At what age DOES it become rape then, russotto? 12 years old? 8? 6? Or do you believe it is never rape to have sex with a child of any age?

It gets worse. She claims her husband was bad in the sack.

This police report says that her husband was sexualy inadequate.

Ouch.

Oh, and after I read the police report, I'm changing my tune. The boy is not scarred for life. He enjoyed it. I love the Smoking Gun.

Why wolfie! I didn't know you cared! :o

Brian

Teachers should be exempt. It's just another example of the selfless things teachers do to give your child an education.:p

To those who think the law is or should be equal between men and women, let me bring back the following marriage laws chart that I posted in the gay marrriage thread a few months ago.

Note that 9 states and territories have different ages of consent for men and women for marriage with parental consent. Mississippi has different ages for marriage without parental consent.

So the states can legally distinguish between men and women when it comes to consent for underage marriage. This appears to be legal and has not been constitutionally challenged.

I'm not taking any side in this debate, I just thought I should clarify that it is legal for states to have different rules for different sexes for age of consent for marriage. Age of consent for sex is a related category which is also left up to the states.

She looks better in the mugshots actually, but hey did I or did I not mention her great rack?

And y'all just ignored me.

There was far less question as I recall of this teacher's sexual relationship with her student being a crime.

And he did get her pregnant.

pregnant??? i missed that

Twice!

Damn twotimer.:D

oh - you are talking about the other teacher - i missed the subject change, sorry.

Is there any way we could sign up for adult education classes? What subject did she teach, anyway?

Here are some pics (including one with her husband). Rich, liker of wild women, will thank me later :)

Debra Beasley Lafave

hmmm... one thing, I lost my virginity to an older woman (when I was 14. long story) and well.. it kinda put me off the whole sex thing for a while.. mentally and emotionally.. of course being 14 physically it was a whole 'nother ball game (no pun intended)..

the main question I have.. why a 14year old? I mean she's an attractive woman and all, I'm sure there would have been no shortage of men willing to uh... 'assist her' in her 'maritial woes' with out the threat of any real jail time (and as far as I know they would (more than likely) be much more discreet)


people are a strange lot

Um...her rack ain't all that.
If that's "all that" to you, you needa get out more.....

With that I agree. I am assuming she used protection. If she didn't, and was willing to risk pregnancy and his premature fatherhood, she deserves no sympathy.

Abuse of authority is a separate issue. He may have thought he was obliged to bone her because she was a teacher. Arguably that is wrong, as it constitutes manipulation, misrepresentation, deception, etc. It may also have given him a misguided sense of authority, leading him to bone future bosses, superiors, etc. Emotionally he may now have formed the opinion that all women are domineering, conniving and out for what they can get. What better introduction to the real world? Most people never face up to this reality, believing their whole lives in a fairytale existence of white weddings and perfect love. I may not have a 14 year old son but I know enough about life to know it is nothing like the storybooks you get in school or the ubiquitous pink-filtered romantic comedies. Thanks to her he has been given a true picture of sexuality that is not all about love, respect or reciprocity, but is founded on power struggles, inequality and perversion. Sorry if that doesn't fit the view of the world you wish you could give your children, but hey, that's life. The sooner they learn, the better. Then maybe they can do something about it.

So everyone should be subject to the same rules, regardless of motivation, mental capacity, environment? Don't do the crime if you don't want the time? The law is a secular set of commandments and if you break one you receive your 'just' punishment? I assume you agree with all this.

If an action could be viewed in isolation from circumstance, I would concur.

But realistically, it can't. To answer lookout's question, if we were both driving at 25 over the speed limit, but you had just robbed a bank and I was rushing my contracting sister to hospital, should we both receive the same punishment? Should I be punished at all? On the surface, our actions look the same. Our motivations, however, are vastly different. Isn't this what should be 'punished'? Isn't this what the law should exist for? You might argue that taken to its natural conclusion this constitutes 'thought police' and is largely immeasurable. Maybe. But surely this is preferable to a backward, limited and often completely WRONG legal system that offers nothing in the way of prevention (other than deterrent, which of course is ineffective else why all the crime?). Painting every person and every crime with the same colour is equally if not more dangerous than exonerating individuals because of irrelevant differences (the what they had for breakfast bit, radar). No one seems willing to take the time to understand the root of crime (and I don't mean the part-time pot-smoking criminology students) in order to eliminate it once and for all. So, sorry if that's idealistic. Sorry if it means you might have to think.

said with no hostility, just want to make a point

Catwoman's original argument that raised my ire was based upon whether the “victim” enjoyed it or not. We shouldn't be determining the severity of the crime based upon the pleasure provided to the victim. What if she supplied heroin or taught him how to shoplift? Based upon this argument, the defense would only need to prove the level of enjoyment provided to the victim.

