Actually, I do. If you can prove that someone is doing the SAME job, in terms of physical or mental exertion, of course they should be paid the same. But I don't think this is true, and it's not always the men who exert more.

Come on radar, you believe in just rewards and just punishment don't you? Why should some lazy ass woman painting her nails at an office desk be paid the same as the hard working dad of three? (By the way, gender is transferable in that sentence).

In terms of THE LAW, surely reparation should be measured in terms of suffering caused (be it physical or material). If there was no suffering, why is there punishment? And before you spout off about the age of consent, yes I am aware what the law currently is, I'm just questioning it. Or is that something you're not familiar with?

I don't think men and women do commit crimes in the same way, with the same kind of intent, or with the same physical or emotional intensity. [/end huge generalisation]

The only difficulty is proof. But that's nothing new.

I would add that to suggest otherwise would amount to a flagrant Constitutional infraction since it would provide for unequal protection under the law (just like hate crimes do).

I'm all for paying people according to meritocricy. Those with the most marketable skills and who perform the best are rewarded while those who are inept, and lazy are punished regardless of gender. If Sally and Bob are working in a loading dock and Sally can load twice as much as Bob in the same amount of time, she should earn twice as much Bob, and the same is true the otherway.

I know you aren't claiming that statuatory rape is a victimless crime. You couldn't be. Even if the 14 year old offers consent, there is still a victim because the 14 year old hasn't reached an age of maturity sufficient enough to offer that consent. But assuming there were no victim as in prostitution, gambling, suicide, drug use, etc. there should be no law against it.

If you think a 14 year old girl who chose to have sex with a 30 year old man is a victim, you must also agree that a 14 year old boy who chooses to have sex with a 30 year old woman is equally a victim.

Motives and intents are irrelevant. I don't care WHY someone stole my car. They could be stealing it to take dying orphans to a hospital to save their lives and it wouldn't matter to me. My car was still stolen. And the "emotional intensity" of the sexual encounter is also irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not the crime was committed. If it was committed, the punishment should be the same regardless of the gender of the criminal or the victim.

I would say that motives and intentions carry weight but not in the determination of the crime itself. If one man shoots and kills another, he should be charged with the crime of killing another person. After its been proven that he did kill the other man, his reasons and motives can come into play and determine how severe the punishment should be. If he shot the man because he wanted the guy's Eddie Bauer jacket, he should have the book thrown at him with a catapult at close range. If he shot the man because the man was in the process of killing (or trying to kill) him, then less severe disciplinary action should be taken. The bottom line is he killed the guy and nothing can change that.

In this case, the teacher did the horizontal BOP with a person well under the legal age of consent. That's not going to change. Whether or not he said "OH GODS YES!" doesn't matter on the whole. She's already stated that she did it because it was against the law. "See this here law? Watch me break it!"

The law fluctuates incredibly at the mere mention of mental instability (insanity). What is the difference between making allowances for someone's abnormal psychological condition and being flexible to the more subtle psycho-chemical fluctuations with regard to gender differences. Please don't assume the crux of my argument is that all women should be let off crimes because they're emotional and all men should be paid more becuase they're stronger. But think about that sentence. Wouldn't it be stupid to ignore the differences? Your quote above just about sums up everything I detest about the legal system - 'it doesn't matter why'. Of course it damn well matters why. If you know why someones has happened, its cause, you can prevent it happening again. There is resolution, progress.

In this country statutory rape applies when sex occurs against the victim's will or if they are incapable of forming a will (ie a child). I do not think a 14 year old boy is a child, and I think he would have been willing (and my argument is based on this assumption). In that case, the woman is guilty of nothing.

A 14 year old girl, as someone mentioned earlier, could get pregnant. She is also more likely to get emotionally involved. She is also physically powerless to stop him. The woman did not force herself on the boy, she lay back in the car with her legs open, naked from the waist down. He was on top of her. And the presence of his cousin in the car - if he really wasn't willing it wouldn't have been that difficult for two 14 year old boys to overthrow a 23 year old woman. There is no way that can be called rape.

edit spelling

Whether or not a girl can become pregnant is irrelevant and whether or not she can overpower the person she is willingly having sex with is irrelevant. We're not talking about forced rape, we're talking about statuatory (legal) rape. And a 14 year old boy is every bit as much a child as a 14 year old girl. And a 14 year old girl is not any more interested in "love" than a 14 year old boy, but if she were, it would still be irrelevant.

