Quote :

"^ For therapists, I thought sleeping with a client was a write up to a review board, and suspension of license, not a criminal charge?"

looks like only a few states have actual criminal charges for this

i could support a similar statute for high school teachers

1/19/2009 2:19:41 PM

RedGuard, I'm talking about 18 year-old high school students.

Someone touched on it already, but I'm sorta trying to tie the in loco parentis business together with the sex-with-students business.. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against the rights of students, using in loco parentis as part of its justification.

I'm no legal scholar. It just seems to me that an argument could be made for a law against teacher-student sex: if teachers are legally permitted (if not required) to interact with students as substitute parents, then maybe teachers should not be legally permitted to have sex with those same students.

You seem to be more interested in universities. The wiki page has a bit about higher education:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis

They basically say that in loco parentis doesn't really apply to public universities anymore.


^Yeah, I don't wanna go around legislating the crap out of everybody, but a law against teachers having sex with students doesn't seem that offensive...and it doesn't really represent that much of a threat to my personal belief system (big on liberty but apparently not as much as the other people in this thread).

[Edited on January 19, 2009 at 3:13 PM. Reason : ]

1/19/2009 2:57:00 PM

Quote :

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against the rights of students, using in loco parentis as part of its justification."

Has this ever been tested against an 18 year old high school student though? And in regards to something that isn't school property (i.e. locker searches)? I mean, clearly for under age students I can see where this applies, but a school acting as a parent for an 18 year old should (in theory) have as much authority as the 18 year old's parent (that is to say, zero)

1/19/2009 3:51:01 PM

NC General Statutes make it a felony for any teacher to have a sexual relationship with a student unless they are married:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bychapter/chapter_14.html

Quote :

"§ 14-27.7. Intercourse and sexual offenses with certain victims; consent no defense. (a) If a defendant who has assumed the position of a parent in the home of a minor victim engages in vaginal intercourse or a sexual act with a victim who is a minor residing in the home, or if a person having custody of a victim of any age or a person who is an agent or employee of any person, or institution, whether such institution is private, charitable, or governmental, having custody of a victim of any age engages in vaginal intercourse or a sexual act with such victim, the defendant is guilty of a Class E felony. Consent is not a defense to a charge under this section. (b) If a defendant, who is a teacher, school administrator, student teacher, school safety officer, or coach, at any age, or who is other school personnel, and who is at least four years older than the victim engages in vaginal intercourse or a sexual act with a victim who is a student, at any time during or after the time the defendant and victim were present together in the same school, but before the victim ceases to be a student, the defendant is guilty of a Class G felony, except when the defendant is lawfully married to the student. The term "same school" means a school at which the student is enrolled and the defendant is employed, assigned, or volunteers. A defendant who is school personnel, other than a teacher, school administrator, student teacher, school safety officer, or coach, and is less than four years older than the victim and engages in vaginal intercourse or a sexual act with a victim who is a student, is guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor. This subsection shall apply unless the conduct is covered under some other provision of law providing for greater punishment. Consent is not a defense to a charge under this section. For purposes of this subsection, the terms "school", "school personnel", and "student" shall have the same meaning as in G.S. 14-202.4(d). For purposes of this subsection, the term "school safety officer" shall include a school resource officer or any other person who is regularly present in a school for the purpose of promoting and maintaining safe and orderly schools. (1979, c. 682, s. 1; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 9; 1981, c. 63; c. 179, s. 14; 1993, c. 539, s. 1132; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 1999-300, s. 2; 2003-98, s. 1.)"

1/20/2009 8:04:55 PM

Quote :

"If a defendant, who is a teacher, school administrator, student teacher, school safety officer, or coach, at any age, or who is other school personnel, and who is at least four years older than the victim engages in vaginal intercourse or a sexual act with a victim who is a student, at any time during or after the time the defendant and victim were present together in the same school, but before the victim ceases to be a student, the defendant is guilty of a Class G felony, except when the defendant is lawfully married to the student."

Translation: If any adult individual of this particular class has consensual sexual relations with any other adult individual of this other particular class, the former is felon, and later is a victim.

JESUS TITTYFUCKING CHRIST! -- What complete bullshit.
Does anyone actually think such a law is constitutional? It's clearly not. This law will be challenged and overturned.

Quote :

"but a school acting as a parent for an 18 year old should (in theory) have as much authority as the 18 year old's parent (that is to say, zero)"

Exactly.

Quote :

"but a law against teachers having sex with students doesn't seem that offensive..."

Sorry BridgetSPK, but denying the civil rights of two consenting adults is nothing, if not offensive.

