I'm for it

2/8/2010 7:39:44 PM

You idiots aren't looking at the correct law. 4 years older, any age, teacher, felony. Less than 4 years, misdemeanor.

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.) "

Quote :

"Fire a teacher who has sex with a student. Ban them from teaching ever again. Charging them criminally, partically as a sex offender, no. Never being able to work again in a school should be enough to deter teachers from having sex with students."

If the potential for being put on the sex offender list isn't enough deterrent, why would simple blacklisting be?

[Edited on February 9, 2010 at 9:45 AM. Reason : .]

2/9/2010 9:42:03 AM

It isn't about simply providing a deterrent, but rather a consequence that can prevent the situation from happening again. if they can no longer teach then the likelihood of the teacher picking another student is dramatically reduced.

once blacklisted the teacher no longer has an immediate conflict of interest with the student and as such their relationship can continue should the two of them see fit.

2/9/2010 10:08:02 AM

But they are already blacklisted in addition to being put on the sex offender's list. Do you think a registered sex offender is going to get a job teaching children ever again?

So that's not stopping them from doing it, so why would lessening the consequences do the trick?

2/9/2010 10:49:50 AM

I believe that you're clearly missing the point. a point which was well established from the OP forward.

The point is these guys aren't raging pedophiles picking up children at parks and locking them in their vans. These are adults who are engaging in relationships with fully developed people who are at the age of sexual consent. As such the penalties often applied can be deemed overkill.

the assertion is that since being blacklisted and added to a sexual offenders list essentially does the same amount to resolve the issue there is no need for the harsher penalty due to the circumstances of these involvements in contrast to the others mentioned above.

[Edited on February 9, 2010 at 11:31 AM. Reason : edits]

2/9/2010 11:30:52 AM

Quote :

"The point is these guys aren't raging pedophiles picking up children at parks and locking them in their vans. These are adults who are engaging in relationships with fully developed people who are at the age of sexual consent."

I dispute that point. Teachers shouldn't be sleeping with their students no matter how sexually developed the student is. They are in a position of power and are trusted by children's parents not to abuse it. No one can honestly think a 16 year old is making reasonable decisions about her body when she's fucking her teacher.

If we give teachers the authority to make decisions for our children while they're in school, to discipline them, to keep them safe, then fucking our children is not an option.

Just out of curiosity, you'd be fine with a teacher bribing a student with grades for sexual favors?

[Edited on February 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2010 12:41:48 PM

I think the moral of this story is: Never be a teacher.

2/9/2010 12:46:31 PM

Or, keep it in your fucking pants, even when that jailbait is trying to get you in trouble.

2/9/2010 12:47:49 PM

Or, take on any other profession and pull it out of your pants whenever you want.

2/9/2010 12:50:08 PM

Quote :

"Just out of curiosity, you'd be fine with a teacher bribing a student with grades for sexual favors?"

I now see how you missed the point earlier, because you evidently do not actually read posts and rather espouse your previously drawn conclusions rather than put in the effort to participate in an actual discussion.

Quote :

"I dispute that point. Teachers shouldn't be sleeping with their students no matter how sexually developed the student is. They are in a position of power and are trusted by children's parents not to abuse it. No one can honestly think a 16 year old is making reasonable decisions about her body when she's fucking her teacher."

Why should a teacher not be able to sleep with someone who is at the legal age of consent? To me it seems the matter should more largely focused on what the age of consent should be rather than who is and who is not excluded from being involved with someone at age of consent. Consent is consent.

Also stop with the him and hers, because predominately women teachers have affairs with male students. I am not sure about the per capita, but the overall number is greater.

That being said, who are you to say that a 16yo isn't making a reasonable decision about their body when they make that choice? Are you in the mind of that 16 year old? Are you omnipotent and have clear details about the emotional relationship between teacher and student? Perhaps it is more likely that you are merely making an assumption based on your disagreement of the matter without having any clue as to the true nature of the facts at hand.

Lets focus in more detail about the accountability the decisions made by the 16yo. In quite a few states a 16yo can get an abortion without the consent of a parent. Is it your position that this should be changed, or is the 16yo cognizant enough in this situation to have her choices and decisions considered reasonable?

