Posted on 08/02/2010 7:13:54 AM PDT by laotzu
San Antonio police Saturday night arrested a 38 year old teacher in the Northside ISD and charged her with engaging in sexual activity with a 12 year old boy.
An arrest warrant obtained by 1200 WOAI news claims that Lucinda Caldwell, 38, is a fifth grade teacher at Cable Elementary School on Pinn Road.
The affidavit claims Caldwell picked up the boy at his far west side home Friday night and drove to a hotel, where the sexual contact allegedly took place.
But when she tried to return the youngster to his home early Saturday, his dad was waiting, so she drove off and drove into Medina County, where police there arrested her and rescued the boy.
It is not known whether the boy is a student of Caldwell's, or whether he attends Cable Elementary School. Caldwell is charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child. A spokesman at the Bexar County Jail said he didn't have information on whether bond had been set.
Officials didn't say how the contact between the boy and the teacher was made, because school is not in session, or whether the two had some sort of ongoing relationship.
It’s not a straw man. I’m just wondering.
Since liber(al)tarians want prostituion legal (supposedly local communities can pass laws against it, but usually liber(al)tarians do not mention that part), and you apparently want all age of consent laws either abolished or enforcable at the whim of the parent, my query is perfectly legitimate and germane to the conversation.
You think you are more clever than you are.
No. What I have said repeatedly is that damage does not have to be determined before agreeing with the concept of informed consent. That without informed consent laws pedophiles are given cover for their actions. If you advocate getting rid of age of consent laws then you are supporting pedophiles. That you think Janet Reno should have been prosecuted simply means that you are a hypocritical female pedophile apologist. If there were no age of consent laws and a parent discovered a 50 year old having sex with their 8 year old child what would their recourse be? It's not like they could call the police as the person wouldn't be breaking the law. A child being molested by their parent? If laws of consent are on the chopping block why not incest laws? Who are you to say what is right and wrong. Isn't that the parents decision?
"My previous question remains unanswered. Should the parents or the state be the final authority as to when a child is to have sex, and with whom?
Parents should never be able to determine with whom their child will have sex. Only adults (as determined by your individual state) can legally have sex as only they are able to make informed decisions. There are exceptions made for parents to be able to allow their children to marry at a younger age then the age of consent typically. This is the only legal way that "children" (but still above a legally mandated age) could have sex. In your state children could be married at 16. This provides the exemption for parents that you claimed was the only thing you wanted.
I asked this question in this form because under western law, from Moses through Jesus time, including the Roman period, the child was legally the chattel of the father.
I disagree with your claim. Children were never considered slave or property but a grave responsibility.
In your answer to what should be done is that child molestation should be made a capital crime.
Er...why did you ping me on this?
“Only abusers justify their actions by insisting that no harm is done to the victim, that the victims actually enjoy it or want it, that it’s not really wrong because it happens somewhere else in the world or in history, yada, yada, yada.....
We’ve heard arguments like that before from pedophiles.
Talk like a pedophile and you’ll be labeled as one.”
Regardless of how nasty you make false claims about someone whom you know nothing about, the question I posed remains unaddressed, let alone answered: Since the present system has failed in its intervention, and since the present system also fails to prevent such abuse - what next?
Please remember that redoubling ones efforts in the fact of failure is a working description of fanaticism.
I really must correct some of your presumptions. I did not write that the teacher/student sex was right, what I asked, numerous times was quantification of damages. No real data was presented, so that ended that inquiry.
I suspect you have a significant emotional investment in the present system’laws. Given that, and your increasing anger and projection, I suggest accepting that we disagree on the need for showing damages in the instant case.
In closing, given the paucity of data supporting damages to the male student’s sexual event, does the possibility of “damage” justify a 20 or 30 year jail bill to the citizenry? Especially, as such sentences clearly have not deterred such offenders?
I pinged everyone on the Moral Absolutes and Homosexual Agenda ping lists.
You sure did post any such thing. Here's your comment from post 122.Yes, some children will be beaten, seduced, raped, even killed. But, given that government intervention is worse - perhaps we must rely on family and neighbors, and church members.
“What exactly do you expect on a conservative forum when you are advocating a policy where “some children will be beaten, seduced, raped, even killed”?”
Do realize I am not advocating such a government policy, I am questioning it?
Note carefully, I described a state wide program which was in failure mode. Then I asked “What should be done?”
That is hardly advocating or support of such a failed program. Ditto for the laws under discussion.
Regarding your opinion of Liberals, I concur. Libertarians I don’t know about.
The previous poster was misinformed by a soi dissant “Libertarian” on the subject of marriage. In the Western world, laws give advantage to marriage, and restrict it to male/female couples because such marriages most reliably produce the best acculturated next generation.
Any other coupling does not deserve societal advantage, as it does not benefit society.
You took that totally out of context and then claimed I said that which is no where in what I wrote.
You posted: “Yes, some children will be beaten, seduced, raped, even killed. But, given that government intervention is worse - perhaps we must rely on family and neighbors, and church members.”
Government programs result in more child abuse. Undeniable.