“I'm sorry I raped and beat her into a coma your honor. It was an S&M deal that went bad. For the record, she begged me to do it.”

All the jokes aside about boys being lead about by their dicks, does this provide an open season license on boys? Who should pay for the children that will get fostered from these unions? Should we take the crime more seriously if she didn't model bikinis? Who would be responsible if a disease was transmitted? Who should pay for future therapy? If the child is financially incapable, should the child's parents foot the bill? As a parent it would be cheaper to hire a prostitute periodically than worry about 18 years of possible payments for each infraction.

Much discussion was directed at man-on-girl or woman-on-boy situations. So OK... what if the child was uncertain as to their sexual orientation at the time of the incident? Can they come back with charges at a later date if they determine their unknown orientation identity was used against them?

Parents would be negligent if they allowed their children to enter into activities that might prove harmful. While sex in itself is not physically harmful, many other problems could occur. Pregnancy at first does not appear to be a significant risk for boys. However, it does exact a toll on their future both emotionally and financially. Without fully knowing the consequences, he could risk his opportunity to enter college, find a good job, buy a home, or even meet a future spouse. Children live in the moment and it's our job as their parents to look at the broader scope.

Girls do have the additional risk of pregnancy. What if the teacher took it upon himself to get a documented vasectomy? Would that be OK for him to prey on girls in the classroom? What if it was for love?

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/9001405.htm?1c

It's important to note that the accused willingly admitted she committed the action in defiance of the law. It should not matter the crime, this behavior cannot be tolerated. For the most part, laws were designed to offer protection to the people. We must respect the laws in place or work to change the laws that fail.

Finally, Catwoman...

... wouldn't this be a useful lesson for girls too? Why should we throw the book any harder at adult men that commit this crime?

The truth is that children are not legally competent to make these decisions. Until these laws are changed, and I don't believe they should be, she should be measured under the same laws with the same penalties, as anyone who may have committed the same crime, regardless of the genders involved.

Any chance we could talk you into staying away from guys for awhile? :eek: Sexuality while biologically driven is what you make of it. You can choose relationships based on whatever values you want, but a 14 year old boy is not prepared for that choice.

I'm glad someone else brought it up first, but I do think it germane that Catwoman has a rather, er, unique set of values when it comes to acceptable and appropriate sexual behavior. I'd like to think that most of my peers and members of my community do not share her view on the dog-eat-dog world of human sexuality or her flexible views on morality and justice.

Catwoman, your very own response to lookout's hypothetical '25-MPH-over-the-speed-limit' case shows that you haven't really read or thought about Radar's point about equal protection. What he and I are saying is YES, in ANY instance, the speeder should be stopped. It is not at the time of the violation of the law that all the moral relativism should come into play, but after the accused is actually found guilty. Should a traffic cop have to predict if a speeder is on an altruistic mission? Based on what? That you're driving a minivan with kiddie seats in the back? While the bank robber is in some beat up piece of shit, with ink-stained dollar bills flying out the window?

Sorry, both of you should be stopped. You are both operating outside the acceptable practice of your community, as dictated by statute, and nothing less than our constitution requires that the cop stop you both*. You've got some good explanation that mitigates your guilt? Tell it to the judge. I hope she's locked up, stripped of her teaching credentials and required to do copious and meaningful community service, in addition to paying appropriate restitution to the kid, just as I would wish for a male teacher who had done this with a female student.

*or, as is too often the case, stop neither of you.

Why not? You are eliminating the notion of choice. At 13, I was presented with the opportunity to use heroin (and other hard drugs). I chose not to. Now, should the dealer who offered me heroin have been punished? What if I had taken it, ended up a crack recluse on social security, pregnant by some pimp and a drain on society? That simple choice could have changed my life. But at 13, I still made it. Rational, capable, objective. Your argument suggests that he should be punished merely for offering it to me, because I was incapable of that choice.