Quote :

"The employer does not assume a custodial (supervisory) role when they bring you on. A school does"

Perhaps, but an adult student should have to consent to that role. (By opting in or out.) The moment you're 18, no one can rightfully have, and therefore no one should have, custodial role over you without your prior consent. PERIOD.

[Edited on January 21, 2009 at 5:28 AM. Reason : ]

1/21/2009 5:17:54 AM

^ OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN umm.... uhhh..... YOUNG ADULTS

1/21/2009 7:16:11 AM

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: Has this ever been tested against an 18 year old high school student though? And in regards to something that isn't school property (i.e. locker searches)? I mean, clearly for under age students I can see where this applies, but a school acting as a parent for an 18 year old should (in theory) have as much authority as the 18 year old's parent (that is to say, zero)"

I don't know. I have no background in the law at all. I know some general stuff...like everybody wants the law to reflect what they want and what they think is right.

Quote :

"Willy Nilly: Sorry BridgetSPK, but denying the civil rights of two consenting adults is nothing, if not offensive."

Don't apologize to me for your beliefs.

Quote :

"Willy Nilly: Perhaps, but an adult student should have to consent to that role. (By opting in or out.) The moment you're 18, no one can rightfully have, and therefore no one should have, custodial role over you without your prior consent. PERIOD."

You and A Tanzarian have made it pretty clear that school is optional for 18 year-olds. So by choosing to attend school, 18 year-olds are giving "prior consent" for the school to maintain a custodial role over them. And, given that legal custodial relationship, they shouldn't legally be allowed to have sex.

1/21/2009 4:11:44 PM

Bridget I've been meaning to ask you something since Obama got elected / was sworn in

Seeing that Barack Obama...a black man (mixed race)...raised by a single mother...in a low income neighborhood...on welfare...just succeeded enough to become President of the United States of America....are you going to continue to assert that kids in poverty or kids in single parent homes, etc are still being held down...that a poor kid in a bad situation can't make it? Or will you finally give that tired rhetoric a rest since Obama just proved you wrong?

1/21/2009 4:18:03 PM

18 is 18. I hate the arbitrary progression in the law to adulthood. 18 should be the legal age to drive, drink and vote. none of this graduated BS.

while certainly unprofessional, unbecoming and a fireable offense, a felony and subsequent 'sexual offender' status is going too far for 2 adults of any age or position having a relationship.

1/21/2009 4:35:48 PM

Quote :

"a felony and subsequent 'sexual offender'"

Quote :

"a felony and subsequent 'sexual offender'"

Quote :

"a felony and subsequent 'sexual offender'"

What even sadder is I have heard that if you are caught peeing in a dark alley way with your wang out you can be charged as a sex offender. So for peeing in public you will be stuck with the same label as Michel Jackson who molests little boys.

1/21/2009 5:01:56 PM

Quote :

"You and A Tanzarian have made it pretty clear that school is optional for 18 year-olds. So by choosing to attend school, 18 year-olds are giving "prior consent" for the school to maintain a custodial role over them. And, given that legal custodial relationship, they shouldn't legally be allowed to have sex."

Yes, 18 year-olds choose to be in school. They can also choose not to be in school--something a minor cannot do. Doesn't this (and nearly all other relationships between adults) suggest the relationship between a school and an 18 year-old is fundamentally different from the relationship between a school and a minor?

[Edited on January 21, 2009 at 5:50 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2009 5:49:52 PM

^Fundamentally different, sure, I guess. But the school is still legally bound to them as custodians. As far as I know, in loco parentis still applies.

But you're right that 18 year-old students are fine to drop out of school and have sex with a different teacher every day if they want.

^^^^I don't think it's impossible for people to achieve despite their circumstances. I think it's a lot more difficult though, and it's entirely unfair to judge people for struggling more than others.

And honestly, that's not something I arbitrarily or spontaneously talk about. I only bring it up when people are acting like uppity douche bags about the less fortunate, which happens to be all the god damn time.

1/21/2009 6:20:27 PM

Quote :

"Overall, Fulbright, who writes the SEXPert column on FOXNews.com., said young women who have sexual encounters with older men typically become sexually active sooner, which can lead to reproductive issues."

Don't most people become sexually active in high school? What's the difference if the penis is 18, or 30 years old?

1/21/2009 7:26:18 PM

Quote :

"But the school is still legally bound to them as custodians. As far as I know, in loco parentis still applies."

No it does not. An 18 year old can not only choose to walk out of the school but walk out on his parents too. That is their right at 18; their parents no longer have legal authority over them, therefore the school does not either.