A black male 17yo who is a few months from 18 shots a person in cold blood and leaves. Should we put this individual on trial as an adult, because we do this all the time. It would appears as if the state and a jury views the individual as being responsible for the decisions they made. moreover, this occurs with 16yo, and 15yo. So is it your position that the 16yo is old enough to be tried as an adult and is responsible in this situation but isn't adult enough to decide who they want to fuck?

2/9/2010 1:11:04 PM

I think the power a school employee has over an adult student is being grossly exaggerated.

[Edited on February 9, 2010 at 1:27 PM. Reason : An]

2/9/2010 1:23:46 PM

Very much so.

I'm entertained that although teachers can't convince students to sit down, pay attention, do their homework, and not smoke in the bathrooms people imagine these teachers are able to coerce and prey on these people in their utmost vulnerable of states.

2/9/2010 1:51:24 PM

disco_stu:

Quote :

"I dispute that point. Teachers shouldn't be sleeping with "

Are you retarded? That is a totally different point.

2/9/2010 2:31:11 PM

Quote :

"I'm entertained that although teachers can't convince students to sit down, pay attention, do their homework, and not smoke in the bathrooms people imagine these teachers are able to coerce and prey on these people in their utmost vulnerable of states."

I didn't realize a majority of students don't sit down in class, don't pay attention, don't do their homework, and smoke in the bathroom. Every student, the day that they turn 16 are no longer influenced by the authority of their teachers. Well, if that's the case, fuck on young people.

However, in the real world, a vast majority of students are influenced by the authority of their teachers. You're cool with letting someone who has the power to ruin your son or daughter's future put his dick/her vagina in/on him/her?

^
I thought the point was these people didn't deserve to be punished criminally for having sex with a 16 year old because it's not like they're raging pedophiles.

I DISPUTE THE POINT THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE CRIMINALLY PUNISHED AND THEN EXPLAINED WHY IT IS STILL A HORRIBLE OFFENSE FOR A TEACHER TO HAVE SEX WITH A STUDENT.

Of course, this was an opinion, but apparently responding to a point and explaining my position makes me retarded.


[Edited on February 9, 2010 at 2:57 PM. Reason : [Edited on February 9, 2010 at 2:56 PM. Reason : I'm a retard hur hur derp.]]

2/9/2010 2:53:06 PM

Point 1: They aren't pedophiles going after children, they are of legal consenting age. As such, the penalties are overkill.

Point 2: Teachers shouldn't be sleeping with students because of their position of power. They deserve the proverbial 'book' be thrown at them.

You didn't dispute point one, you gave a counter point, or point 2. So yes, you are retarded.

2/9/2010 3:06:49 PM

what ^ said and in your ramblings you failed to address my inquiries into the consistencies of your belief that were posted above, thus "responding to a point and explaining [your] position" is hardly applicable.

Even though you failed to address my questions I will entertain yours.

Quote :

"I didn't realize a majority of students don't sit down in class, don't pay attention, don't do their homework, and smoke in the bathroom. Every student, the day that they turn 16 are no longer influenced by the authority of their teachers. Well, if that's the case, fuck on young people. However, in the real world, a vast majority of students are influenced by the authority of their teachers. You're cool with letting someone who has the power to ruin your son or daughter's future put his dick/her vagina in/on him/her? "

I never said that the majority of students behave in that way; although, I would be willing to venture a large percentage aren't really paying attention. i also made no reference to age so to suggest I implied students once reaching a certain age acquire this behavior is pretty asinine on your part.

The point made in that post is that students choose how they want to behave typically without concern of a perceived authority of the teacher. when students behave in school they do so because they have made it their choice as they are cognizant of their behavior. The same goes for those who choose not to behave. In that same vein students will often choose to engage in lewd behavior with a teacher based on their wants rather than as a consequence of the teacher's manipulative authority.

You continue to make claims with no support of the assertion. Who is to say that sexual involvement with a teacher ruins the life of the student? Were the lives of students who eventually married their teachers ruined, and if so was the life ruined more by the relationship or by the harshness of the states intervention into a consenting relationship? When I was in high school there was a teacher that my friends and I would have gladly fucked. Had I hit it and quit it or had I engaged in some secretive affair with her my life would be no different than an extra notch on the bedpost and a cool memory upon which I could always reflect.