If you argue that the dealer should be punished regardless of my action, you automatically deny the existence of choice, and must surely then be willing to write off every crime as a product of circumstance, beyond the individual's control. If you believe he should only have been punished if I had taken it, you agree that a crime is proportional to the victims experience or 'pleasure' as you term it, ie. he should get a lighter sentence if I didnt take it, because it had no long term effects, and a heavier sentence if I end up as the recluse. Either way, that is a massive contradiction.

I also had a couple of friends who shoplifted. I tried it a couple of times, discovered it didn't make me feel good, and stopped. Should my friends who influenced me to shoplift be held responsible? I don't think so. If I can exercise choice as a peer-pressured, hormonal 13 year old then anyone can. There's nothing special about me. We are all responsible for our own actions.

This is a debate about justice, a concept largely founded on retaliation, not resolution. All I am asking you to do is question this paradigm. I'm not saying I agree either way. Too often in a discussion like this it is assumed that an argument is a personal opinion. I can assure you my argument here is devoid of personal feeling, I am merely suggesting an alternative. 99 I think your judgement may be slightly clouded by the fact you have a 14 year old boy and quite understandably any images are going to be related back to how you would feel if it was your little boy.

I am only sorry that you consider my argument little more than an emotional reaction. It has nothing to do with my current situation (which, btw, is more or less resolved, and genuine thanks to you especially 99 for helping me through that one :) ).

It's not that I want to think of the world in these terms. Come on 99, you're a parent. You're older than me. One could argue by that merit you know a hell of a lot more about the way the world works than I do. Surely you recognise society and sexuality in particular is not always moral and righteous, and that justice is not always fair? Have you never been subject to a disfunctional relationship or been involved in a grossly 'unfair' situation? Why give a child the impression that this doesn't happen? Is it not better to equip them for failure by making them strong rather than bubble-wrap their childhood so they bruise at the slightest adult knock? The most well-formed, competent people I know have experienced some kind of turbulence in childhood or young adulthood, and I am of the opinion that this helps them develop, and doesn't automatically 'scar' them - indeed, it is the reaction to adversity that maketh the man, so to speak.

Yes it would be a useful lesson for girls, and one that many do learn. We should throw the proverbial book harder at a man for the following reasons:

1. A man can physically overpower a women;
2. A man can force sex (the woman doesn't need to get a hard-on first);
3. A man can get a woman pregnant then bugger off.

All of the above are not transferable to women, which is why a man should receive a more severe punishment.

99, with regard to the speeding analogy, I agree that the act of speeding should be taken as a symbol of a crime (given our current accepted judicial code) and motive should be looked at afterwards. But punishment, surely, should not be reparation for benevolent motive? Isn't this incredibly primal? 'You stole my car to save a man's life - you should be tried for theft?' For god's sake, where is your humility, morality?

Now this I agree with. The abuse of authority, as I mentioned earlier, is separate. She should be reprimanded for that. The act of having sex with a willing partner, however, is not a crime. The fact that she did it because it was illegal says more about her sexual preferences than anything malevolent, and the fact still stands that if the lad wasn't willing, he certainly wouldn't have been 'up' for it, if you know what I mean. I think the largest disparity in this debate is at what age a child is capable of exerting rational choice. I would argue that 13/14 is probably about the cut off mark, and I can assure you having spoken to many male friends about this that there are lots of things 14 year old boys don't tell their mothers. I wouldn't assume he is emotionally or sexually undeveloped just because you see no evidence.

edited for quote marks

"1. A man can physically overpower a women;
2. A man can force sex (the woman doesn't need to get a hard-on first);
3. A man can get a woman pregnant then bugger off.

All of the above are not transferable to women, which is why a man should receive a more severe punishment."

Catwoman,
Doesn't this go back to the whole thing you're talking about in terms of choice? Correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but from the tone of the rest of the post, it seems that man should be more severely punished because of what he's capable of and not necessarily because of what he chose to do, like the person who offered you herion.

Besides, not all physical rape is man on woman. There are male rape victims as well. In those cases, because the above list isn't completely transferable to women, should the women get off lighter because they forced/coerced a man to have sex with them?

Oh this is getting tiring. My fundamental arguments are:

1. There are intrinsic differences between men and women that the law should reflect;

2. Punishment should be determined by motive, not a 'one-size-fits-all' philosophy.

If a women forces a man to have sex with her against his will she should receive the same punishment as a man who does the same. All I'm saying is it would be a lot harder for a woman to force a man in this way, for the reasons mentioned in my last post. Coercion is different, and should be treated differently by the law.

