes about things done in youth when they are thought about at a more mature age.
I doubt this will be one of those things. I certainly wouldn't regret it.
It could fall either way, I'll grant. But if there is a marriage and it does break up, and he does develop a concience along the way, then it will not make for pleasant contemplation.
History has shown these discussions inevitably break into two very specific camps
You mean the people who will discuss this seriously and the people who say "the crime is she isn't having sex with me".
It would still be wrong even if this wasn't the case but she wouldn't be arrested if she wasn't a teacher given that the student was of legal age. Oh and by the way the reason this made the news was because she's good looking, the whole violated by a woman fantasy isn't far fetched, just the part of them all being hot.
Oh and on a side note regarding the issue of sexual harassment in school, college or the workplace it also causes horrible jealousy issues. I guarantee you all the male interns who worked for Clinton knew they had no chance. Also I have had the misfortune of being in a class environment where the was a whose your sugar mom going on and nothing got done just cause off jealousy issues.
It could fall either way, I'll grant. But if there is a marriage and it does break up, and he does develop a concience along the way, then it will not make for pleasant contemplation.
By "develops a conscience" what you really mean is "develops a conscience like mine".
It could fall either way, I'll grant. But if there is a marriage and it does break up, and he does develop a concience along the way, then it will not make for pleasant contemplation.
By "develops a conscience" what you really mean is "develops a conscience like mine".
I've seen many times the impact divorce has on people, adults and children. Are you saying you wouldn't care about the way people would be affected or the consequences in their lives if you were the cause of a divorce?
I've seen many times the impact divorce has on people, adults and children. Are you saying you wouldn't care about the way people would be affected or the consequences in their lives if you were the cause of a divorce?
It would depend on the circumstances, but if I gave a damn it would be at the onset of the relationship.
In all honesty no person outside a given marriage is the cause of any divorce, people that claim that are deflecting.
I've seen many times the impact divorce has on people, adults and children. Are you saying you wouldn't care about the way people would be affected or the consequences in their lives if you were the cause of a divorce?
It would depend on the circumstances, but if I gave a damn it would be at the onset of the relationship.
In all honesty no person outside a given marriage is the cause of any divorce, people that claim that are deflecting.
So if you commited adultry with a woman, the husband found out, and divorced her, beat her, whatever, and possibly kids were faced with the prospect of dealing with the effect on their lives of the whole drama, this would not bother you in the slightest? The thought of such a thing happening at the outset would not even give you pause?
I've seen many times the impact divorce has on people, adults and children. Are you saying you wouldn't care about the way people would be affected or the consequences in their lives if you were the cause of a divorce?
It would depend on the circumstances, but if I gave a damn it would be at the onset of the relationship.
In all honesty no person outside a given marriage is the cause of any divorce, people that claim that are deflecting.
So if you commited adultry with a woman, the husband found out, and divorced her, beat her, whatever, and possibly kids were faced with the prospect of dealing with the effect on their lives of the whole drama, this would not bother you in the slightest? The thought of such a thing happening at the outset would not even give you pause?
Honestly divorce would probably be the best thing to happen to that relationship if the husband beats his wife.
So if you commited adultry with a woman, the husband found out, and divorced her, beat her, whatever, and possibly kids were faced with the prospect of dealing with the effect on their lives of the whole drama, this would not bother you in the slightest? The thought of such a thing happening at the outset would not even give you pause?
That isn't what I said.
If those things seemed probable at the onset of the relationship they would give me pause, though not necessarily stop me. I also would never feel any responsibility for the dissolution of the marriage. A marriage in which one partner is cheating is a broken marriage.
I've seen many times the impact divorce has on people, adults and children. Are you saying you wouldn't care about the way people would be affected or the consequences in their lives if you were the cause of a divorce?
It would depend on the circumstances, but if I gave a damn it would be at the onset of the relationship.
In all honesty no person outside a given marriage is the cause of any divorce, people that claim that are deflecting.
So if you commited adultry with a woman, the husband found out, and divorced her, beat her, whatever, and possibly kids were faced with the prospect of dealing with the effect on their lives of the whole drama, this would not bother you in the slightest? The thought of such a thing happening at the outset would not even give you pause?
Honestly divorce would probably be the best thing to happen to that relationship if the husband beats his wife.
So what I am gathering from the comments of Dogma and yourself, forgive me if I'm wrong, you have never witnessed a case of adultry where anyone was deeply hurt? As far as beating goes, I'm not saying it's a regular thing, but a crime of passion upon finding out about the adultry. Really people's actions can go in any direction with that kind of discovery, as we all probably know.
