Former teacher gets just 30 days for raping a 14 year old.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/former-senior-high-teacher-gets-days-for-rape-of-student/article_b1f84190-ef23-5868-8799-b779c0421dc1.html#.UhzzKLoIbxk.email

And OF COURSE the effing judge spouts all kinds of victim-blaming nonsense. This. This is what goddamn rape culture looks like. When a child gets abused, and the judge sympathises with the offender.

So, I just replied in the "how do you cuss without cussing" thread in OT, and now I get to demonstrate.

Oh for... *does an 'I've just been hit by the worst migraine ever and am slightly annoyed by it' facepalm*

30 days is just a mockery. I mean, okay technically it's 15 years with 14.936 suspended, but does the judge really think the guy should rape another girl before he actually gets put away for the entire sentence or something? >.>

Karthak:
http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/former-senior-high-teacher-gets-days-for-rape-of-student/article_b1f84190-ef23-5868-8799-b779c0421dc1.html#.UhzzKLoIbxk.email

And OF COURSE the effing judge spouts all kinds of victim-blaming nonsense. This. This is what goddamn rape culture looks like. When a child gets abused, and the judge sympathises with the offender.

Way to blow the case out of proportion.

Firstly: he also has 15 years of suspended sentence. On top of that he had already been forced to go on a treatment program and is being forced to follow it again.

Secondly: the judge also mentioned how he was a low re-offense risk. This I believe is key to determine how long someone should be locked away.

Thirdly: As mentioned in the article apparently the guy already lost a lot due to the publicity of the case. Something that can't be just ignored, while not an "official" punishment it's the kind of punishment that still does teach someone a lesson.

Fourthly: What's wrong with determining the victim may have had control over the situation based on evidence? As we all know not every person is the same. Some minors are already very mature and very well capable of making their own decisions, if evidence suggests that you can't just throw it away. That's not victim blaming, that's taking context into account.

All in all you're trying to present a pretty grey case as something black and white. Yes what this guy did was very wrong, but based on the context why should he deserve more jail time? He has already followed treatment and is going to follow some more. He has already been socially punished and is still going to get a pretty big suspended sentence. I know revenge is "sweet" but justice isn't about that. There is nothing to gain by putting someone who is willing to follow treatment and has a low re-offense risk in jail for 10 years.

generals3:

Karthak:
http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/former-senior-high-teacher-gets-days-for-rape-of-student/article_b1f84190-ef23-5868-8799-b779c0421dc1.html#.UhzzKLoIbxk.email

And OF COURSE the effing judge spouts all kinds of victim-blaming nonsense. This. This is what goddamn rape culture looks like. When a child gets abused, and the judge sympathises with the offender.

Way to blow the case out of proportion.

Firstly: he also has 15 years of suspended sentence. On top of that he had already been forced to go on a treatment program and is being forced to follow it again.

Secondly: the judge also mentioned how he was a low re-offense risk. This I believe is key to determine how long someone should be locked away.

Thirdly: As mentioned in the article apparently the guy already lost a lot due to the publicity of the case. Something that can't be just ignored, while not an "official" punishment it's the kind of punishment that still does teach someone a lesson.

Fourthly: What's wrong with determining the victim may have had control over the situation based on evidence? As we all know not every person is the same. Some minors are already very mature and very well capable of making their own decisions, if evidence suggests that you can't just throw it away. That's not victim blaming, that's taking context into account.

All in all you're trying to present a pretty grey case as something black and white. Yes what this guy did was very wrong, but based on the context why should he deserve more jail time? He has already followed treatment and is going to follow some more. He has already been socially punished and is still going to get a pretty big suspended sentence. I know revenge is "sweet" but justice isn't about that. There is nothing to gain by putting someone who is willing to follow treatment and has a low re-offense risk in jail for 10 years.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mont-teacher-30-days-student-rape-20087517
WHAT? A 14 year old " troubled youth" who committed suicide had " control over the situation" with a 50 year old man?
IS that really what you are attempting to argue here? The kid obviously didn't have control over her own emotions enough to not commit suicide, how could she be held responsible even partially for sex with a 50 year old man who maintained a position of authority over the child being a teacher? That is the " context" that should be taken into account here. A 14 year old's brain is not even fully matured enough to be able to consent legally and according to our actual studies on the human brain the prefrontal cortex controlling judgment is not fully developed until their 20's regardless of what this hillbilly judge might think. There is NO excuse for a high school teacher to not be aware of this and maintaining self control enough to NOT rape a 14 year old.

Here this parents guide to the teenage brain might be of assistance:
http://teenbrain.drugfree.org/science/behavior.html
However, I think it is the judge who could have benefited more from this information.

Lil devils x:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mont-teacher-30-days-student-rape-20087517
WHAT? A 14 year old " troubled youth" who committed suicide had " control over the situation" with a 50 year old man?
IS that really what you are attempting to argue here? The kid obviously didn't have control over her own emotions enough to not commit suicide, how could she be held responsible even partially for sex with a 50 year old man who maintained a position of authority over the child being a teacher? That is the " context" that should be taken into account here. A 14 year old's brain is not even fully matured enough to be able to consent legally and according to our actual studies on the human brain the prefrontal cortex controlling judgment is not fully developed until their 20's regardless of what this hillbilly judge might think. There is NO excuse for a high school teacher to not be aware of this and maintaining self control enough to NOT rape a 14 year old.

Here this parents guide to the teenage brain might be of assistance:
http://teenbrain.drugfree.org/science/behavior.html
However, I think it is the judge who could have benefited more from this information.

I'm not the judge and haven't seen nor heard all the evidence he has during the trial. You may question his decision but let's not forget we have much less information than him. If he deemed that she was in control based on what he saw/heard well than that's relevant to the case and can act as an attenuating circumstance. I'm not claiming she was in control, I don't have enough information to make such judgements and I doubt anyone here has.

generals3:

Lil devils x:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mont-teacher-30-days-student-rape-20087517
WHAT? A 14 year old " troubled youth" who committed suicide had " control over the situation" with a 50 year old man?
IS that really what you are attempting to argue here? The kid obviously didn't have control over her own emotions enough to not commit suicide, how could she be held responsible even partially for sex with a 50 year old man who maintained a position of authority over the child being a teacher? That is the " context" that should be taken into account here. A 14 year old's brain is not even fully matured enough to be able to consent legally and according to our actual studies on the human brain the prefrontal cortex controlling judgment is not fully developed until their 20's regardless of what this hillbilly judge might think. There is NO excuse for a high school teacher to not be aware of this and maintaining self control enough to NOT rape a 14 year old.

