Guilty Plea, But No Prison (Debra Lafave)

TBO.com ^ | Published: Nov 22, 2005 | CHRIS CHMURA

[Nachum]

TAMPA - Before she could plead not guilty by reason of insanity to charges she committed lewd or lascivious battery on a teenager, Debra Lafave pleaded guilty.

But, she will not go to prison.

The former Greco Middle School teacher, accused of having sex with a 14-year-old boy, came to a plea agreement with prosecutors Tuesday.

As part of the agreement, Lafave, 25, will serve three years community control (house arrest), and seven years probation.

The judge said Lafave could have been sentenced to decades in state prison.

"I accept full responsibility for my actions," Lafave told the court.

Prosecutor Mike Sinacore said the victim's family wanted the case to come to a rapid resolution because of intense attention in the news media.

Although Debra Lafave's plea agreement is generous, her life will change dramatically.

She will be classified as a sexual offender, and must register in the state's law enforcement database. The Florida Department of Education Department will revoke her teaching certificate.

According to police records, Lafave performed oral sex on the unnamed boy June 3, 2004. Eleven days later Lafave had sexual intercourse with the boy in a portable classroom at Greco Middle School, police reports said.

School district spokeswoman Linda Cobbe said Lafave was not teaching summer school and does not know why she was on campus the day of the incident.

Lafave was arrested June 21, 2004.

Her trial was scheduled to begin Dec. 5.

Lafave's attorney, John Fitzgibbons, had suggested his client would plead not guilty by reason of insanity.

Previously, Fitzgibbons told news reporters Debra Lafave was, essentially, too pretty for prison.

[HitmanLV]

It's not a double standard (two standards for the same thing), but rather two different standards for two different things.

[MA North Shore]

And, on the other hand, boys should be more rational towards their sexuality, lest girls lead them into trouble.

Study hard, get a nice car, make lots of money, and there'll be a line at your door for women wanting to marry-up, or at least for sex.

[HitmanLV]

No question I advocate males being more rational about their sexuality and everything else. Same for females. I'm with you.

[InsureAmerica]

If sex with a minor is statutory rape, then it is, because of a reason or reasons. I would imagine one of those reasons is that we all agree a minor cannot be responsible for certain decisions, therefore the fact that the boy may have 'consented' is irrelivent and my emphasis on that point is not misplaced, maybe misunderstood.

Yes, with a minor statutory rape, regardless of consent, the issue is the penalties for men vs women are different (or at least sometimes seem to be applied differently) even if the crimes are identical.

with all respect, I guess I've just never seen the public policy you continue to refer to anywhere, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, of course, but I do keep up on current events, politics and the like... The statutory rape issue is an example - are you saying that in this example there is a public policy that women and men will be punished differently? Is it codified into law somewhere?

[InsureAmerica]

""A woman bears a burden that a man doesn't bear: pregnancy"

Well, now you're opening up a whole new can of worms. Maybe stated better that a woman bears a burden that an irresponsible man doesn't bear. Of course I understand the physical demands of pregnancy but it goes both ways. Believe me I was physically demanded upon at the time. No need to take me to task re: woman physically carries child and relative the male has far less burden regading this. I understand...

[HitmanLV]

Consent isn't an issue in statutory rape - any emphasis on that is misplaced.

The public policy concern I refer to is the general concern that female sexuality is to be more protected than male sexuality. One reason, as I said, is that women bear a burden from sexual relations that men don't: pregnancy.

Another reason to value female sexuality more than male sexuality is that females are more necessary than males to create future generations. One man may be able to get dozens of women pregnant in a month, for example, and repeat that process the following month. Once a woman gets pregnant, she can't get pregnant again until after the child is brought to term 9 months later.

There are other reasons, I'm sure.

This isn't a matter of codification since laws reflect and advance public policy but don't codify the policies themselves.

In this case, since our culture values preserving female sexuality more than male sexuality, it punishes violations of female sexuality more harshly than violations of male sexuality. As I said several times already, that's not different punishment for the same thing, but different punishments for different things.

[HitmanLV]

The different burden women bear from sex (the possibility of pregnancy) is likely one of the public policy concerns in protecting female sexiality more than male sexuality.

[arasina]

This is two different standards for two different things.

You're right, but you'll never convince some people of that. This is nothing new in the course of history; it just gets more attention now...especially if the female is a hot blonde.

[InsureAmerica]

So, would there be a distinction regarding oral sex, as no possibility of pregnancy there? In another post here a (female)teacher touched a boys penis 'through his pants'. I don't see any chance of a pregnancy there, so why the suspended sentence? Isn't the issue more (or as much as)what psychological damage is caused to the minor? If your public policy is valid, and with it you seem to focus exclusively on the 'burden of pregnancy' issue, then there should be a distinction when that burden is not a factor.
I understand your viewpoint, (for the most part).I just have a different one.