But, go ahead, casually ignore the refutation of your comments. continue to make claims of victimhood without establishing how the student party is actually a victim. Also, don't forget to backpedal and rephrase your point so that it at least marginally appears that you have ground to stand on.

However, you could reject the path you're on and just admit the situation is not black and white, that there are many more variables to the scenario than you initially imagined, and that perhaps subjective evaluation of each scenario would be best. I guess I'm just asking you to be a man.

2/9/2010 3:27:49 PM

I think the implication was "a teacher can ruin a studen'ts life through academic fraud", not by any direct consequences of sexual interaction. This is a power that can be used to coerce a student into sex.

2/9/2010 3:35:00 PM

^
DING DING DING

^^
Nope, I'm comfortable with the law as it is now as it genuinely protects the students that will be coerced at the detriment only to mythical teachers having real mature relationships with students.

I'm curious as to how you plan to change the law so that it takes each case on a case-by-case basis...the state shall interview in great detail the motives of both the defendant and the victim and shall determine if the victim really loves the defendant but not in any way that would suggest that the victim's love was coerced...

2/9/2010 3:54:05 PM

I think the coercion is what needs to be proven, not the lack therof.

However, I understand that such coercion is quite easily hidden, so I tolerate this law. I do think it's scope should be narrowed significantly. Just because you work at a school doesn't mean you have an academic relationship with every student there.

[Edited on February 9, 2010 at 4:06 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2010 4:03:14 PM

^^^I'll admit that I misread that the first time, but did not realize it until after all of the bottom part was typed. feeling that the position a student's life may not necessarily be ruined by such a relationship was important to acknowledge i chose not to erase it.

^^you still have failed to address any of the questions that address your consistencies regarding if a person at age 16 is responsible for the decisions they make. I suppose the easiest way to never question your beliefs is to never actually discuss it.

Quote :

"Nope, I'm comfortable with the law as it is now as it genuinely protects the students that will be coerced at the detriment only to mythical teachers having real mature relationships with students."

What percentage of students who engage in relations with teachers do you believe do so due to being placed in a coerced position where the potential irreparable harm to grades is a factor?

What is this notion you have of mythical teachers having mature relationships with students. They are in fact not mythical at all and are evidenced all around. a fuck buddy is a mature relationship. Is it your position that only married couples are in mature relationships, or those with the label of boyfriend and girlfriend? Due to the potential ramifications of any sexual encounter I would consider any ongoing consensual sexual relationship to be mature.

Quote :

"I'm curious as to how you plan to change the law so that it takes each case on a case-by-case basis...the state shall interview in great detail the motives of both the defendant and the victim and shall determine if the victim really loves the defendant but not in any way that would suggest that the victim's love was coerced..."

I'll tell you exactly. Stop charging the teacher under laws related to sexual offenders, interview the nature of the relationship as would be done in any alleged sexual based crime, and IF the motivation of the student is properly determined to be a matter of self perseverance due to potential harm then charge the teacher on existing laws that address aggravated rape through means of intimidation, extortion or blackmail.

Through this means there are no new laws, appropriate sentencing and appreciation for mitigating circumstances as is normal with criminal cases.



[Edited on February 9, 2010 at 4:18 PM. Reason : edits]

2/9/2010 4:14:31 PM

Quote :

"I think the implication was "a teacher can ruin a studen'ts life through academic fraud", not by any direct consequences of sexual interaction. This is a power that can be used to coerce a student into sex."

Or "a student can ruin a teacher's life through false accusations". It goes both ways.

2/9/2010 4:18:40 PM

Academic fraud should be treated as a separate offense.

2/10/2010 11:24:34 AM

Quote :

"I'll tell you exactly. Stop charging the teacher under laws related to sexual offenders, interview the nature of the relationship as would be done in any alleged sexual based crime, and IF the motivation of the student is properly determined to be a matter of self perseverance due to potential harm then charge the teacher on existing laws that address aggravated rape through means of intimidation, extortion or blackmail. Through this means there are no new laws, appropriate sentencing and appreciation for mitigating circumstances as is normal with criminal cases."