Here this parents guide to the teenage brain might be of assistance:
http://teenbrain.drugfree.org/science/behavior.html
However, I think it is the judge who could have benefited more from this information.

I'm not the judge and haven't seen nor heard all the evidence he has during the trial. You may question his decision but let's not forget we have much less information than him. If he deemed that she was in control based on what he saw/heard well than that's relevant to the case and can act as an attenuating circumstance. I'm not claiming she was in control, I don't have enough information to make such judgements and I doubt anyone here has.

You may have "less information than him" But from obtaining my degree in Pediatric Medicine, I have all the information I need to deem that a 14 year old's ( which is still treated in Pediatrics) brain is not capable of being fully matured enough for legal consent regardless of how mature this so called "judge" thinks it is.
I fully support this petition:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/848/062/410/unseat-judge-g-todd-baugh-fire-principal-scott-anderson/

http://www.news-medical.net/health/Pediatrics-What-is-Pediatrics.aspx

If this Judge had taken the time to understand what a 14 year old brain is capable/ not capable of he could not have come to this verdict. What medical evidence did he use to determine this child was " older than her chronological age"? Oh yea he didn't use actual medical evidence, it was "just his uneducated opinion" regardless of what the actual evidence on this matter states.

EDIT: Also it should be noted that they have repeatedly described the teen as a " troubled teen" which would actually go to further indicate that she had less development in her prefrontal cortex rather than more, which would make her " less mature" rather than " older then her chronological age". "Troubled" indicates lacking better judgment. The reason why 14 year olds lack better judgment is due to an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex

Could you imagine if the rapist was a woman? This forum would be spewing bile about how women get away with everything, and that a male teacher would never be given just 30 days for raping a minor. As it stands, those same people are bending over backwards to justify what this man did.

manic_depressive13:
As it stands, those same people are bending over backwards to justify what this man did.

I thank you for referring to me in plural (I guess i'm that awesome). However, I do have to ask: which man are we talking about here? The judge or the teacher? Because I can't see any post justifying what the teacher did. And if you did mean the teacher with "man" I would suggest to read more attentively next time.

And as far as i know no one has been given "just 30 days".

EDIT:

the clockmaker:

You know mate, it is very fucking clear that there is one (1) person bending over backwards to defend this fucker. Everyone else, including me are taking the 'rape is wrong position' and being horrified that this piece of shit is not spending many many years locked in a bleak cell. So no, unless you are using a different version of English to the rest of us, 'people' aren't defending this piece of shit.

For someone who critiques someone else for using a different version of English I find this quite ironic.

manic_depressive13:
Could you imagine if the rapist was a woman? This forum would be spewing bile about how women get away with everything, and that a male teacher would never be given just 30 days for raping a minor. As it stands, those same people are bending over backwards to justify what this man did.

At Least this didn't happen in the UK, over there this guy would have gotten NO time, like someone did in january when they raped a 13 year old girl because "He didn't look assertive"

manic_depressive13:
Could you imagine if the rapist was a woman? This forum would be spewing bile about how women get away with everything, and that a male teacher would never be given just 30 days for raping a minor. As it stands, those same people are bending over backwards to justify what this man did.

You know mate, it is very fucking clear that there is one (1) person bending over backwards to defend this fucker. Everyone else, including me are taking the 'rape is wrong position' and being horrified that this piece of shit is not spending many many years locked in a bleak cell. So no, unless you are using a different version of English to the rest of us, 'people' aren't defending this piece of shit.

Maybe, just maybe, more -insult deleted- will come to this mongrel's aid, but as of right now, you are telling fibs, and bad fibs at that.

On topic, sentence is woefully low, judge doesn't understand the concept of an age of consent, whole trail was a shambles.

That judge needs to be fired, he seems terrible at his job.

Poor girl, damn bastards who take advantage of girls like that. Kill 'em all, I say.

Lil devils x:
But from obtaining my degree in Pediatric Medicine, I have all the information I need to deem that a 14 year old's ( which is still treated in Pediatrics) brain is not capable of being fully matured enough for legal consent

So how come the age of consent is 14 or less in dozens of countries worldwide? Cultural relativism, or are they just plain wrong?

manic_depressive13:
Could you imagine if the rapist was a woman? This forum would be spewing bile about how women get away with everything, and that a male teacher would never be given just 30 days for raping a minor. As it stands, those same people are bending over backwards to justify what this man did.

The first thought I had when reading this thread's title was wondering whether the perpetrator was male or female. Not that it should matter, or course, or whether the underage sex was hetero or homosexual, but politically it does matter. When people "justify" (or even just discuss) male-on-female statutory rape on these forums I get the feeling that a lot of it is motivated by the double-standard that exists. A male teacher who has sex with a student: he's a pervert, a pedophile, lock him away for life, chop his nuts off. His sentence was five years? The judge is a crook, make it ten. His sentence is ten years? I bet they let him watch TV in prison, all on the taxpayer's bill, what is this country headed to, I blame the immigrants. What's the media and public reaction when the sexes are reversed? Well, then you get headlines like This Summer's Hottest Teachers who allegedly Got Busy With Students, and 'Private Lessons': Female Sex Ed Teacher Charged With Sex With 14-Year Old Student and Like? Florida Teacher Charged With Soliciting Students For Sex On Facebook. Not much outrage there, just airbrushed photos of the "hot" sex offenders and headlines that would be better suited to a soft porn movie than a journalistic article.

That's what some people are objecting to - justifiably, in my opinion. The double standard whereby a situation is criminal if a man does it but sexy or even funny if a woman does it. It all feeds into the false narrative that women don't rape, women can't rape, and if they do, it's not as serious. Bear in mind that this is the logic that saw Debra Lafave receive no prison time, only house arrest and probation, for being "too pretty" for prison (that was her lawyer's actual mitigating plea).

