Teacher molests student, gets probation and fine after writing apology letter to student's mother

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**welshhoppo**

I agree with Kojiro.

Rape is rape, regardless of who you rape or who rapes who. That doesn't change a single thing.

**Allod**

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".

**Frazzled**

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.

**Polonius**

Frazzled wrote:
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.

**kronk**

If it was a dude, he'd be in jail.

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.

**Polonius**

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.

**kronk**

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...

**Allod**

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.

**Polonius**

Allod wrote:

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**

I see, thank you for the explanation!

**Polonius**

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.

**Smacks**

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

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

Frazzled wrote:
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.

**Allod**

Polonius wrote:

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.

**trexmeyer**

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.

**Ouze**

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.

Don't worry, it's not at all accurate.

First, there is this

Summarized thusly:

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.

Emphasis mine.

and also this.

§ 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.

Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 224, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

So, you know.

**Smacks**

Ouze wrote:
Don't worry, it's not at all accurate.

First, there is this

Summarized thusly:

Sexual Assault (Statutory Rape)
...

Emphasis mine.

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?

**Ouze**

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.