The law currently states that if you're older than 4 years than the student and you have sex, it's a felony. It doesn't say "unless the student is really mature and the two are really in love".

So what would you suggest the new law say to allow mitigating circumstances? Once again, I say the law is fine the way it is because it protects students from being coerced.

I don't get why if two people are really mature, really love each other, but can't just wait until the younger one finishes with school to pursue that relationship. If both parties were really that mature, that's what they would do. Instead of fuck and then cry foul when it causes a problem because the law objectively tells you what you're doing is illegal.

2/10/2010 2:53:20 PM

Cause we are the United States of Freedums duh

2/10/2010 6:03:22 PM

Quote :

"Just because you work at a school doesn't mean you have an academic relationship with every student there."

That is my whole point. School employees can meet somebody outside of school who is of legal age and not somebody they know from work, yet gets charged as a pedophile or rapist because they are a school employee. This is why I have a problem with the current law.

2/10/2010 6:53:01 PM

I agree with

2/10/2010 6:57:38 PM

Any sexual relationship between a teacher and student should be criminalized, regardless of age. I'm surprised at how few people here have focused on the essential problem with this type of relationship.

When a student enters the classroom, they are in a position of subjugation to the teacher. There is an authority gap that is significant, regardless of level of maturity, age, or actual intelligence. The teacher, by the very nature of their role within the classroom or the school, is given a degree of power. If two strangers of the same age were to meet on the street, that same power dynamic would not come into play.

Both the student and the teacher have certain responsibilities and expectations given the nature of their roles within the learning environment. Trust is a big factor in that. A teacher is not like everyone else in society of the same age, they play a central role in developing not only the mind but the personality of the person they are overseeing in the classroom. Any teacher who takes advantage of that trust and their role as an authority figure who can be trusted to do the right thing with respect to a student deserves to be charged with a crime.

On a side note, I especially hate those female teachers who get off with light sentences because it is perceived that young men are somehow more advanced and not being taken advantage of by the female teacher. There should be no double standards with respect to that, they should treat her the same way they would if the genders were reversed.

2/10/2010 8:48:54 PM

Nobody is arguing that a teacher shouldn't be punished or left of with a slap on the wrist. The point is that the a teacher lets say who is 28 should not be punished and grouped in the same category as pedophiles, rapists, and the peewee hermans off the world (got caught beating it in a movie theatre) for having sexual relations with a student who potentially is old enough to star in a porn.

If it is found the teacher was blackmailing the students for sexual relations then this would enter a whole new category of troubles but still should not make one a sexual offender unless the student is < 16 yr old (age of consent). At worst for a 18+ student the punishment should be a misdeamenor. For those at the age of consent 16+ but less than the age of adulthood perhaps a mild felony, without the "sex offender" label added.

There is all this concern about "teacher authority and students" but what about college kids??? Many kids come to college are 18 just like many high school seniors....
Are we going to start charging professors as sex offenders who receive a BJ from a freshman in order to get extra credit. No one is arguing that any of this is "ok" and/or should not be punished. The punishment though should match the crime...

2/11/2010 10:44:25 AM

Quote :

"The law currently states ... it's a felony. It doesn't say "unless the student is really mature and the two are really in love"....So what would you suggest the new law say to allow mitigating circumstances? Once again, I say the law is fine the way it is because it protects students from being coerced. "

Once again ignore addressing your consistencies or lack thereof, refute claims that weren't made, and assert coercion without proving any nature of existence.

Quote :

"When a student enters the classroom, they are in a position of subjugation to the teacher. There is an authority gap that is significant, regardless of level of maturity, age, or actual intelligence. The teacher, by the very nature of their role within the classroom or the school, is given a degree of power. If two strangers of the same age were to meet on the street, that same power dynamic would not come into play."

In that case I suggest we criminalize relationships int he workplace, especially those with a boss and a lower ranking employee or do you not even buy your own reasoning in this circumstance?

2/11/2010 11:35:10 AM

Quote :

"When a student enters the classroom, they are in a position of subjugation to the teacher. There is an authority gap that is significant, regardless of level of maturity, age, or actual intelligence. The teacher, by the very nature of their role within the classroom or the school, is given a degree of power. If two strangers of the same age were to meet on the street, that same power dynamic would not come into play."