There are people on this forum, to echo your post, who subscribe to the idea that "rape is rape" and any talk of differentiating between "real" rape and other forms (e.g. consentual statutory rape) is "rape apologising". Then you have people actively fighting for forced rape of a male to not be classified as "real" rape because typically less invasive bodily damage is involved. There's a double standard all right, but not all of it is pro-male and anti-woman.

Batou667:

That's what some people are objecting to - justifiably, in my opinion. The double standard whereby a situation is criminal if a man does it but sexy or even funny if a woman does it. It all feeds into the false narrative that women don't rape, women can't rape, and if they do, it's not as serious. Bear in mind that this is the logic that saw Debra Lafave receive no prison time, only house arrest and probation, for being "too pretty" for prison (that was her lawyer's actual mitigating plea).

Well, I'm going to throw this out there because it's coming sooner or later, but because we all wanted to fuck our hot teachers when we were horny teenagers it's apparently okay if a female teacher gets involved into an affair with that lucky snot-nosed kid. He's an inspiration to us all, after all, he's achieved what none of us could *sob* (me mainly because none of my female teachers were hot)

Alright, getting carried away. I mean, okay, in Slovenia, age of consent is 15, so any teacher getting involved with any student 15 or older would come across as creepy, but hasn't actually committed a crime. But it's still problematic, even if it's legally not rape, because we expect teachers to be professional and impartial with their jobs. That immediately comes under doubt if they get involved into an intimate affair with a student, because the other students might...oh who am I kidding, will be resentful along the lines of "S/he's only getting good grades because s/he's fucking the teacher!" which in turn might end up with the teacher imposing stricter standards on their lover just to appear impartial...In any case, a teacher-student affair is a complete clusterfuck even if there's no rape involved, and any teacher who gets involved obviously does not understand the responsibilities they are subject to and is therefore not fit to teach. Get involved with your students after they graduate, see if I care, but while you're their teacher, you're expected to keep a professional attitude.

But in this case we have a girl who killed herself, and the teacher himself admitted to rape. 30 days in prison simply seems too low, and I'm one of those pro-rehabilitation nutters. Now if he's under supervision after the month is up and it's made 100% certain he can't reoffend, I could stomach that (stomach, not necessarily like), but I see no such guarantee from the article.

Vegosiux:

Batou667:

That's what some people are objecting to - justifiably, in my opinion. The double standard whereby a situation is criminal if a man does it but sexy or even funny if a woman does it. It all feeds into the false narrative that women don't rape, women can't rape, and if they do, it's not as serious. Bear in mind that this is the logic that saw Debra Lafave receive no prison time, only house arrest and probation, for being "too pretty" for prison (that was her lawyer's actual mitigating plea).

Well, I'm going to throw this out there because it's coming sooner or later, but because we all wanted to fuck our hot teachers when we were horny teenagers it's apparently okay if a female teacher gets involved into an affair with that lucky snot-nosed kid. He's an inspiration to us all, after all, he's achieved what none of us could *sob* (me mainly because none of my female teachers were hot)

Alright, getting carried away. I mean, okay, in Slovenia, age of consent is 15, so any teacher getting involved with any student 15 or older would come across as creepy, but hasn't actually committed a crime. But it's still problematic, even if it's legally not rape, because we expect teachers to be professional and impartial with their jobs. That immediately comes under doubt if they get involved into an intimate affair with a student, because the other students might...oh who am I kidding, will be resentful along the lines of "S/he's only getting good grades because s/he's fucking the teacher!" which in turn might end up with the teacher imposing stricter standards on their lover just to appear impartial...In any case, a teacher-student affair is a complete clusterfuck even if there's no rape involved, and any teacher who gets involved obviously does not understand the responsibilities they are subject to and is therefore not fit to teach. Get involved with your students after they graduate, see if I care, but while you're their teacher, you're expected to keep a professional attitude.

But in this case we have a girl who killed herself, and the teacher himself admitted to rape. 30 days in prison simply seems too low, and I'm one of those pro-rehabilitation nutters. Now if he's under supervision after the month is up and it's made 100% certain he can't reoffend, I could stomach that (stomach, not necessarily like), but I see no such guarantee from the article.

So a 15 year prison sentence, plus another charge and prison sentence if he does reoffend isn't good enough for you? Exactly how does the government make 100% certain that someone can't reoffend, pray tell? Are you advocating they remove his penis before releasing him back into society? Your first paragraph is all perfectly true and fine, but the second just leaves me scratching my head.

It should also be pointed out that the girl in question didn't necessarily kill herself because she was raped. She killed herself a full 2 years after the fact, while court proceedings were taking place. There is little to no information given about what the nature of the relationship was, how it started, how long it lasted, how the girl felt about the relationship or perceived it, how much consent (whether you agree she is capable of giving consent or not, personally, I feel a lot of people on this site don't give young adults enough credit in this regard) she gave in regards to it all, but all signs point to the fact that this was an ongoing relationship where they engaged in sex on at least 3 occasions, which strongly brings to question just how much actual victimization took place here. It also remains unsaid just what is meant by calling her a "troubled teen" because that really doesn't say much of anything.

So, yes, in the end, the judge oversaw the trial and heard everything presented, knew all the facts, whereas we only have what very, very little the article chose to give us. He actually had her testimony in court to consider. He knew her, her story, and the nature of her relationship with the accused far better than we ever will, and he made his judgement based on all the evidence and circumstances surrounding the case. Meanwhile, the man lost pretty much everything because of it, his job, his teaching certification, his reputation, and, he'll be on the sex offender registry for the rest of his life, so what good comes out of having a man already past his prime, who will have an incredibly difficult time of putting his life back together and starting over as it is spend years in prison? Simply to make him "suffer" more for having sex with a student? To make his life just a little bit harder when he gets out than it already will be? To make the mother feel better?