[HitmanLV]

Yep. This is a minefield created in modern times mostly by an effort to insist there are no practical differences between the sexes. Clearly there are differences, though raising them from time to time creates angst from all over the political landscape.

Keep on truckin!

[InsureAmerica]

I'm convinced that the facts of each crime should be taken into consideration. When there is a distinction, and it is male/female focused, then fine. There is no way I get a pass on jailtime if I touch a minor female, regardless of the facts. (generally). And this is because I am a man. What other examples can we find of a 'class' of people who are discriminated against because of who they are, not what they do??

[HitmanLV]

I must not be making myself clear. I raised some public policy reasons for the general proposition that female sexuality must be guarded and protected more than male sexuality. that position is valid for numerous reasons.

It explicitly didn't present the pregnancy issues as the exclusive reason at all. If you reread the posts, I say there are other concerns. I have no idea what makes you think I exclusively rely on the pregnancy issue, when I explicitly state that is one factor and that there are others.

Emotional harm suffered is a different issue, and I don't defend that when it's part of the fact pattern. I also explicitly said that when an abuse of authority issue presents itself, it is an issue.

The public policy point you seem unable or unwilling to cope with is that our culture values the protection of female sexuality more than a male's. That you may have a different opinion is fine - most of the rest of us traditionally have seen and understood the difference.

If the culture and tradition is changing, that's fine. That's civilization for you! :-)

[Restorer]

One reason, of course, is the different consequences of sex by the sexes. A woman bears a burden that a man doesn't bear: pregnancy.

Until not very long ago, you would have been absolutely right, and this is a reason our laws reflected this difference.

As we all know, however, our society has carefully eliminated any except minor differences in this regard. Most women, even many teenage girls, use contraceptives that prevent their becoming pregnant, and abortion is legal to quickly eliminate any pregnancy that occurs.

[InsureAmerica]

are there differences between blacks and whites? Asians and occidentals? Arabs and Swedes? If so, then following your premise, everyone should be treated differently? The law applied differently as a rule?

I certainly don't "insist" there are no differences between men and women. Absolutely quite the contrary. I don't open my car door for a man, but I do for my wife and daughter.

[HitmanLV]

That's fine, but has nothing to do with the public policy concern that female sexuality is to be more protected than male sexuality.

It's a total non sequiter. That contraception is available doesn't undermine the value of protecting female sexuality at all.

[queenkathy]

I see a lot of double standard. On some of these threads where some older guy raped a 14 yr old girl, some FReepers call for hanging, castration, and that's the nice ones.

Just because she's cute doesn't mean she can break the law. I saw her atty come out with her next to him, standing ever so quiet and trying to look innocent. Then she caught the eye of someone off camera and just SMILED the biggest smile I've ever seen.

I predict she will be making movies and pose in Playboy soon.

[HitmanLV]

Most people confuse the definition of equality all the time, which is what you are adressing. Equality doesn't mean that you treat everyone the same way.

It means you treat similarly situated people similarly, and you can differently situated people differently.

I don't think you are mindful of the second component of equality. You have to be mindful of the public policy concerns to fully evaluate the situations.

For purposes of sexuality, regardless of race males and females are situated differently, so its fair to treat them differently.

Is this difficult to cope with?

[InsureAmerica]

I agree 100% that a woman's sexuality is treated and 'protected' differently and I am glad and I do not have issue with this.

My issue is really application of law and penalties on a case by case basis. It seems that ALL females who molest minors are given a pass while ALL males end up in the slam. I just can't believe the specifics of every case are identical. I do not even disagree that there exists what you refer to as public policy. Doesn't mean that I agree with it.

you state "most of the rest of us traditionally have seen and understood the difference."

Now you sound like a politician. (no disrespect, simply I had to comment on that one!. Who are 'most of the rest of us', is the question you beg)

[InsureAmerica]

"Is this difficult to cope with?"

The multitude of times I reference differences between males and females in the multitude of posts I made here should answer your question.....

[HitmanLV]

The rest of us is the members of the dominant culture in the USA for the last century or so. And yep, I am considering running for office in Nevada! ;-)

The reason that women who enjoy a sexual tryst with a young male are treated differently then males who enjoy a sexual tryst with a young female is because the dynamics of the situation are different, and most people don't consider it as damaging to the younger party, and to the social fabric.

They may in fact be wrong, but its the way they feel. I share the sentiment in most cases, I admit. I think most people do because there isn't a notably outcry about these.

That is, we encourage younger males to be sexual and discourage younger females to be sexual. And as I have said there are numerous reasons for this dynamic.