If you outlawed sex in any case where one person had some civil authority or coercive power over the other, you would be outlawing a LOT of sex.

The only true reason there's a special law for school personnel is because the act is often portrayed as pedophilia.

2/11/2010 11:38:13 AM

^^My reasoning is perfectly sound. You are comparing two situations that are not analagous, for a variety of reasons.

First, the student-teacher and employee-employer relationship both involve power differentials, but a student cannot decide for any reason they choose, as an employee can, to remove himself or herself from the environment. A student cannot quit class and leave school whenever they want to and simply find another school the next day. The majority of students are actually required by law to attend.

Second, a teacher is expected to provide proper guidance, shaping and developing the mind of a student mentally and emotionally. It is presumed that guidance is non-biased and not intended to manipulate the student for personal ends. In essence, the teacher is there to assist the student. An employer is there to serve the company, not the employee, and this is understood. Although students may be capable in some ways, they are still extremely impressionable and easily shaped by their teachers. That is their purpose in the classroom.

Lastly, the situational factor does come into play. I honestly don't think that relationships amongst college students and their professors should be criminalized, because when you enter college you are automatically assumed to be able to maintain yourself as an autonomous entity. The same is not true in high school, where you are presumed to be reliant on adults. When you take a job, you are presumed to be a self reliant individual, the same way you are in college. I personally think that relationships between employer and employee should be treated the same as college professor and student. They should result in internal disciplinary action, but should not be criminalized.

2/11/2010 12:21:03 PM

Quote :

"The majority of students are actually required by law to attend. "

Not once 16 or older. A fact that more or less renders this point moot.

Quote :

"It is presumed that guidance is non-biased and not intended to manipulate the student for personal ends."

There has been no evidence of manipulation. Based on the fact that we allow 15 year olds to be tried as adults, 16yos to get abortions without parental consent, and 18yo to vote and join the military it would be without much basis to immediately perceive these students as nothing more than impressionable persons without accountability for their actions.

Quote :

" An employer is there to serve the company, not the employee, and this is understood."

So should their be no criminal penalty for an employer who uses their position to extort sexual favors out of a lower ranking employee since they are no responsible to the company and not the employee?

Quote :

"you are automatically assumed to be able to maintain yourself as an autonomous entity. The same is not true in high school, where you are presumed to be reliant on adults. "

If an individual quits high school at 16, 17, or 18 and is working should we still view them as an individual who is incapable of taking care of themselves and reliant on adults, or should we view them as fully capable and likely to make good decisions even though they chose the poor choice to leave high school? Should we make special laws for government subsidized people and who they consensually engage in sexual behavior with since they can't maintain themselves as an autonomous entity and are reliant on others?

2/11/2010 12:45:11 PM

quick, informal poll, just to see if there is a correlation...

Do you agree with the law as it is currently written regarding teachers having sex with students?
Do you have children?

Yes and Yes.

-----------------------------------------------------
Oh, and moron...I don't advertise.

[Edited on February 11, 2010 at 1:06 PM. Reason : likes disco music.]

2/11/2010 1:05:17 PM

Quote :

" A student cannot quit class and leave school whenever they want to and simply find another school the next day. The majority of students are actually required by law to attend. "

incorrect. At 16 a student can drop out.

Quote :

"My reasoning is perfectly sound. You are comparing two situations that are not analagous, for a variety of reasons"

you are still skimping the main point of this thread. No one says that these teachers should not face consequences. Only that they should not
be treated in the same context as a preacher molesting 12 yr old boys.

2/11/2010 1:07:00 PM

(I wasn't aware this thread has been exclusively limited to 16+ year old students...because if it hasn't, then I am correct in saying that the majority of students don't fit into this category...don't talk down to me by acting as if I don't know the age limitations for dropping out of school, or the specific requirements. Dropping out of school and quitting a job are not even remotely similar.)

I thought about rebutting each of your points, but the main problem I have is that in several areas, you make faulty syllogisms, which is separate from the fundamental disagreement we have.

I never said anything about extorting sexual favors, which should clearly be treated differently. All of my comments were focused on the student-teacher dynamic, and yet you expanded it to apply to the age based competency outside the classroom, which is entirely different. You also don't recognize that actions need not be overt to qualify as manipulation. In fact, the more subversive, frequently the more impactful.