Honestly, you can't even use the fact that she committed suicide as a reason that he deserves a longer sentence, because considering the fact that it took her over 2 years to do so, after the accusations and truth came out to the public and she had to testify in court about it, the question has to be asked: how big of a part did his actions play in her decision to commit suicide? How big of a part did the consequences and public and family opinion of her and her actions by being in a relationship with him play? How big of a part did her personal problems, or whatever else it was that caused her to be labeled a "troubled teen" (if, in fact, there even was anything and they're not just calling her one simply based on the fact that she committed suicide, so she must have been) play? We will likely never know, but given everything that could have happened in the two years between the relationship and her suicide, it is less likely that he having sex with her was the major factor in it, and more likely that it was everything that happened in her life after the relationship was exposed.

I have to wonder what the thought process was behind the suicide. Was it the publicity? Was it because people were treating this girl as some kind of shameful pariah due to the relationship? Was there a feeling of guilt that actions for which she may have felt responsible caused a man she cared about to be prosecuted? Did she feel manipulated and cheated by the perpetrator? Did she feel that her virginal purity was now ruined?

It would be nice to know how much harm was caused in this case due to sex-negativity-- but we're short on details.

No doubt this guy shouldn't be a teacher, but I have to say-- these cases of (apparently?) willing but not consensual sex seem like they could be treated in a more harm-reductive way. The outcome in this case-- suicide-- was the worst possible.

manic_depressive13:
Could you imagine if the rapist was a woman? This forum would be spewing bile about how women get away with everything, and that a male teacher would never be given just 30 days for raping a minor. As it stands, those same people are bending over backwards to justify what this man did.

Virtually impossible to find anything about other teacher-student sex cases on the internet ATM (all searches seem to lead to this one today because it's such big news), but I'll see if I can track down one of the cases in which a female teacher goes without jail time for having sex with one of her students, in some cases even openly admitting to it by demanding child support from him. So, yeah, man gets 31 days (14.9 years suspended) and the judge is being too lenient -- woman gets to demand two decades of payments from her victim and all is well.

Having seen where the thread has gone, I feel like I have to make a point that I'm not defending the guy and he probably should have gotten worse, so should the women I've referred to for whom 30 days would be more punishment than they'll see.

EDIT: Found one example case here but it wasn't the one I was thinking of, another is Stringer v. Dep't of Human Services but I can't seem to find any good articles about it on sites that no one will take issue with.

It seems that the real reason he's only facing 30 days is that he was only brought in on a technicality. He already had gotten the whole prison sentence written off as long as he attended sex offender rehabilitation classes, but he got kicked out of those for missing a few classes, spending some time with minor who were relatives, and not informing the person running the classes that he had been having sex. The judge considered these reasons to be quite minor and that is why the sentencing is so light, among other reasons. The issue isn't that he got away with it this time, it's that he already got away with it (not that being on the sex offender registry for life and losing his teaching licence is an altogether minor punishment, rather that it doesn't quite fit the gravity of his offenses).

generals3:
Firstly: he also has 15 years of suspended sentence. On top of that he had already been forced to go on a treatment program and is being forced to follow it again.

While I fully believe that the primary purpose of incarceration should be rehabilitation, I'm not convinced that undergoing a simple treatment program is sufficient for pedophiles to not repeat offend. You can't just change sexual urges, nor can you suppress them effectively. Best case scenario, you manage to teach the guy some self control, but since we're talking about someone who already jeopardized his job, marriage, and life as a free man to fuck a 14 year old in the first place I'm going to say that self control is probably not his strongest quality. Now I'm not saying that treatment can't be effective, but I'm not sure the stats support it being effective in most cases, and I do think some consideration needs to be given to protecting the public.

Secondly: the judge also mentioned how he was a low re-offense risk. This I believe is key to determine how long someone should be locked away.

Except they don't say why he's a low re-offense risk. Maybe he is, but I honestly am not convinced just because a judge made that decision. I wouldn't take the word of a judge on it for one second without knowing what evidence lead them to that conclusion.

Thirdly: As mentioned in the article apparently the guy already lost a lot due to the publicity of the case. Something that can't be just ignored, while not an "official" punishment it's the kind of punishment that still does teach someone a lesson.

His life got rough so he should be let off more easily? Seriously? Give me a fucking break. Everyone's life gets rough when they commit any crime as they tend to lose jobs, have trouble finding new jobs, and it can strain or even wreck relationships. Why the fuck does this guy deserve to get a pass as a result when many people don't? Especially when you consider there are people going to prison on mandatory minimum sentences for things like drug possession: an inherently victimless crime and not even remotely as bad as what he did.

Fourthly: What's wrong with determining the victim may have had control over the situation based on evidence? As we all know not every person is the same. Some minors are already very mature and very well capable of making their own decisions, if evidence suggests that you can't just throw it away. That's not victim blaming, that's taking context into account.

There's a damn good reason that someone having sex with someone else under a certain age is always considered rape (statutory rape laws are a bit fucked up in the US, but not because of the assumption that minors can't consent to sex with someone above a certain age difference). Not only is entirely possible that an adult can use their position to manipulate a minor since they inherently have more power in the relationship, this goes even more so when it's a teacher and a student. If it is nearly impossible to determine whether the adult abused their position to get the minor to have sex with them, it's easier to side with the idea that the minor couldn't consent to protect them from those situations whenever they may happen. Moreover, the human brain literally doesn't stop developing until your mid-twenties. A 14 year old, no matter how mature they may appear, is completely incapable of thinking like an adult because it's just physically impossible for them. Their mental faculties won't finish developing for another decade, and it is simply too hard to take things on a case by case basis to know who was actually capable of consenting and who wasn't. Plus, trying to do that risks letting actual crimes which would be nearly impossible to prove go unpunished.

So honestly, it doesn't matter how much control she actually had, or how mature she seemed, he had more control, and he was the adult. It was his responsibility to get out of bed every morning and decide he wasn't going to have sex with a student. If he couldn't do that, tough shit, he deserves everything he gets.

All in all you're trying to present a pretty grey case as something black and white.

Except as far as the law is concerned this is supposed to be black and white. You have sex with a 14 year old, you go to prison for being a pedophile. That he's getting off this easy is a complete joke. And I feel sorry for the parents in any neighborhood he moves into now, because they're going to have to keep an extra watchful eye out.