I've never witnessed adultery in general, I just think hurting people physically is disgusting (unless that's your fetish and it's consensual) and should only be used in self-defense or to protect others.
Cheesecat wrote: I've never witnessed adultery in general, I just think hurting people physically is disgusting (unless that's your fetish and it's consensual) and should only be used in self-defense or to protect others.
Be that as it may, I have seen first hand several times the way people react to discovery of adultry and it was never pretty. The first time was a couple of friends of mine in high school had thier world turned upside down when their father was found to be cheating with a younger woman and the marriage came apart. They were dragged through months of hell and it left a serious mark on the younger one. Another acquaintence discovered cheating and it led to a murder-suicide. One of my closest friends two years ago discovered his wife was cheating and that marriage ended with effects on his health and mental state. He went from being outgoing and happy to extremely pessemistic and I'd almost say suicidal.
I can give other examples, but I think these that I've given already should give a general idea. People are unpredictable when faced with this kind of thing.
Polonius wrote: Here's the problem. If instead of having sex that night, the woman had quit her job and waited a month, it would magically not be rape. She wouldn't be an educator, and he'd be 17. Has his ability to consent changed markedly in that time? Or have simply the circumstances changed?
Statutory rape laws are arbitrary, which is fine, because a big part of being adult is following arbitrary rules. Arbitrary doesn't mean bad or frivolous, but it also doesn't mean that somebody is morally bankrupt because they ended up on the wrong side.
Rape, at its broadest, is sexual contact without the consent of the victim. We have no reason to doubt that that boy gave consent, it was simply his age under Texas law, and the fact that the woman was his teacher, that prevented him from giving legal consent.
Maybe he is upset by this. Maybe he's in counseling because he was taken advantage of by a predator. Or maybe he's happy he slept with a hot 24 year old. We don't know, probably won't ever know, but I'm gonna take a guess that there's no real victim here.
Well put. Have an exalt.
As an aside, she was pretty young herself. I don't know a bout you guys, but I've known more than a few 25-year olds who weren't much more adult than 16-18 year olds. Also, I know quite a few couples/marriages (my sister included) where the age difference is the same or more as between these two people.
Obviously, there would have been a much more significant difference in mental capacity had they both been 6 years younger, but still.
Also, I'm not sure the situation should be (obviously it is) handled any differently had their ages been reversed. In fact, girls/women (or so I'm told) become adults faster than men do, so this is one instance where men are definitely discriminated against.
Obviously, I do agree that she was fired and fined heavily for violating teacher/student whatchamacallit.
(OT: While I'm definitely an adult, I do not blindly follow arbitrary rules. I make it a point to question them and throw them out the window when the situation requires it.)
Polonius wrote: Here's the problem. If instead of having sex that night, the woman had quit her job and waited a month, it would magically not be rape. She wouldn't be an educator, and he'd be 17. Has his ability to consent changed markedly in that time? Or have simply the circumstances changed?.
This is probably the best argument ITT for the sentencing as it lay that isn't rooted in simply "niiiice". While I still think a sex offender registry was appropriate I do find your reasoning compelling.
So what I am gathering from the comments of Dogma and yourself, forgive me if I'm wrong, you have never witnessed a case of adultry where anyone was deeply hurt?
I have, but in all cases one party or the other was invested in a relationship that had no value to them beyond that which was dictated by a perceived need to be married.
Ironclad Warlord wrote: OK this is just my take but is the only reason she's in the news cause she's hot, cause I never see fat lunch ladies getting on the news.
I imagine this case would receive coverage regardless of her appearance, but her appearance definitely increased the amount of coverage it received.
Seaward wrote: I'm pretty okay with the "double standard." Pretending that males are exactly the same as females and need the same protections? Not so much.
I am as well, to a extent.
As Polonius said before, case-by-case review should be the norm.
I'm willing to bet that this woman has some kind of mental illness. What attractive 25 year old wants to get slutted up and bang a 16 year old? Might be a domestic dispute issue - husband and her have an argument, she goes out to "show him up" or something along those lines.
How does a perceived desire to embarrass a husband lead you to conclude that the woman in question may have been suffering from a mental illness?
I mean, aside from sexism.
Someone who agrees men don't need the same protections as women, or rather, imply that women are unable to protect themselves in the same vein as men, does NOT get to accuse someone else of sexism....
Someone who agrees men don't need the same protections as women, or rather, imply that women are unable to protect themselves in the same vein as men, does NOT get to accuse someone else of sexism....