If you don't acknowledge that the relationship between a student and teacher is different by its very nature, then there's no point in having the argument. As someone who has interacted with middle and high school students from ages 10-21 for the last 8 years, I think that I am pretty qualified in saying that relationship is not the same as one outside the school.

In the end it all seems to come down to a matter of opinion, but based on all of the firsthand evidence I have accumulated, to NOT treat the teacher-student relationship as unique from others and place a more onerous responsibility on teachers to avoid corrupting that is to invite many more situations where teachers violate that trust, and in the end, violate our children.



[Edited on February 11, 2010 at 1:19 PM. Reason : m]

2/11/2010 1:13:47 PM

Quote :

"But Blackman tells it this way: It all began when he met a girl at a teen club in Des Moines. They hit it off and started dating. He was 16 and thought she was 15. When the girl ran away from home, police came looking for Blackman, who says he admitted to having sex with her twice. That's when police told him she was really 13, he says. Two weeks later, police returned to his home and arrested him. ... In November, Blackman received a letter from the Oklahoma Board of Probation and Parole. It said he had been removed from the state's sex offender registry, where he had been designated the highest level of risk possible. "

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/11/oklahoma.teen.sex.offender/

2/11/2010 1:30:29 PM

Quote :

"I wasn't aware this thread has been exclusively limited to 16+ year old students...don't talk down to me by acting as if I don't know the age limitations for dropping out of school, or the specific requirements..."

This thread since inception has focused predominately on students ages 16+. It isn't my fault you either failed to read the thread or failed to comprehend the thread. Based on the many references focusing on 16+ in this thread it was you who failed display your knowledge of the situation when you made your faulty argument. Furthermore, given that I am at no point categorizing all, many, or most and then drawing my own conclusion from that it is evident I am making no syllogism, let alone faulty ones.

Quote :

"I never said anything about extorting sexual favors"

Quote :

"and not intended to manipulate the student for personal ends."

I'm sorry I took the latter of the two quotes to imply sexual favors because any other relationship would be consensual in my point of view since there would be no evidence of manipulation or intent to cause harm.

Quote :

"All of my comments were focused on the student-teacher dynamic, and yet you expanded it to apply to the age based competency outside the classroom"

Quote :

"Although students may be capable in some ways, they are still extremely impressionable and easily shaped by their teachers. "

While I did expand the scope the goal is not inclusion of age based competency. I did so based on your above quoted statement. I was searching for a tangible border on who is impressionable and who is not. Curious as if your position is that those in the school age range are merely impressionable because they are students are if your belief is based on their age. I was searching for an explanation of where you draw the line and why, yet you failed to provide it.

While I do acknowledge that manipulation need not be overt there has not been any evidence of manipulation. Intent is the qualifying factor here, and without intent there is no manipulation. One can manipulate through subversive means, but there is an associated intent. Existence of the relationship itself is not evidence of manipulation.

Quote :

"If you don't acknowledge that the relationship between a student and teacher is different by its very nature"

No different than boss vs employee, in my point of view. But I can acknowledge that both are different from your standard relationship where no party has a position of authority with the other.

Quote :

"violate our children."

once again no violation has been proven, and while you feel that children has an emotional appeal and thus you should use it the more accurate description would be "people at age of consent", because that is what we're discussing in this thread.

oh wait, i forgot, you did't really read it.

2/11/2010 1:51:25 PM

I like how you call 16 the age of consent, citing the law in North Carolina to define this when the very same laws define teacher-student sexual relations as illegal.

In fact, search all of the NC Statutes for "age of consent". 0 hits.

So you're conveniently ignoring the laws regarding teacher-student relationships when you're coming up with this mythical "age of consent". What you should be saying "age of consent, unless the older person is a teacher". "Age of consent" is meaningless in the context of NC Law.

2/11/2010 2:45:02 PM

I hate the quote box game. It makes Soap Box so tedious.

Sorry if I am being stubborn and seem closed minded, but nothing you have said IRSeriousCat has done anything to change my position on the issue, and given your rationale, I don't anticipate that happening. Based on the way SB works, I don't see you changing your mind either, so I'm going to say this last bit and then let you have the last word on the subject if you'd like.