Zeconte:

So a 15 year prison sentence, plus another charge and prison sentence if he does reoffend isn't good enough for you?

I said that where?

Exactly how does the government make 100% certain that someone can't reoffend, pray tell?

By giving it more time, because last time I checked, no (re-)education programs were effective in a single month. I'm not sure how "30 days in jail and don't do it again" is going to help with making him not only realize what he did was wrong, but why it was wrong, and most importantly, what steps to take so it doesn't happen agan. I do not know of a program that accomplishes that in 30 days. Do you?

Are you advocating they remove his penis before releasing him back into society?

What is the purpose of this question? No, no, don't give me shit about how it's an honest question, seeing as how I described myself as a "pro-rehabilitation nutter" an earlier post of mine, so that kind of implies I am not exactly pro-castration, no? Soooo, if I'm pro-rehabilitation, how do you suppose I think the state should make sure he doesn't re-offend? Most likely not by cutting his dick off.

It's not an honest question, and we both know it. And I'm too tired and way too stressed to play these little rhetorical games.

Your first paragraph is all perfectly true and fine, but the second just leaves me scratching my head.

How so? If you're a teacher, your responsibility is to teach your class, to offer equal opportunities and responsibilities to everyone in it, and to grade them impartially. Banging (or being banged by) a number of those students put a major dent in your credibility to own up to those responsibilities. It's the same situation with any other exchange in which one party holds a position of authority and is trusted to be impartial with it.

Let me ask you differently; would you be willing to accept a judge to preside over a trial against someone you know is banging said judge? Why not? Because you'd expect the judge to be professional and impartial, and by fucking one of the parties at the trial, the judge has destroyed that credibility.

Same, if you knew a girl in your class was in an intimate relationship with your teacher, and you're 14, how willing would you be to accept her grades as a result of her study efforts, as opposed to the result of the teacher getting to stick her cock into her, and thus treating her favorably? Remember, you're 14. There's a snowball chance in hell you'd think the teacher is being fair and impartial.

It should also be pointed out that the girl in question didn't necessarily kill herself because she was raped. She killed herself a full 2 years after the fact, while court proceedings were taking place. There is little to no information given about what the nature of the relationship was, how it started, how long it lasted, how the girl felt about the relationship or perceived it, how much consent (whether you agree she is capable of giving consent or not, personally, I feel a lot of people on this site don't give young adults enough credit in this regard) she gave in regards to it all, but all signs point to the fact that this was an ongoing relationship where they engaged in sex on at least 3 occasions, which strongly brings to question just how much actual victimization took place here. It also remains unsaid just what is meant by calling her a "troubled teen" because that really doesn't say much of anything.

He was a teacher who took advantage of a position of power. At best, that's grossly unprofessional. But, which is is, "we don't know the specifics", or "for all we know, it was all consensual"? Let me just point at the fact that he was found guilty.

Also, this might just me being an old and cynical git, but 14 years is not "a young adult". 14 years is "a snot-nosed brat". 17-18 is "a young adult" at best. And if this gets me chewed out for "hating on the young people", so be it. This has nothing to do with the age of consent by the way.

So, yes, in the end, the judge oversaw the trial and heard everything presented, knew all the facts, whereas we only have what very, very little the article chose to give us. He actually had her testimony in court to consider. He knew her, her story, and the nature of her relationship with the accused far better than we ever will, and he made his judgement based on all the evidence and circumstances surrounding the case.

He did? The article says nothing about whether or not she testified before offing herself.

Meanwhile, the man lost pretty much everything because of it, his job, his teaching certification, his reputation, and, he'll be on the sex offender registry for the rest of his life, so what good comes out of having a man already past his prime, who will have an incredibly difficult time of putting his life back together and starting over as it is spend years in prison?

A job he was not fit for. A certificate he is not fit for. As I already established, even if the sexual acts are all legal, a teacher getting involved with one of their students is not fit to be a teacher. And before you ask why, I'll just tell you to read my previous post or scroll back a few paragraphs of this one and respond to what I wrote there, because I sure as hell am not repeating myself another time.

Simply to make him "suffer" more for having sex with a student? To make his life just a little bit harder when he gets out than it already will be? To make the mother feel better?

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm in favor of, seeing as I'm pro-rehabilitation.

*rolls eyes*

Honestly, quit it with the loaded questions and strawmen, it's rude.

Honestly, you can't even use the fact that she committed suicide as a reason that he deserves a longer sentence, because considering the fact that it took her over 2 years to do so, after the accusations and truth came out to the public and she had to testify in court about it, the question has to be asked: how big of a part did his actions play in her decision to commit suicide? How big of a part did the consequences and public and family opinion of her and her actions by being in a relationship with him play? How big of a part did her personal problems, or whatever else it was that caused her to be labeled a "troubled teen" (if, in fact, there even was anything and they're not just calling her one simply based on the fact that she committed suicide, so she must have been) play? We will likely never know, but given everything that could have happened in the two years between the relationship and her suicide, it is less likely that he having sex with her was the major factor in it, and more likely that it was everything that happened in her life after the relationship was exposed.

If I am to accept this paragraph, I again just have to ask, "And you expect me to consider a person suffering from such problems to be able to give informed consent?" And of course, "If her suicide is unrelated, how's that an alleviating circumstance?" Do we have her testimony?

Vivi22:

While I fully believe that the primary purpose of incarceration should be rehabilitation, I'm not convinced that undergoing a simple treatment program is sufficient for pedophiles to not repeat offend. You can't just change sexual urges, nor can you suppress them effectively. Best case scenario, you manage to teach the guy some self control, but since we're talking about someone who already jeopardized his job, marriage, and life as a free man to fuck a 14 year old in the first place I'm going to say that self control is probably not his strongest quality. Now I'm not saying that treatment can't be effective, but I'm not sure the stats support it being effective in most cases, and I do think some consideration needs to be given to protecting the public.

Clinically he's not a pedo though. Pedophilia is being attracted to pre-teens not 14y olds which look older. So when it comes to treatment we're talking about apples and oranges here. And what else do you propose? Lock him up for life? Sometimes you have to take chances, technically everyone could become a recidivist, we have to put faith in people sometimes.