It is not sexist to recognize that the biological differences between men and women necessitate different protections, nor that those differences render women more vulnerable than men.
Someone who agrees men don't need the same protections as women, or rather, imply that women are unable to protect themselves in the same vein as men, does NOT get to accuse someone else of sexism....
It is not sexist to recognize that the biological differences between men and women necessitate different protections, nor that those differences render women more vulnerable than men.
And how do women need protecting over men?
Physically? Pepper Spray, guns, knives, hell, even a flashlight can be used as a weapon in a darkened room/alley.
Sexually? Are you saying that if it weren't for men's laws protecting women, they would just wantonly have sex willy nilly because they don't know better?
How Vulnerable do you need to be in a world where you can be dead by a couple of ounces of pulling on a trigger?
Sexually? Are you saying that if it weren't for men's laws protecting women, they would just wantonly have sex willy nilly because they don't know better?
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo it's not.
Please vocalize the sentiment. Say "she deserved to be raped because her skirt was short."
If you feel like a jackass afterwards, congrats, you're not the worst person in the world.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yes....never mind indeed.
Ouze wrote: It's not different than having sex with a woman who has passed out; in that the other party is incapable of giving consent.
But isn't there some kind of statutory consent law when it comes to being molested by sexy blonde lady teachers? Perhaps I'm being facetious, but given that he was probably never going to shoot her down had he been capable of consenting (or not), then stressing that this is the serious crime of 'rape' seems a little draconian. It's also quite a ridiculous situation, since if he had been the one that raped her, he would likely have been tried as an adult, and no one would have questioned whether he knew what he was doing. Or we would be forced to conclude that they both got raped.
I think the punishment should probably reflect the injury (if any) that was inflicted on the victim (regardless of gender). In this case, I imagine the punishment was more than sufficient.
However, her other crime of abusing her position as an educator is a different matter. To say she behaved unprofessionally would be an understatement. Someone like this certainly shouldn't be allowed to work with children ever again. And I don't see why she should be treated any differently to a man in that regard.
I guess this is the flip side of the whole, "promiscuous guy? What a stud. Promiscuous woman? Total slut." dichotomy.
I think she's a fool, and the idea of totally equal treatment is appealing, as is the idea that I'm somehow oppressed because I'm a dude, but the fact is the consequences ARE potentially more severe for a girl (potential pregnancy, social stigma, etc) than for a guy.
MetalOxide wrote: This is so called 'gender equality' for you. If the teacher was a man he would of been locked up for life.
So, are you saying that people are treated differently depending on their gender, and that we should fix that ? Or just that women committing statutory rape should be charged as much as men, and that is about all we need to change ?
Kojiro wrote: So, a teacher broke the law on two counts- one having sex with a student and two having sex with a minor.
In a fair and equal society that is the extent of the information you need to sentence the perpetrator. If you adjust your sentencing based on the gender -whichever way you do so- you are showing your bias.
And yeah, if the boy didn't mind, I don't see the problem. Hell, I know I wanted to tap one or 2 of my teachers back at that age.
Minors cannot consent. Sex without consent is rape.
I somehow fail to see the issue here, someone enlighten me please.
Is a fine, the removal from her profession, and 10 years probation under the condition that she keeps away from minors outside of the scope of an expectable sentence in her state? I mean, unless a man "would have gone to jail for this under the same circumstances, full stop", this looks like normal proceedings to me.
Honest question BTW, I'm not just trying to stir up any trouble or be "that guy".
Allod wrote: I somehow fail to see the issue here, someone enlighten me please.
Is a fine, the removal from her profession, and 10 years probation under the condition that she keeps away from minors outside of the scope of an expectable sentence in her state? I mean, unless a man "would have gone to jail for this under the same circumstances, full stop", this looks like normal proceedings to me.
Honest question BTW, I'm not just trying to stir up any trouble or be "that guy".
Because there's a high chance that:
"a man "would have gone to jail for this under the same circumstances, full stop"
and rightly so.
Allod wrote: I somehow fail to see the issue here, someone enlighten me please.
Is a fine, the removal from her profession, and 10 years probation under the condition that she keeps away from minors outside of the scope of an expectable sentence in her state? I mean, unless a man "would have gone to jail for this under the same circumstances, full stop", this looks like normal proceedings to me.
Honest question BTW, I'm not just trying to stir up any trouble or be "that guy".
Because there's a high chance that:
"a man "would have gone to jail for this under the same circumstances, full stop"
and rightly so.
Well, this was also a plea deal, not an independent sentence from the judge. Plea deals are agree upon by the prosecution and defence, and approved by the judge. This means that usually they are a reasonably equitable outcome for all involved.