The young woman or young man are equally victims, regardless of the size or strength of the person having sex with them, the location they had sex at, the gender of the attacker, whether or not they wanted an emotional attachment, whether or not someone else was in the room, what religion they happened to be, what they ate for lunch, when was the last time they went to the bathroom, etc.

None of that matters. All that matters is whether or not the adult had sex with a 14 year old. If they did, they committed a crime. Nothing else matters, and no situation you can mention will change that.

If you don't think a 14 year old is a child, you'll have to argue with the court about it. I think 17 year olds are children and until they turn 18 they have no say what-so-ever in their own lives and may not consent to sex. Until they turn 18 they are basically the property of their parents, and their parents have sole decision making authority over thier lives.

When I was 14 or 15 I'd have fucked a snake if you held it, but does that mean if the horny lady next door let me bang her 9 ways from Sunday, it wouldn't be rape? No, it doesn't. I was so filled with hormones I couldn't make a rational decision and perhaps she would have gotten pregnant and I'd be stuck at an early age having to raise a child? Pregnancy can happen both ways and in neither case is the child responsible enough to make such decisions.

Having sex with 14 year olds is wrong. If the teacher was that horny, there's plenty of 18 year old guys who would have helped her out.

If you were honest, you'd admit that a 30 year old man having sex with a 14 year old girl, is not even one bit morally, ethically, or legally different than a 30 year old woman having sex with a 14 year old boy.

But the problem is that crime is not regardless of motive or circumstance. It is dictated by the very two things you refute. A crime does not stand alone nor can you put it in a box and extricate all variables. Human crime is just that - human. Irrational, chaotic and subject to change without notice. How then can you apply a 'one size fits all' mentality to law?

if we look at the variables as you want - both of us are driving 25 over the speed limit. do the reasons why really matter? should one of us get a lighter penalty? or should we both be treated as adults who knowingly chose to break the law

High fives radar.

Brian, I'll be sharing that room with you ...

Age of sexual consent in Florida is 18.

It is lowered to 16 if the other adult is less than 24 years of age. If the parties are married, the age of sexual consent is 16 regardless of the age of the elder partner.

Since the kid was 14, she lost all around.

Statutory rape.

Oh ... and one other thing.

Why is it when a catholic priest does this it's child molestation, but when this teacher does the same, it's treated as rape?

(most of the cases of "child molestation" of which priests are accused are with adolescent boys, not children.)

I guess you don't have a 14 year old boy. I have one, and I can assure you, while he may fantasize about having sex with an adult woman, but he is not emotionally ready, and I expect the incident would be a net negative for him in the long run. If this deranged woman had touched so much as a hair on my son's head, not only would we be pushing to prosecute to the fullest extent allowable by law, but we would also probably seek some more personal forms of 'justice.'

In the US, different states have different legislation regarding statutory rape, but in addition to defining age of consent for both genders, most states stipulate a minimum age difference between the parties, eg; if the age of consent is 17, but the difference in ages is less than two years, an 18 year old might face second or third degree charges for consorting with a 16 year old. In addition, while not explicitly spelled out in statute, the community has less tolerance for those who hold positions of authority in childrens' lives, and abuse that authority or proximity.

These statutes are set at the state level so that different states can express their community standards, which is fine by me. Just remind me not to live in YOUR community, if your beliefs and behavior are reflected in your local laws.

That's the whole point of an effective justice system. EVERYONE is subject to the laws, and should be charged if they break them. If the accused's peers determine that there is enough evidence to support the charge(s), the defendant is guilty. All the subjective motivation/extenuating/mitigating/aggravating/whining excuses stuff comes into play during the SENTENCING phase. That's when the bimbo can explain that the 14 year old was unusually mature and able to give consent, etc, etc.

Living within the law IS and SHOULD BE a "one size fits all" game; that's where the "equal protection under law" part of the constitution comes into play.

ok - i can't get the photos to post, but this teacher was a bikini model for some car magazine before this happened. you can see the shots on foxnews.com (it's good for entertainment, if not exactly fair and balanced)

she isn't really my cup of tea, but what 14 year old wouldn't jump at the chance to hook up with her? it's not even fair.

Did any of you happen to read that she was newly married, too? Can you imagine the trauma this chick's poor husband is going through??

Ah, this did make the national news.

Here she is!

Here, Radar, I'LL make the claim you're disbelieving:

Statutory "rape" is often a victimless crime. (to be fair, it often is not)

In no case does it really deserve the term "rape".