Except they don't say why he's a low re-offense risk. Maybe he is, but I honestly am not convinced just because a judge made that decision. I wouldn't take the word of a judge on it for one second without knowing what evidence lead them to that conclusion.

Well, i'm merely trying to give the judges perspective. It's hard to comment on such cases when you have little information available. But if a judge believes re-offense risks are low this justifies lower sentences quite well. You can doubt the judge's assessment but not the logic behind using his assessment the way he does.

His life got rough so he should be let off more easily? Seriously? Give me a fucking break. Everyone's life gets rough when they commit any crime as they tend to lose jobs, have trouble finding new jobs, and it can strain or even wreck relationships. Why the fuck does this guy deserve to get a pass as a result when many people don't? Especially when you consider there are people going to prison on mandatory minimum sentences for things like drug possession: an inherently victimless crime and not even remotely as bad as what he did.

I'm not saying he deserves a pass at anything. However for those hungry for blood keeping this in mind seems quite important. Losing your wife, license to teach, house and being on the sex offender register isn't a small thing. And if you don't like the sentences attached to drug possession complain about it. But using the argument "one wrong justifies another wrong" won't hold water with me.

There's a damn good reason that someone having sex with someone else under a certain age is always considered rape (statutory rape laws are a bit fucked up in the US, but not because of the assumption that minors can't consent to sex with someone above a certain age difference). Not only is entirely possible that an adult can use their position to manipulate a minor since they inherently have more power in the relationship, this goes even more so when it's a teacher and a student. If it is nearly impossible to determine whether the adult abused their position to get the minor to have sex with them, it's easier to side with the idea that the minor couldn't consent to protect them from those situations whenever they may happen. Moreover, the human brain literally doesn't stop developing until your mid-twenties. A 14 year old, no matter how mature they may appear, is completely incapable of thinking like an adult because it's just physically impossible for them. Their mental faculties won't finish developing for another decade, and it is simply too hard to take things on a case by case basis to know who was actually capable of consenting and who wasn't. Plus, trying to do that risks letting actual crimes which would be nearly impossible to prove go unpunished.

So honestly, it doesn't matter how much control she actually had, or how mature she seemed, he had more control, and he was the adult. It was his responsibility to get out of bed every morning and decide he wasn't going to have sex with a student. If he couldn't do that, tough shit, he deserves everything he gets.

Your argument about brain development kinda shoots itself in the foot though. Do you argue consent should only be possible at your mid twenties? And let's not forget nobody said this wasn't rape. However, rape =/= rape. If the judge felt that she had control over the situation than that also means all your arguments about manipulation are moot. Your argumentation to why having sex with underage people is always considered rape also pretty much outlines why the particular assessment made by the judge can be seen as an attenuating circumstance.

Except as far as the law is concerned this is supposed to be black and white. You have sex with a 14 year old, you go to prison for being a pedophile. That he's getting off this easy is a complete joke. And I feel sorry for the parents in any neighborhood he moves into now, because they're going to have to keep an extra watchful eye out.

The law is black and white but judgements rarely are. The reason is because black and white justice is crap. Attenuating and aggravating circumstances, motives, past track record, etc. All these things make justice, rightfully, grey.

Your second phrase doesn't really help though, he is going to prison. Sure it's a very short period but your own statement shows how grey justice is. What is "going to prison"? 1 month? 1 Year? 10 years? Life?

And that last phrase could be used for every single person who committed a crime "This guy was found guilty for stealing cars, we should all be extra watchful of our cars", "this guy robbed a house in the past, we should all buy alarm systems", "this guy was convicted for assault in the past, let's all buy guard dogs for our protection", etc.

The punishment is more than enough for willing-yet-non-consentual sex.

Or should we just toss another person in the already over-populated prisons because no matter what if there is some form of rape (even if statuatory) the convicted might as well be on death row.

Judge called for 30 days and believes he's a very low risk of re-offending. Judges have far more information that we will ever be privy to.

And hell, the age of consent is 14 in some developed nations. I don't see why in one country it would earn you nothing at all and in another you're supposed to be locked away for (oh let's just ballpark something here...) 20 years?

the clockmaker:

You know mate, it is very fucking clear that there is one (1) person bending over backwards to defend this fucker...

If you consider his comment as predictive, we can now declare he was spot on by using plural. And all the expected people, too.

Agema:

the clockmaker:

You know mate, it is very fucking clear that there is one (1) person bending over backwards to defend this fucker...

If you consider his comment as predictive, we can now declare he was spot on by using plural. And all the expected people, too.

Nope, not gonna fly, he was speaking in present tense, speaking about things that were going on when he made the post. Meaning that he was either lying or could not bother reading the six posts (including the OP) that were made before his.

Agema:

the clockmaker:

You know mate, it is very fucking clear that there is one (1) person bending over backwards to defend this fucker...

If you consider his comment as predictive, we can now declare he was spot on by using plural. And all the expected people, too.

I must ask though, because i'm starting to believe it is my English that is failing here: Who is actually trying to justify what that man did? I see no one trying to justify the actions of the teacher. So no manic wasn't correct at all. But I guess on this forum agreeing with a judge's ruling which is "forgiving" based on what the judge said = rape apology.

generals3:

Agema:

the clockmaker:

You know mate, it is very fucking clear that there is one (1) person bending over backwards to defend this fucker...

If you consider his comment as predictive, we can now declare he was spot on by using plural. And all the expected people, too.

I must ask though, because i'm starting to believe it is my English that is failing here: Who is actually trying to justify what that man did? I see no one trying to justify the actions of the teacher. So no manic wasn't correct at all. But I guess on this forum agreeing with a judge's ruling which is "forgiving" based on what the judge said = rape apology.

Sure if you only look at absolutes you can easily ignore the "It wasn't that bad" implied in the talk of her age or the desire for light punishment because basic things like not having rapists as teachers is apparently enough punishment.

Master of the Skies:

Sure if you only look at absolutes you can easily ignore the "It wasn't that bad" implied in the talk of her age or the desire for light punishment because basic things like not having rapists as teachers is apparently enough punishment.