I apologise if I am not being coherent. Does this make it clearer?

No amount of rationalization will make it any more or less of a crime for a 30 year old woman to have sex with a 14 year old boy or a 30 year old man to have sex with a 14 year old girl.

Whether or not one person is strong enough to force themselves onto the other is irrelevant since we're talking about both parties being willing, and this being statuatory rape which is merely having sex with those who are too young to give their consent because they are not prepared for such decisions.

All attempts to mention pregnancy, the strength of the person, or the gender of the person are irrelevant.

It is no more and no less a crime when a man does it or a woman. They are equally offensive, and should be punished equally under the law.

NOTHING will change that.

If I were you, radar, I would read your post, ignore it, and repeat my own. But I can't be bothered to cut and paste it so just read it again will you.

I've read all of your posts and they're all ignorant ramblings trying to rationalize giving a more severe punishment to a man who commits the same crime as a woman. None of them holds any merit.

A man cannot commit the same crime as a woman. No two people can commit the same crime. No crime stands alone, separate from circumstance. An action on its own is just an action. It is motive and situation that determines whether or not it is a crime. If you kill a man at war it is not a crime. If you kill him for money it is. It's really not that complicated.

Yah, I understand what you're saying on the whole. It's just bits and details of what you're saying that doesn't mesh well, in my mind at least.

For example, in #2, about how punishment should be determined by motive...I don't see where the enjoyment factor of the victim comes in. Her motive was to find sexual satisfaction and break the law doing it. That is what her punishment should be based on, whether or not the boy couldn't keep clean sheets at night thinking of her or made a vow to go homo- or asexual for the rest of his life. I can see where the boy's reactions could determine the severity of the punishment, but I don't see how it has anything to do with the punishment determination. There's two basic steps from first court appearance to being locked away: 1) guilt determination in court, where we try and find out if the person really did it or not and, if guilty, punishment is recommended for that crime 2) sentencing, where we try and find out how accountable this person is, based on why they did it, victim's pain and suffering, their net gain for everything, so on. For example, to wit: What she did comes with the price of having a scarlet A slapped on her. The reason she risked that A and how the boy is doing afterwards determines how large and bright should that A be.

That's how I see it, that's the part of your argument I don't quite get. If all I did with all them words up there is restate what you meant, then never mind! :D

Catwoman, I gotta disagree with you again. Motive should not be a factor in determining guilt and punishment. To bring the state of mind of the aggressor into the equation requires the creation of "thought police" whose job it is to get into your head and know what you were thinking at the time. The same rationale applies to so-called hate crimes. Enjoyment of the sexual assault should not be a factor. Just as whether or not I was motivated by hate when I beat up some gangbanger punk, or if it was simple opportunity. Should I get a lesser punishment if I was simply in it for the thrill of violence, rather than an innate dislike of gangbangers? No. Assault is assault and unless mitigated by self-defense, should be punished as the law directs, without regards to what I may or may not have had in mind.

Going back to the original topic, what the teacher was thinking at the time isn't a factor...she sexually assaulted a child, his alleged willingness notwithstanding, and should be punished no more or less than a man who commits the same crime. The fact that she acknowledged that she was breaking the law beforehand only underscores the fact that she knew it was wrong to do and did it anyway.

She needs to be imprisoned and branded a sex offender just like a man would have been in that same situation.

In my opinion.

Brian

Brian I understand your point. Cyber I understand your confusion. I would like to try and explain my reasoning in more detail.

My difficulty with the justice system is that it treats the symptom not the cause. It sees a crime and imposes a suitable punishment. A punishment to fit the crime, not the cause of the crime. It's like taking a headache pill. The more severe the headache, the stronger the pill, or the more pills you take. It will make the headache go away. But it won't stop it coming back.

If the headache has been caused by dehydration, you should drink. If it has been caused by tension, learn to relax more, or get a massage. If it has been caused by a tumour, a more involved method of treatment will be required that could take years.

Treating every similar crime the same is like prescribing varying quantities and strengths of pills for every kind of headache. Sometimes a pill just isn't the answer. In fact, it almost never is.

Motivation is the single most important factor of law. If we remove the 'why' we remove any chance of redemption, or change. I do not advocate criminality, but I do feel very strongly that attempting to segment crime into easily manageable chunks defeats the object of any kind of treatment, if that is what it is. If we truly wanted to respond to crime, to reduce it, to prevent it, our justice system would not be based on revenge and retaliation. Does no one agree that this is in no way constructive?