As such, a school can and should make it a policy to fire any teacher found sleeping with an 18 year old student, but it should stop there.

1/22/2009 10:20:57 AM

^Actually, it does apply.

As recently as the '60s it applied to fucking college kids. It has since been scaled back in universities, but it's still going strong in high schools.

But, again, you're right that 18 year-olds can drop out of school and do whatever they want. As long as they are in the school though, the school does act like an absentee parent. Their actual parents technically don't have any legal authority, but the school still does.

[Edited on January 22, 2009 at 4:01 PM. Reason : ...]

1/22/2009 3:57:30 PM

Hence my use of the word "should"

1/22/2009 4:00:57 PM

^

Quote :

"LoneSnark: No it does not."

ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED?

1/22/2009 4:04:18 PM

If it really doesn't apply, (as in it's unconstitutional,) then even though it's actually [incorrectly] applied, you could still honestly say "It doesn't apply." Like during slavery, if someone said, "Blacks are equal to whites.", and someone replied, "No, actually the law says they're not...so they're not." Even though the later is a practical correct interpretation at the time, the former, apparently contradictory statement, is still true.

Or he misspoke. I don't know....

1/22/2009 4:23:23 PM

^ good going

1/22/2009 7:03:11 PM

^^I'm familiar with everybody's views at this point. For the last time...

Everybody in this thread is acting like there's no way to justify his law. Like 18 year-old high school students are legally no different than thirty year-olds, and this business is just gonna have to get left up to professional education boards. I'm pointing out that eighteen year-old high school students are legally different than thirty year-olds, and there are precedents available that could be used to achieve a law against sex between teachers and of-age students. We wouldn't even have to make up a law out of thin air (I would also support this route too).

Anyway, all of your arguments are based on disagreeing with laws that already exist and repeating the fact that 18 year-olds are not minors.

Of course, it's been pointed out that a law of this kind already exists in North Carolina. So it looks like y'all better get to writing your letters.

[Edited on January 22, 2009 at 8:37 PM. Reason : ]

1/22/2009 8:36:36 PM

My argument is based on the fact that it's fucking retarded. There are many retarded laws out there, and many of them justified on the basis of yet even more retarded laws.

[Edited on January 22, 2009 at 8:44 PM. Reason : .]

1/22/2009 8:43:22 PM

Quote :

"have to get left up to professional education boards"

Well the education board does not have legal power to incarcerate a new 23 yr old teacher (potentially 22) for screwing one of the slutty 18 yr old seniors.

That is regulated by state law. Besides the fact that the chick is in high school why does the 23 yr old teacher get locked up 15 years for having sex with a girl who theoretically could be 3 months from being 19 matter legally? Yet on the flip side a 24 yr old grad student can sleep with a college freshman who just turned 18 in august at the beginning of a school year and he is doing nothing legally wrong.

1/22/2009 10:28:48 PM

Quote :

"I'm pointing out that eighteen year-old high school students are legally different than thirty year-olds, and there are precedents available that could be used to achieve a law against sex between teachers and of-age students"

Laws are often wrong. This law you refer to....is wrong. It is unconstitutional and wrong. Period. Wrong. Lex malla, lex nulla. Not a law. Only a law in that we now mistakenly have it as one. Period.

What you're demonstrating in regard to precedents is the very thing that has and may continue to destroy america. Namely, misguided precedents. This law that says that 18-year-olds that continue high school are somehow waiving their rights as full adults, IS WRONG. And if other laws, or court decisions are based on it, then they are all wrong too. I just starts us all down a popular but irretrievably unconstitutional path. There may be no other single thing that threatens our constitutional republic more than using unconstitutional precedents to justify additional unconstitutional laws. Fortunately, us libertarians will eventually reclaim america and its constitutional authority. Someday.

Quote :

"There are many retarded laws out there, and many of them justified on the basis of yet even more retarded laws."

Exactly.

[Edited on January 23, 2009 at 5:58 AM. Reason : ]

1/23/2009 5:57:44 AM

Quote :

"I'm hoping from a parent's perspective that when my daughter is 18 and dating that she's not having a relationship with her teacher," she said. "This is not college, it's not a university, this is high school."

I still can't get over this line.

Though, I think the consensus is dating undergrads is not grounds for disciplinary action so long as they are not enrolled in you class but it is not really Kosher, either.

Grad students and Profs is pretty much fair game so long as they are not enrolled in your class or are not advisees.

1/23/2009 12:40:37 PM

^^^^Disagreeing with a law that already exists.

^^^Repeating the fact that 18 year-olds are not minors.

^^Disagreeing with a law that already exists.

1/23/2009 2:18:23 PM