So not demanding blood is rape apology nowadays? Not everyone believes locking up people for 10 years is the solution for everything. And who said him not being a teacher anymore is sufficient punishment? He gets 1 month jail, 14 years and 11 months suspended, is registered as a sex offender, is forced to go on therapy and he has already lost his license to teach, house and has a wrecked marriage. Let's not try to misrepresent things now shall we?

And the "it's not that bad in the light of her age" is extremely relevant since it's statutory rape, which only exists because of the whole age and maturity concept. The relationship was, according the judge, non-abusive. This teacher didn't lock her up in his basement and beat the crap out of her. As such the only infraction was the fact he had his eyes on a person too young, which is wrong, if evidence suggest said person was more mature than her age would let off than that can't just be overlooked. It doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong mind you, but it remains an attenuating circumstance. Now one can doubt the judge's ability to make such an assessment (it would have been better if such an assessment was made by a panel of psychiatrists) but the logic the judge follows is sound in my opinion. (Where he might be to blame is to make that assessment on his own)

EDIT: Maybe i'm too lenient on statutory rape cases because i've lived through this case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Dutroux and compared to him, well, this teacher isn't all that bad (still bad mind you, but relatively speaking...)

It looks bad but as some have said, keeping him under watch might be better than making taxpayers pay for one more prisoner. I don't believe in prison as punishment, only as a means to prevent future crime. It they think they can keep an eye on this dude and keep him from doing it again, maybe its better to let him stay out were he can continue to contribute to society rather than drain it, as a prisoner would.

Also, the feminist expansion of the word "rape" as made these cases pointless. A month for rape seems horrid when you use the "real" definition of rape. The worst thing feminism has brought us is the idea that a 16 year old boy having consentual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend is the same violently beating and penetrating her.

generals3:

Master of the Skies:

Sure if you only look at absolutes you can easily ignore the "It wasn't that bad" implied in the talk of her age or the desire for light punishment because basic things like not having rapists as teachers is apparently enough punishment.

So not demanding blood is rape apology nowadays? Not everyone believes locking up people for 10 years is the solution for everything. And who said him not being a teacher anymore is sufficient punishment? He gets 1 month jail, 14 years and 11 months suspended, is registered as a sex offender, is forced to go on therapy and he has already lost his license to teach, house and has a wrecked marriage. Let's not try to misrepresent things now shall we?

*yawn* I can't take someone seriously who has to lie and try to suggest I said that anything less than calling for blood was rape apology.

Suspended sentence is hardly enough for a serious crime. Therapy should be additional anyway. The other stuff is incidental and his own fault. If a criminal shoots themselves in the foot while committing a crime it shouldn't be part o the sentence to consider that they'll be limping for the rest of their lives.

And the "it's not that bad in the light of her age" is extremely relevant since it's statutory rape, which only exists because of the whole age and maturity concept. The relationship was, according the judge, non-abusive. This teacher didn't lock her up in his basement and beat the crap out of her. As such the only infraction was the fact he had his eyes on a person too young, which is wrong, if evidence suggest said person was more mature than her age would let off than that can't just be overlooked. It doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong mind you, but it remains an attenuating circumstance. Now one can doubt the judge's ability to make such an assessment (it would have been better if such an assessment was made by a panel of psychiatrists) but the logic the judge follows is sound in my opinion. (Where he might be to blame is to make that assessment on his own)

It's bullshit that tries to lighten the crime.

And we see more of your rape apology. Because he didn't lock her in the basement and beat the crap out of her that means he deserves a light sentence. Sure, let's pull the crap of saying "It could have been worse", as if that somehow means the sentence should be suspended.

And it is not an extenuating circumstance because the crime is not "Drags her in the basement, beats her, and rapes her". It's "Has sex with a minor at all." Nothing called for him to do it. And the logic is not sound. The BS 'older than her chronological' age is not a defense, it's just trying to say the law is wrong. It's obvious the judges sympathies lie against the law if he's pulling that nonsense. And no, making the assessment is not separate from his logic.

Abomination:
And hell, the age of consent is 14 in some developed nations. I don't see why in one country it would earn you nothing at all and in another you're supposed to be locked away for (oh let's just ballpark something here...) 20 years?

Perhaps it is because there is a moral geography parallel to the physical geography. In some places, water boils at a lower than usual temperature. In others, it is acceptable for an adult to have a sexual relationship with someone 14 years of age. Maybe both are related to altitude: someone commission a study.

Vivi22:
So honestly, it doesn't matter how much control she actually had, or how mature she seemed, he had more control, and he was the adult. It was his responsibility to get out of bed every morning and decide he wasn't going to have sex with a student. If he couldn't do that, tough shit, he deserves everything he gets.

Would you feel the same way if there was evidence that the law's harshness toward this man was implicated in the girl's decision to commit suicide? The law's intervention is not always a good thing, even if it is just.

Master of the Skies:

*yawn* I can't take someone seriously who has to lie and try to suggest I said that anything less than calling for blood was rape apology.

Suspended sentence is hardly enough for a serious crime. Therapy should be additional anyway. The other stuff is incidental and his own fault. If a criminal shoots themselves in the foot while committing a crime it shouldn't be part o the sentence to consider that they'll be limping for the rest of their lives.

Calling for blood was an obvious hyperbole. Here's the thing though, he didn't shoot himself in the foot. The system did (rightfully). He lost his ability to teach because he was found guilty. Now he did lose his marriage and house (probably) because of what he did and only that. But it is still a punishment (not enforced by the system) he has received for his wrong doings.

And we see more of your rape apology. Because he didn't lock her in the basement and beat the crap out of her that means he deserves a light sentence. Sure, let's pull the crap of saying "It could have been worse", as if that somehow means the sentence should be suspended.

I'm not sure if that's a joke because it sounds like one. "And we see more of your theft apology. Just because the thief didn't beat the crap out of his victim that means he deserves a lighter sentence." Yes that's the exact same absurd logic. Off course the fact he didn't commit extra atrocities justifies a lighter sentence.