Cyber, to address your point, I think the boy's willingness to hop on automatically reduces the crime from rape to a technicality with regard to his age, and I am merely questioning that technicality. Again, this is not necessarily my personal opinion. I'm sure I would feel differently if like 99 I had a son myself.

I don't agree that motive is a factor.

If the law says that no one can eat apples after 10pm or before 6am, no exceptions, then that is the law.

It applies to men, women, children, regardless of motive.

Therefore any person that breaks the law should face the same penalty.

If you want to mitigate responsibility for following the law, then change the law. Not the punishment.

A crime is a crime is a crime. A crime is not like a snowflake where each one is different.

A murder is a murder. The crime isn't "killing a man", it's "murder". Not all killing of a man is "murder" and that's what trials find out. But two people found guilty of the same crime like "murder" should get the same punishment regardless of motive.

If person "A" kills an old lady because he wants her purse and person "B" kills an old lady because she's Jewish, the punishment should be the same. The victim is no more dead in either case. And in the case of statuatory rape, the victim is no more or less victimized regardless of their gender.

If one guy robs a store to feed his children and another robs a store to buy crack cocaine, they should get the same punishment.

But do they? really?

the trials set the tone for the sentence. if a man desperate to feed a starving family expresses deep remorse for stealing during the trial, and the crack head just sits there drooling, looking like he'll do it again in a minute, do they get the same sentence? i dont think they do. jury's remember the connection they feel toward a defendant, and will mitigate their findings to suit, no? I mean that's why we have that word, MITIGATE, isnt it?

cat is saying that the fact that this went woman / boy is in itself a mitigating circumstance. i disagree with her on that, but just to be clear, not everyone gets the same sentence for the same crime in america.

In the context of this thread, I think the Teacher should be prosecuted the same as a man, and it's irrelevant what the kid thinks.

But I wonder, What about intent? Or motive? They are basically the same thing.

If I have the runs, and the poop slides down my leg (I'm wearing boxers and shorts) onto a sidewalk before I can reach a bathroom, do I deserve to be punished the same amount as someone who craps on the sidewalk on purpose?

no, you'd deserve to be ridiculed and publicly humiliated like I was......oops....i mean....like my friend was when that happened to him. ;)

did i tell the 'holy shit' story on here?

I'm not saying everyone gets the same punishment for the same crimes in America. The legal system in America is very much geared in favor of women. The legal system should be blind to race, religion, gender, etc. It should punish all crimes equally regardless of motive.

Hate crimes are a perfect example of laws that need to go away immediately.

If a white man kills a black man because he caught him in bed with his wife, he will get far less prison time than a white man who kills a black man because he is a black man. The mans thoughts are being punished and this puts the police in the dangerous position of being the "thought police".

And if a black man kills a white man just for being white, he won't get as harsh a penalty as the white man would under similar circumstances.

The fact that people stupidly try to say the EXACT SAME CRIME committed by a woman and a man should be punished differently only shows that they have no regard for fairness or equality under the law. But these are usually the same people who would jump up and down and scream the loudest if they were on the losing end of one of these situations. If suddenlly courts started locking up women 5 times longer than men for the same crime, they would demand equality under the law. This is hypocritical to say the least.

These are the same people who tried to make excuses for Andrea Yates. This woman should have been lowered feet first into a woodchipper. She's pure evil.

I don't buy insanity as a defense, and I especially don't buy "temporary insanity". I don't care if someone is insane or not. If you murder people, too bad so sad, you've got to go away. If the person who did it is insane, fine, don't tell them it's an electric chair, tell them it's a roller coaster, strap them in and fire it up.

Ambiguity creates inequality under the law and causes a host of nightmare situations. We wouldn't be having this discussion if we were talking about a black male teacher versus a white male teacher. Why? Because the race of the person committing the crime is irrelevant and so is their gender.

Radar,
My post earlier wasn't a joke. Do you think there should be a difference in the punishment or determination of guilt for two people who crap on the sidewalk? Person A can't control themselves, and person B does it on purpose. Are they equally guilty?

Yes, they are equally guilty. But if they both pay for the cost of the cleanup, I don't see it as a problem.

If I have a child, or a dog, who takes a dump on the sidewalk, I'm responsible to clean it up. If I am an elderly person who doesn't have much control over my bowels I must do the same. And if someone does it just because they feel like it, they are equally responsible.