I think that your idea about manipulation and mine are somewhat different. You seem to think that only when it is clear that someone is being manipulated is it egregious enough to warrant criminal charges. I am saying that by the very nature of the position a teacher has, they have significant sway over a student. When I was a senior in high school at 16 and worked at a restaurant, my boss didn't have the same type of impact that my teachers did. A good salesman can convince you that you want to buy a product even when you don't, and the same is true of these types of relationships. And how exactly do you prove in a court of law the subtle comments, reinforcement mechanisms, and seemingly benign behaviors which lead to a student bonding with that adult to the point where the adult takes advantage of the situation?

Also, it is violating our children when a teacher takes advantage of that position to pursue a sexual relationship. I don't deny that it has more of an emotional connotation when I use the term children, but that is what they are. We have legislated in this country that certain acts can take place based on an age limit, others based on an age limit and proving you have a certain degree of competency, and then others, like the ones being discussed, that are prohibited under penalty of law from taking place based on the relationship one has to the other individual.


[Edited on February 11, 2010 at 4:47 PM. Reason : d]

2/11/2010 4:44:20 PM

My point from the beginning has been that as long as they are of the legal age of consent, be it 16 or 18, the encounter does not happen at school, and the school personnel does not have any influence on them (such as one of their teachers, administrators, guidance counselor, etc.) then it should only be punished by the employer and not as a sex offender.

To punish a teacher or school personnel from one Wake County school that has an otherwise legal relationship with somebody of age that they don't know from work, such as the guy who got with a girl from another school in the district that wasn't his, and throw him on a sex offender list is ridiculous. Much like the 16 year old who got with a chick that was 13 but told him she was 15. He screwed up, but I doubt he was the highest level of sex offender. Or the kids who are arrested for child porn when their girlfriend sends them a sexy picture.

In general I think the sex offender lists are totally oversaturated, and the true perverts who take advantage of children get hidden by the ridiculous things that are being required to register on the offender list.

2/11/2010 6:29:17 PM

I can take bribes. Politicians go to jail when they take bribes.

I think we can agree that this is fair. There are different standards for public officials.


As a teacher, I strongly believe that teacher/student relationships are sexual offenses, and the teachers who perpetrate them are in fact "true perverts."

[Edited on February 11, 2010 at 6:47 PM. Reason : ]

2/11/2010 6:46:47 PM

Quote :

"Much like the 16 year old who got with a chick that was 13 but told him she was 15"

this one sounds fishy. How do you mistake a 13 yr old for a nearly 16 year old.

2/11/2010 7:35:02 PM

^Obviously doesn't work in schools. Some of them look way older and then some still look like they should, meaning like kids, not sluts. Hell some of the chicks in early HS late MS already have tramp stamps and nipple piercings. We've had to send some home or tell them to take them out or cover them up.

We had one guy last year that got in trouble for fingering a chick. He was 16 and she was 12! So yea, that shit does happen, and he got arrested when her parents found out, though they decided to drop the charges later.

2/11/2010 8:31:19 PM

The double standard continues!

http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/7066439/

Quote :

"A former Lenoir County teacher avoided jail time on charges she had sex with a student with a plea entered Tuesday. Shannon Grace Herring, 32, of 728 Sykes Road in Kinston, was charged in March 2009 with two counts of sexual activity with a student. She was a teacher at Southern Wayne High School. She pleaded guilty to neglect and was sentenced to 24 months unsupervised probation, ordered to pay a $300 fine and must perform 50 hours of community service and undergo a psychological evaluation. The charge stemmed from alleged activity between Herring and a 17-year-old student off school property, authorities said."

Now according to my theory, as long as this kid wasn't a direct student of hers, then it would not be illegal. It happened off school property and the kid was of age. Notice she is not being charged with rape, because the kid is of age. My issue is the double standard that exists. If this had been a guy, he would have been thrown under the jail, branded a rapist for life, etc. etc. She should definitely lose her job for this, as any educator should, but wow she got a whopping $300 fine and 50 hours of community service and will be on probation for 2 years. That's a bitch.

2/18/2010 9:48:28 AM