And I'm actually a great proponent of suspended sentences in cases with low odds of repeat-offense because it acts as a sword of Damocles and allows someone to be productive for society instead of filling up space in overpopulated prisons.

And it is not an extenuating circumstance because the crime is not "Drags her in the basement, beats her, and rapes her". It's "Has sex with a minor at all." Nothing called for him to do it. And the logic is not sound. The BS 'older than her chronological' age is not a defense, it's just trying to say the law is wrong. It's obvious the judges sympathies lie against the law if he's pulling that nonsense. And no, making the assessment is not separate from his logic.

Laws are rarely followed to the letter. And that's exactly because context and circumstances matter. I have noticed for quite a while that once the r-word is dropped, all relativism is thrown away and it's all about "Let's give him the max we can otherwise "rape apology!"".

generals3:

Master of the Skies:

*yawn* I can't take someone seriously who has to lie and try to suggest I said that anything less than calling for blood was rape apology.

Suspended sentence is hardly enough for a serious crime. Therapy should be additional anyway. The other stuff is incidental and his own fault. If a criminal shoots themselves in the foot while committing a crime it shouldn't be part o the sentence to consider that they'll be limping for the rest of their lives.

Calling for blood was an obvious hyperbole. Here's the thing though, he didn't shoot himself in the foot. The system did (rightfully). He lost his ability to teach because he was found guilty. Now he did lose his marriage and house (probably) because of what he did and only that. But it is still a punishment (not enforced by the system) he has received for his wrong doings.

It's obviously dishonest to represent it that way.

It's not a punishment for what he did that means it's removed. It's simply that rapists aren't allowed to be teachers.

And it's not a punishment to have people react to you doing despicable things.

And we see more of your rape apology. Because he didn't lock her in the basement and beat the crap out of her that means he deserves a light sentence. Sure, let's pull the crap of saying "It could have been worse", as if that somehow means the sentence should be suspended.

I'm not sure if that's a joke because it sounds like one. "And we see more of your theft apology. Just because the thief didn't beat the crap out of his victim that means he deserves a lighter sentence." Yes that's the exact same absurd logic. Off course the fact he didn't commit extra atrocities justifies a lighter sentence.

Notice the lack of 'lighter' there. You know, where you switched it for lighter? But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised after how you started off.

And I'm actually a great proponent of suspended sentences in general because it acts as a sword of Damocles and allows someone to be productive for society instead of filling up space in overpopulated prisons.

So how about people who commit minor crimes get that? Oh wait I guess you consider this a minor crime by the way you act.

And it is not an extenuating circumstance because the crime is not "Drags her in the basement, beats her, and rapes her". It's "Has sex with a minor at all." Nothing called for him to do it. And the logic is not sound. The BS 'older than her chronological' age is not a defense, it's just trying to say the law is wrong. It's obvious the judges sympathies lie against the law if he's pulling that nonsense. And no, making the assessment is not separate from his logic.

Laws are rarely followed to the letter. And that's exactly because context and circumstances matter. I have noticed for quite a while that once the r-word is dropped, all relativism is thrown away and it's all about "Let's give him the max we can otherwise "rape apology!"".

And the relevant context is she's 14 and can't consent. Not that you and the judge seem to think she wanted it.

And I love the way you continue to be dishonest by implying I expect the maximum sentence when I merely oppose your desire for a light sentence and disapprove of your implication that she wanted it so it's okay. You're treating it like it's a mere technicality.

cthulhuspawn82:

Also, the feminist expansion of the word "rape" as made these cases pointless. A month for rape seems horrid when you use the "real" definition of rape. The worst thing feminism has brought us is the idea that a 16 year old boy having consentual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend is the same violently beating and penetrating her.

Ah feminism. It's more annoying how people like you accuse feminism of things like that without evidence. But I'm sure the feminist conspiracy confiscated it all.

Master of the Skies:

cthulhuspawn82:

Also, the feminist expansion of the word "rape" as made these cases pointless. A month for rape seems horrid when you use the "real" definition of rape. The worst thing feminism has brought us is the idea that a 16 year old boy having consentual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend is the same violently beating and penetrating her.

Ah feminism. It's more annoying how people like you accuse feminism of things like that without evidence. But I'm sure the feminist conspiracy confiscated it all.

Who exactly do you think had the idea of coining terms like "statutory rape"? "Sex with a minor" would be a perfectly appropriate term but we have that word, "Rape" shoved in there. That isn't an accident, someone put that word there, someone with an agenda, who do you imagine that could have been?

You have to play detective and ask yourself why the word is there, who put it there, what agenda/goal is achieved by its presence.

...While it's certainly more provocative to say he got '30 days for rape', that's really not what happened here. He got a conditionally suspended sentence due to a plea bargain with the prosecution in 2008, which allegedly feared for its case without their star witness. The conditions of this suspended sentence was the completion of a three year treatment program and met other requirements including no contact with children. What this recent 30 day sentence stems from is not rape, but because he had contact with his nieces and nephews in a family setting with their parents, infringing on the agreement. For this infringement, the prosecution sought to give him a sentence of 20 years, though the judge ruled that this was a technical infringement rather than something that truly warranted a significant jail sentence.

cthulhuspawn82:

Master of the Skies:

cthulhuspawn82:

Also, the feminist expansion of the word "rape" as made these cases pointless. A month for rape seems horrid when you use the "real" definition of rape. The worst thing feminism has brought us is the idea that a 16 year old boy having consentual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend is the same violently beating and penetrating her.

Ah feminism. It's more annoying how people like you accuse feminism of things like that without evidence. But I'm sure the feminist conspiracy confiscated it all.

Who exactly do you think had the idea of coining terms like "statutory rape"? "Sex with a minor" would be a perfectly appropriate term but we have that word, "Rape" shoved in there. That isn't an accident, someone put that word there, someone with an agenda, who do you imagine that could have been?

You have to play detective and ask yourself why the word is there, who put it there, what agenda/goal is achieved by its presence.

Ah yes of course! The feminist conspiracy obviously said "And so it shall be that a 16 year old male and 15 year old female having sex shall be called rape" and we see the mounds of evidence in your post.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked