Posted on 05/16/2011 9:30:17 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
No excuse for that statement! I am talking law and penalities...you are talking bullshit!
In the article they state the law says they made it a felony for any teacher to have sex with a primary or secondary student regardless of age.
Several reasons probably why. The first sex acts may start when the kid isn’t 18. Second because it’s a felony the school district will be able to fire the teacher and prevent them from doing this to other students than if it’s only a misdemeanor. Further it would diminish the seriousness / punitive nature of this crime if it were just a misdemeanor. There is a power/authority thing here whether or not its consentual. We don’t let kids under the age marry just because they love each other and both would want to. We don’t let people kill each other even if one of them wants to die. Consent is irrelevant.
With the moustache being a sentencing enhancement.
No parole. No early release for good behavior.
Don’t bother using logic or quoting law. He’s a libertarian.
I agree..the players were consenting adults. She coached the freshman team, so it’s not like they were her players. Heck, if they were 18 year old freshmen they’ve got bigger problems than getting shagged by some dumpy broad.
eh, maybe she was their English teacher...probably had them reading some of that Emily Dickinson poetry. That stuff can really angry up the blood.
Understandable if the student is under age 18 - in this case, they say all students are over 18 - no felony.
She should be fired for both your reasons and simply for the good of the school, that is not what I am saying. I simply disagree that it is a felony and should be prosecuted as such.
Interesting that you would not make sex between a prison guard and their prisoner a crime. I certainly would not make my examples 1 nor 2 a crime. And I tend to agree with you about 3, the teacher and of age students.
But alas the courts tend to defer to the legislature and those who want to control others have found that majorities often are willing to support laws against sex they do not like. Or maybe I should say courts tend to defer to legislatures except when groups who vote Dim come before them and the higher percentage of the group that votes Dim, the more likely they will have special exceptions to the law carved out for them.
And the courts are all over on issues like this. Sodomy laws are unconstitutional, but I bet laws like the one we are discussing have a shot a being upheld.
I don’t know what to think of your statement about lesbians dominating sports.....I hope its not true but I’m very nieve, thank God....
I would hit it! With a baseball bat!
Unless your name is William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. Then it's OK and "no one's business". Most corporations have rules against that sort of thing as well. It's bad for morale, of everyone else that is. The military has similar regulations. To the point that if a couple is "involved" and one becomes an officer, there is a time limit for them to either get married, or break it off. Most chose to get married.
That’s a funny statement. I have always considered myself a very Conservative type. I will say though that lately I have begun to question those that make and enforce our laws.
Maybe you have not been reading enough but try the newly reached decision in Wisconsin that your home is no longer a haven. The Police have the authority to come in at any time without a warrant whenever they please. Do you see any breakdown in our society?
Laws that make it a felony for some actions (depending upon your job and associations) but not for others is simply another example of the laws going beyond our intentions. We the people are suppose to make the laws!
It is okay to say that people should be fired for breaking emotional contracts with students, but making it a felony! Really...do you want those teachers to spend several years in jail for breaking the code?
Why do you think the law is unconstitutional, rather than just bad policy. (I don't think it's either)
Although I might argue that it should not be a felony, but rather a mandatory firing offense, with the additional provision that the person's teaching certificate be revoked and never reissued.
What specific part of the Constitution do you think this law violates. Not equal protection, all in the same circumstances suffer the same penalty. There is a "reasonable basis" for the law. It's certainly not arbitrary.
Sorry, my last comment was to you, not Palo Conservative...
No, equal protection would mean that anyone who has sex with someone over 18 would be okay. You can NOT make it a felony only if you are a teacher.
The population of the hamlet was 453.
Lots of rural population and many yellow buses is common in Heartland American primary and secondary education.
Yours Truly,
An Ageing Bitter Clinger from the Farm
You obviously do not understand equal protection. Other than a few prohibited reasons, race, sex, religion, etc, the states can discriminate all they want based on "status". Age is a just a status issue itself. As long as the law applies to everyone with the same status, then it's not an equal protection violation
Ooo. Throw away the freaking key.
Excuse me... anyone over 18? You wish to explain why I am wrong - please? You are definitely taking this wrong and should be thinking why should a teacher that has sex with her 18 year old student be any different from a newspaper man having sex with the same student. Please explain the difference and why it should be a felony for the teacher.
Now of course, the teacher should be fired (good luck with that - she is a union member) but otherwise, she should not be charged with a felony.
It would help if you pinged Laz.
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.