Perhaps I should have been more specific as in: “But, given that government intervention results in inflicting more of the abuse it was supposed to alleviate - perhaps we must rely more on family and neighbors and church members”
Just what are your ideas, GG? You don't want laws or a government to enforce them regarding child abuse? Huh? All because you have an alleged incident that perhaps was wrongly enforced with unintended consequences? Huh? What are your ideas about child sex abuse and how children can be protected from evil? No laws, no rules, leave it up to citizens? Huh?
“What exactly do you expect on a conservative forum when you are advocating a policy where “some children will be beaten, seduced, raped, even killed”?”
Do realize I am not advocating such a government policy, I am questioning it?
Note carefully, I described a state wide program which was in failure mode. Then I asked “What should be done?”
That is hardly advocating or support of such a failed program. Ditto for the laws under discussion.
Regarding your opinion of Liberals, I concur. Libertarians I don’t know about.
The previous poster was misinformed by a soi dissant “Libertarian” on the subject of marriage. In the Western world, laws give advantage to marriage, and restrict it to male/female couples because such marriages most reliably produce the best acculturated next generation.
Any other coupling does not deserve societal advantage, as it does not benefit society.
Until the mid 1800’s there were no age of consent laws. They came in as part of a legal response to the factory abuses of child workers in an industrializing society.
As for what I’d like, I would like each child to have two parents who cared about the child and carefully educated their child.
I am not sure how government can participate in child raising. So far, its efforts have been prohibitively expensive and generally counter-productive.
You raised a central question regarding protecting children from evil. Florida (and probably other states) have tried government and it has been an expensive, intrusive failure.
Evil, like liberty must be dealt with with eternal vigilance. Be on the lookout for evil, and be eternally suspicious of all who are your public servants, as it is the nature of servants to steal.
I posed these question because America has a child abuse industry which produces more abuse than it prevents, laws regarding children which clearly do not protect the children the laws were supposed to protect or deter abusers.
In case I didn’t make my self clear, the entire Florida Child Protection System was found to have more abuse being visited upon the children in state custody than when they were not in said state custody.
The failure is systemic and seemingly unfixable. Perhaps we must accept the reality that parents are the only viable option, and accept the possibility that some parents are horrid, destructive people who do horrid and destructive things to children.
I am sorry if I am the bearer of bad news about a failed system, but that is just what is.
Hopefully, the FR community may be able to come up with some ideas. Waiting for government to deal with this issue is like waiting for Godot.
And, I didn’t bring lunch.
At least, I hope the question of what to do about our failed child protection services will grow legs and produce some viable answers.
Read post 122 and be prepared to lose your lunch. This is what he thinks......As madison said, there is NO Constitutional authority for government to do charity. That means, government should keep its hands off the family.
Yes, some children will be beaten, seduced, raped, even killed. But, given that government intervention is worse - perhaps we must rely on family and neighbors, and church members.
Some people think it's better that some children's lives are destroyed that for the government to be able to do anything about it.
Crazy libertarian opinions are dangerous for society and especially for the most vulnerable. If one reads my FR homepage, the distinction between government intervention and its authority and non-profit and church preferences become quite evident.
But, let's be clear, there there is no substitute for governmental authority for criminal prosecutions against those who would harm innocents. Those who think otherwise are either stupid, naive, or certifiable.
And anecdotal examples (and there are plenty) do not suffice to overturn this authority. Government accountability is always necessary, and yes, it would be better if good prevailed with primarily social services provided by non-profits and churches -- but that alone is not sufficient, and to believe otherwise is simply wrong-headed.
Post 122 is among the most disturbing posts I’ve ever read.
Had you read what I posted, rather than what you want to see, you would have know I said that government intervention in the family caused more of the evils it was originally supposed to alleviate.
Got that - government custody of children causes more abuse than it cures and that is from the government’s own data.
Rather than blaming be for the agency failure, consider trying to find a more effective or workable solution.
Madison was correct - note that when he disregarded his advice and allowed agencies to take children, we wound up with agencies that Exacerbate, rather than Alleviate, the problem said agencies were created to deal with.
Had you read what I posted, rather than what you want to see, you would have know I said that government intervention in the family caused more of the evils it was originally supposed to alleviate.
Got that - government custody of children causes more abuse than it cures and that is from the government’s own data.
Rather than blaming be for the agency failure, consider trying to find a more effective or workable solution.
Madison was correct - note that when he disregarded his advice and allowed agencies to take children, we wound up with agencies that Exacerbate, rather than Alleviate, the problem said agencies were created to deal with.
Guilty...
Draw and quarter her!
“Some people think it’s better that some children’s lives are destroyed that for the government to be able to do anything about it.”
Discussing this with you is like talking to a Liberal.
Please understand I gave you data indicating government tried to do something about the children at risk - and failed.
I did not say this failure was a good thing, I said this failure was probably unavoidable, and part of attempts to have government do the things it was not allowed to do by the Constitution.
Your supoort for the present agencies/laws is clear. Also clear is the failure of same.
Now - got any answers to my question of “What next?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.