As a rule, the lighter the proposed sentence in a plea deal, the weaker the prosecution feels its case was.
If she looked like a cave troll, she'd be in jail.
That's about all I have to say about that. Also, to avoid being called a hypocrite for my comment in the kitten thread: I am against corporal punishment for sleeping with a 16 year old, but I hope she dies in a car fire.
Am I the only one that remembers all of the other female teachers that went to jail over stuff like this? I'm not sure being female is as effective a defence as people think.
What's more likley is that the victim would be an unwilling witness, and they'd be trying a case with a high chance of jury nullification.
Where were all of the skinny, blonde mid-20s teachers wanting to feth students when I was in school? I had to settle for the 50+, over weight, balding ladies...
Well, this was also a plea deal, not an independent sentence from the judge. Plea deals are agree upon by the prosecution and defence, and approved by the judge. This means that usually they are a reasonably equitable outcome for all involved.
As a rule, the lighter the proposed sentence in a plea deal, the weaker the prosecution feels its case was.
Ah, this again. Should have expected that by now.
So, my question remains: Assuming that aprroval of the bargain means that it's within the confines of the law, procedurally speaking everything was in order and there are similar cases with similar sentences to be found? Or is such a sentence totally unheard of and ONLY a result of the plea bargain in this one specific case?
I'm just asking because what she got is pretty much what I would have expected in such a case, no matter the gender of the offender.
Polonius wrote: Well, this was also a plea deal, not an independent sentence from the judge. Plea deals are agree upon by the prosecution and defence, and approved by the judge. This means that usually they are a reasonably equitable outcome for all involved.
As a rule, the lighter the proposed sentence in a plea deal, the weaker the prosecution feels its case was.
Ah, this again. Should have expected that by now.
So, my question remains: Assuming that aprroval of the bargain means that it's within the confines of the law, procedurally speaking everything was in order and there are similar cases with similar sentences to be found? Or is such a sentence totally unheard of and ONLY a result of the plea bargain in this one specific case?
I'm just asking because what she got is pretty much what I would have expected in such a case, no matter the gender of the offender.
Well, state level judges have remarkable flexibility in sentencing. Some states have guidelines, and the laws generally give maximums for any given crime (with some minimums for really nasty stuff), but if you took the time, you can probably find examples of nearly any kind of sentence for any kind of crime.
As for the appropriate nature of this sentence, I agree, but I feel that many our penalties are too harsh. The US tends to be very puritanical with regards to sex, esepcially with adolescents. The average American would probably support sending her to jail for many years.
Allod wrote: I see, thank you for the explanation!
No problem! A number of posters here are attornies, although I'm not sure if any do trial work. I'm just a government bureaucrat now, no litigation for me.
I'm no expert on Texas law, but I don't think this technically is rape, statutory or otherwise...
I know in UK law, a rape needs to involve penetration of the victim with a penis. I think other countries might expand this definition to include other objects, but penetration is usually a key aspect. In the UK, a woman "raping" a man would have to be classed as a sexual assault. After reading further about this particular case, it seems that the woman in question was charged with a sexual assault (Which here might be something like: serious sexual assault of a minor)...(well actually the guy wouldn't be a minor in the UK anyway so meh).
Obviously sexual assault is a lesser crime, and could include relatively tame actions like kissing, and groping. While that is massively inappropriate, I don't expect a male teacher to get 25 to life for kissing/groping a student, so I'm not even sure that there is a double standard here at all.
Ironclad Warlord wrote: You mean the people who will discuss this seriously and the people who say "the crime is she isn't having sex with me".
It seems par for the course with many threads like this. Given its regular occurrence I can see (but do not condone) why juries may give less strict sentences in such cases, and why judges may be more sympathetic to potentially lower plea deals
Kojiro wrote: So, a teacher broke the law on two counts- one having sex with a student and two having sex with a minor.
In a fair and equal society that is the extent of the information you need to sentence the perpetrator. If you adjust your sentencing based on the gender -whichever way you do so- you are showing your bias.
And yeah, if the boy didn't mind, I don't see the problem. Hell, I know I wanted to tap one or 2 of my teachers back at that age.
Minors cannot consent. Sex without consent is rape.
Kojiro has the way of it.
That is pretty much my feeling too.
I notice the lack of outrage over time case compared with the male teacher who was sentenced to 30 days.