Some people just have a hard time comprehending the meaning of personal responsibility.

It's not the same act, even though the result is the same. The two would not be charged with the same offence, therefore subject to different penalties. :)

so one is littering, and the other vandalizing. i bet the fines are comparable:smack:

I agree Onyx, and thank you for recognising the wider spectrum of my debate.

I do think the law should be changed. And it is constantly evolving. In fact, the law currently supports my argument in favour of different punishment for different sexes: women's prisons, for a start.

Yes, I agree. It is determining whether it is murder - if there can be one kind of murder - that is the problem. Surely murder is killing with intent? It is the 'intent' bit I am interested in. Where does this come from? Can we eliminate it? We are arguing for the same side here. All that everybody wants is for crime to be significantly reduced, ultimately eliminated. It is imperative we spend more time working on root causes rather than handing out inconsequential, deconstructive and largely futile punishments that serve no more as reparation to the victim as a deterrent.

Again, I agree. Nothing annoys me more than pathetic whiney excuses from people who are incapable of thinking for themselves. I am talking about genuine and uncontrollable mitigating circumstances such as genetic make-up. The 'face' of a criminal is not a new topic - if we can already be this specific surely gender must also come into it? I'm not saying men are bad and women are good or the other way round. Just that we're different, like it or not, and as such should have distinct legal and social systems. Not unequal, just different.

Glatt your example demonstrates my point about an action on its own being just that - an action. Only when you attach a motive or intent does it become a crime or otherwise. We should move away from study and punishment of action and concentrate on catalystic intent. This is what the law should reflect.

As for thought police; the exact opposite of this would be total anarchy. Which would you prefer?

But murder isn't just murder* ...

It's murder, homicide, manslaughter, and actually a host of other legal definitions. Which you get charged with and ultimately convicted (or exonnerated) of does vary based on the circumstances of the crime.

The other guy is still dead. It's all in how you got him there.

*Note to the lazy ... the first one is a link to the legal definition of murder. The second is a link to the legal definitions of the sub-types.

If the punishments were less arbitrary, they would serve as more of a deterrant, but even if they don't, at least if we get rid of the people who kill others, that's one less murderer in the world.

No, gender does not come into it. Attitudes are not gender based, they are learned through the environment when growing up. Gender is no excuse for any crime at any point ever. Those who claim it is are the same idiots who try to excuse a woman murdereing her kids due to depression, or killing her husband because she had PMS. That's utter crap! If a man were in court and said he killed his wife because he lost his job, nobody would say he should be let off.

Gender is NEVER a mitigating circumstance!

Sorry, but there is no such thing as different but equal or separate but equal. Those are false premises. You're equal or your not. You are subject to the same laws or you're not. You've raped someone or you haven't.

That's an utterly false assertion. The opposite of having thought police is not anarchy. It's order and reason and equality under the law.

If one man commits a murder because he hates Jewish people, and another does it because he likes to see the color of blood their crime is equal. It is murder. Once the court proves that either of these men committed murder, the punishment should be the same.

As wolf pointed out, there are different crimes such as murder, manslaughter, etc. If two people are found guilty of the same crime such as murder 1, they should get the same punishment regardless of their motives.

It doesn't matter why this woman slept with a 14 year old boy just as it wouldn't matter why a man slept with a 14 year old girl. Both are guilty of the exact same crime, and the gender of the attacker and victim are NOT a mitigating factor.

If you'd like an example of a mitigating factor, there was a story in the news years ago about two friends in CA who were having beers together. They ran out of beer and one guy asked the other to watch his 2 year old daughter while he went to get some more beer. When he came back he found his buddy having intercourse with his baby. He promptly beat his friend to death with his bare hands. THAT is a mitigating factor.

If it had been a woman coming home and found her friend violating her two year old son and she beat her friend to death it would be THE EXACT SAME CRIME!!!! The gender is irrelevant. The fact that they walked in and caught someone violating thier child is a mitigating factor, the gender of the child or attacker is not.

I think maybe the difficulty here is use of the word 'mitigating'. It implies innocence, or a lesser crime. This is not what I am talking about. To use your example, god I don't know if I can bear to go into details, but lets say the man with the female child could have caused internal damage as well as psychological. Chances are a female performing a sex act on a male child would not. I am not saying either act is right or excusable in any way, or detracting from the sadistic, abhorrent, vile nature of the crime. I just think the two crimes are indeed different, and should be treated differently. I am not saying the woman should receive a lesser punishment, just a different one. Punishment to fit the crime. A response, co-ordinated, deliberate and functional, not merely retaliation.

Alert the media.

I'm in agreement with Radar. (actually there are a lot of times that I'm in agreement with radar)

Good post.

Sounds all good catwoman - until (God forbid) its your son. Since your value system is relativistic and based on little more than personal opinion, I have no doubt that you'd be all for bringing the Tower of London out of retirement the minute some shit happened to you or yours (again, God forbid, knock on wood, etc.).

Don't be so dismissive of the harm done to a certain class of victims simply because you, decider of things, proclaim that their harm done unto them is less than the harm done unto another when the criminal acts are indistinguishable. Its awfully presumptive, grossly unfair and hopelessly arbitrary.

It is because judges incompetently deployed the discretion that was made available to them in sentencing criminals that sentencing guidelines were implemented (each crime has a certain sentence - mitigating circumstances may not influence the sentence handed down). My point is that it is nearly impossible to properly exercise that discretion (you are advocating) fairly as evidenced by the fact that the only people we could dream of entrusting it to blew it.

russotto, here's the thing of it.

I don’t want some 30 year old guy making the decision about when statutory rape is and isn’t a victimless crime. Have you ever listened to a child molester speak about their crimes? I have. It twists your mind around. They never think it was a bad thing. They always think that they were lovingly introducing the child into the world of sex, or that the child was instigating it by “flirting” with them [I just threw up in my mouth a little]. They also see the crime as victimless.

It’s just not effective to say to someone “Sometimes sex between a 30 year old and a 14 year old is victimless, and sometimes it isn’t. You go ahead and use your best judgment, and we’ll let a jury referee later.” There has to be an established age of consent, it has to be applied across the board, and it has to be enforced consistently or it isn’t effective.

I have a little bit of skin in this game. One of my good friends was an English teacher at a private school. He had an inappropriate relationship with one of his students – she was 16, he was 25. She was definitely the aggressor, the instigator, the one controlling the situation. But he went to jail for 9 months. He’s an honest guy, and a good guy, but what he did was wrong, and he was justly punished for it.

It doesn’t matter that she looked and acted like a grown women. She wasn’t – legally and morally. There are protected categories under the law, and those categories need to be clearly defined and consistently applied. “No” should always mean “No”. 17 is not 18. You should never have sex with a cloven-hoofed animal.

-sm

Should a teenager who got caught stealing a car for a 'joy ride' get the same jailtime as the career thief whose been caught five times before and has been selling the cars to a chop shop? Both are grand theft auto, but as serious as the first case is, the second case has to be dealt with even more seriously. Radar, you make it abundantly clear that to you, both crimes are identical and should be treated in a cookie cutter fashon. But instead of saying the first case has mitigating circumstances, isn't it the case that the second one has circumstances that might call for MORE punishment?

You prefer the 50+ year olds in the legislature doing it?

Yeah, the NAMBLA people do turn your stomach. But statutory rape isn't child molestation. Child molestation is sexual activity with a sexually immature (physically) child. Statutory rape is sex with a sexually mature adolescent below a certain age. Two entirely separate issues.

What he did was illegal, but not wrong in itself. And once you let the law control your beliefs about right and wrong, you've surrendered your moral judgement to people like Richard Nixon, Jesse Helms, any Kennedy, or Thomas Druse.

Unlike gender, age can be a mitigating circumstance. But for the sake of argument let's say it's a 19 year old teenanger who is an adult. Yes, they should get the same punishment (assuming the person whose car it was wants to press charges) as anyone else who steals a car. The career criminal will do more jail time because he'll get the same amount of time that the other guy got for each car he steals. Less ambiguity means more justice and equity under the law.

Judges have already shown that they can be outright dishonest and exceed thier authority as in the case of the Supreme Court which routinely makes unconstitutional rulings so I don't think they should be given much latitude at all in terms of sentencing.

They already have mandatory minimum sentencing for some crimes, but what if it weren't mandatory minimums, but just mandatory sentencing. For instance...

Steal a car = 1 year in jail with no early release.

The boy who steals a car will do 1 full year and everyone who knows about it will make sure they don't do it. The career criminal who is found to have stolen 10 cars will get 10 years; one for each car.