The point of an arbitrary distinction in law, whether it be speed limit, drinking age, voting age, age of consent, is that anything on one side of that line is lawful. The other side is not. And it is likely to stay that way unless each minor under goes a regular battery of psychometric testing to gauge relative maturity and we permit certain behaviors at certain ages, along with the decreasing legal certainty that creates.
No problem! A number of posters here are attornies, although I'm not sure if any do trial work. I'm just a government bureaucrat now, no litigation for me.
I still do from time to time, but thankfully it's getting more rare. It's much less frustrating to help in avoiding situations that might end up in court.
@Smacks: Actually, penetration is not a prerequisite for rape in many countries - at least in Europe.
Smacks wrote: I'm no expert on Texas law, but I don't think this technically is rape, statutory or otherwise...
I know in UK law, a rape needs to involve penetration of the victim with a penis. I think other countries might expand this definition to include other objects, but penetration is usually a key aspect. In the UK, a woman "raping" a man would have to be classed as a sexual assault. After reading further about this particular case, it seems that the woman in question was charged with a sexual assault (Which here might be something like: serious sexual assault of a minor)...(well actually the guy wouldn't be a minor in the UK anyway so meh).
Obviously sexual assault is a lesser crime, and could include relatively tame actions like kissing, and groping. While that is massively inappropriate, I don't expect a male teacher to get 25 to life for kissing/groping a student, so I'm not even sure that there is a double standard here at all.
That's a good point. This is what I found.
Sexual assault for anyone to intentionally or knowingly penetrate a person under age 17, other than his spouse. The actor has an affirmative defense if he is not more than three years older than the victim, who is at least age 14
Assuming that is accurate, Texas statutory rape laws are still operating under the premise that males can not be raped by having vaginal sex with a woman.
trexmeyer wrote: Assuming that is accurate, Texas statutory rape laws are still operating under the premise that males can not be raped by having vaginal sex with a woman.
Sexual Assault (Statutory Rape)
The Texas version is found in TPC sec. 21.011 (2). It provides that an actor commits an offense if he or she
2) intentionally or knowingly:
(A) causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of a child by any means;
(B) causes the penetration of the mouth of a child by the sexual organ of the actor;
(C) causes the sexual organ of a child to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; (D) causes the anus of a child to contact the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; or
(E) causes the mouth of a child to contact the anus or sexual organ of another person, including the actor.
Note that like the forcible rape version, the statute is gender neutral and includes sex acts other than vaginal intercourse. There is no element of lack of consent .
A child is defined as someone younger than 17 years of age who is not the spouse of the actor. Because the acts are consensual, there is, unlike in the forcible rape version, a spousal exception. Persons under 17 are presumed incapable of giving a valid consent, except when married. Age 17 is referred to as the “age of consent,”--the age at which the law assumes a valid consent can be given.
There is a defense of medical care: “(d) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the conduct consisted of medical care for the child and did not include any contact between the anus or sexual organ of the child and the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of the actor or a third party.”
There is also a defense if the offender and victim are close in age, are not close relatives, and the offender does not have certain prior convictions for certain sex offenses. In these situations it is less likely that there is some form of improper exploitation of a young victim by an older predator.
(e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that:
(1) the actor was not more than three years older than the victim and at the time of the offense:
(A) was not required under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure, to register for
life as a sex offender; or
103
Criminal Sexual Conduct, Assault and Battery, Kidnapping and False Imprisonment
(B) was not a person who under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure, had a reportable conviction or adjudication for an offense under this section; and
(2) the victim:
(A) was a child of 14 years of age or older; and
(B) was not a person whom the actor was prohibited from marrying or purporting to marry or with whom the actor was prohibited from living under the appearance of being married under Section 25.01.
The statute does not say that the defendant must know that the victim is under 17, and Texas courts have not created such a requirement. Thus, (as in a majority of states) mistake of fact about the victim’s age is not a defense.
§ 21.12. IMPROPER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDUCATOR AND
STUDENT. (a) An employee of a public or private primary or
secondary school commits an offense if the employee engages in
sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse
with a person who is enrolled in a public or private primary or
secondary school at which the employee works and who is not the
employee's spouse.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second
degree.
(c) If conduct constituting an offense under this section
also constitutes an offense under another section of this code, the
actor may be prosecuted under either section or both sections.
The words 'statutory rape' is also added by you, which is kind of important when we're discussing rape, and rape does not appear anywhere in that text. The document only mentions sexual assault. Is there just no distinction between rape and sexual assault in Texas?
Smacks wrote: Is there just no distinction between rape and sexual assault in Texas?
There is not. The phrase was not added by me, but by the source I used to summarize it. I should have linked that PDF in my post as well as the actual statute.