No, the difficulty here is that you fail to understand that you are completely, 100%, absolutely wrong. :rolleyes:

statutory rape is bloody difficult because there are so many mitigating circumstances, often the younger person is the dominant one and it is totally victimless but sometimes it isn't and getting that difference right is bloody hard. Australia has a fairly good system , after 16 you can screw anyone you want and before that there is a two year leeway system, for example a 15y.o can have sex with a 17y.o. I think that strikes the right balance between giving people freedom and protecting them from exploitation, by 16 you should be capable of making your own choices. I've got a few friends who had flings or relationships of one sort or another with people in their 20s while 16 or 17 and no harm came of it.

But jag, do you agree there ought to at least be a special case regarding teachers/coaches/other people in authority positions in the teenager's lives?

I'm the father of a two year old and a five year old. Both boys. If either of them were placed in this situation I would want the fullest extent of the law leveraged against the adult. I would not want race, religion, or gender to intervene and reduce the punishment. Even if the child was sexually mature enough to engage in this activity, he was not legally responsible to make this decision. Too many far-reaching factors from this single event could alter their future hopes and dreams.

I'll admit that I'm more disappointed when a person abuses their authority to take advantage of someone. However I feel the penalty for this type of predator should be the same. They prey on our children and should be removed from society.

The crux of this discussion is based on the myth that men are mere beasts with raging hormones while women search for “love” and follow their heart. It doesn't matter. Even if one excuse sounds more romantic, both results are the same.

(By the way, if this were really true, shouldn't men get a lesser sentence since they are biologically helpless and predisposed to commit such crimes. After all, women are consciously making the choice to follow their heart and “make love” with a minor. Men can't help but follow the dumbstick. Ridiculous!)

We are not slaves to our heart or sexual desires and should be held culpable for our actions equally.

By having a different scale for men and women, aren't we stating that women, once overcome with the passion of love, are the weaker of the sexes and should receive extra protection from society? To justify this argument you would then need to consider that females are emotionally irresponsible and mentally incompetent. Therefore, society has extended far too many rights to them. Absolutely ridiculous!

What happened to equality in the eyes of the law? If we are to consider the sexes to be equally responsible and accountable for their sexual behavior, then we must try them using the same legal rules.

Enough isn't done to protect the children. Sex offenders of children rarely spend much time in jail. Sadly, these types of criminals repeatedly offend and releasing a convicted child molester back into society shows complete indifference to the children of the community. Just check out your local city, county, or state sexual offense web page and you'll see just how many of these people, both men and women, move in and out of the system.

Not only do we need to make the penalties equal, but severe enough that at the very least the chance for a repeat offense is small.

I am just trying to push boundaries. Sorry if people can't cope with this level of discussion. Lets get back to safe ground quick.

And by the way - personally, I do think men and women should receive the same punishment, if it is the same crime. I merely question whether the same crime is possible, whether it is a man and a woman, or two different men. I also question methods of punishment, and the concept of punishment itself, but this is perhaps food for a different debate.

I have stated before that the perspective I present here is not necessarily my opinion. I was interested to see how far we could take this one. Maybe this is it. Such crimes are perhaps too emotional to discuss with much clarity.

For the record, I'm glad someone is.

Savage Love knows what he's talking about.

Well said Joe.

It IS the same crime. It's the same crime regardless of their gender. It is EXACTLY the same crime and gender doesn't change that. If a man with a gun shoots an unknown old lady just walking down the street without cause, is it a different crime when a woman shoots an unknown old lady just walking down the street without cause? NO!!! It's the same crime. If a woman has sex with a 14 year old it is EXACTLY THE SAME CRIME as when a man has sex with a 14 year old.

I'm not making an emotional argument. Emotion has nothing to do with it. This is a logical and rational argument based on indisputable facts.

No matter how you try to package it differently, or what kind of a pretty bow you put on the box, it's still got the same thing in it. No amount of dodging, or squirming, or rationalizing will change it. If you put a baseball on top of your car, it's still a baseball. If you put it in your shoe, it's still a baseball. If the person throwing it is an old woman, or a young man, it's still a baseball. If the baseball is shot out of a cannon it's still a baseball.

Without question, and without a doubt the crime is the same and the punishment should be also.

what if you put the baseball into orbit? then it's a sattelite
in your ass? a suppository
in your lover's ass? a buttplug
in your bra? a falsie

Same crime if the victim is touched by a hand, versus harshly sodomized?

Same crime if the predator/victim are both men? Both women?

I think sometimes the differences matter.