God, the guy is 15 years old and has obviously well gone through pubirty. He did all of this voluntarily; and in fact, quite eagerly. IMO she did not seduce him. Leave people alone and let them do what they want. And they want to send her to jail for 25 to life? Frick those prosecutors and anyone who agrees with them. The kid wanted it, it is his business. He was probably horny and happy. I wouldn't say a male has a "feeblemind" in regards to this when he is 15 http://www.pe.com/digitalextra/stories/teacher-2002-0809-teach.html
what are these women thinking? cant they at least find a horny male that is their fucking age? they grow on trees for christs sake!
exactly joeman if it wasn't concentual it would be TRUE rape (or whatever its called) Satitory rape is there to protect children of BOTH sexes she did it she pays simple as that she knew the law if he was under her care (ie he was her student) then satitory rape exstends to 17 there is a reason its like that and EVERY teacher knows sleeping with there students is a no no i doubt she will get 26 years (she shouldn't, that should be reserved for the basteds who lure the youngest children) but 2 or 3 years is a fair penelty
So you are saying that a book filled with papers and handwriting called the law should be placed above the facts? If that is the case, if osma bin laden is captured and brought to america, and tried in new york for the murder of 3,000 people, he can't get the death penalty if the state doesn't currently support it. But if he were tried here in Florida, well they are frying people in the chair and poisoning them with needles as we speak. Because it is called the law , an exception can never be made. Such a foolish logic could very well destroy this planet. And it would make no difference, to the court anyway, if it was a male teacher and female student. Foolishness at its greatest. To make the point even more, I can't see what bad effect it would have on him. He didn't get an STD, and he didn't get her pregnant (that we know of). Some how I don't think he is going to be emotionally scarred for the rest of his life. He probably loved it and had 8 nice orgasms.
i think that if it happens more than once it cant be rape in any form. not even statutory. and no matter what sex the teacher / student was that the tacher should lose her job, but not jail cuz i think this is a stupid law.
I am going to argue from a different angle. I am going to pretend I am a cold blooded laywer. Laws exist for a reason. I don't care what the reason is. There must be a reason. Even there isn't a good reason, the law is there. Laws must be enforced, otherwise it sets bad precedence. We are a nation of law. If the case is involved with a male teacher and female student, there will be very little sympathy toward the male even if the decision of the female is totally voluntary. You may think it is perfectly okay morally to have sex with minor, but minors are protected by law. The same law must be applied to female as well as male.
You should base things on the circumstances, not a heavy book with typed letters called the Constitution. Because that is all the law literally is. A wooden mallet sitting in front of a guy in a black cloak called a judge. I'm not saying you should be allowed to get away with killing someone without a good reason. What I am saying is........ the specifics and details are what matters Reenforce on the edit To make the point even more, I can't see what bad effect it would have on him. He didn't get an STD, and he didn't get her pregnant (that we know of). Some how I don't think he is going to be emotionally scarred for the rest of his life. He probably loved it and had 8 nice orgasms
Laws should be clear in black and white as much as possible. Her actions should be compared to the description of the law to determine if she is guilty. If her actions are proven, her sentence should be close to state guideline. Otherwise justice is about how good of a lawyer you can find, which is already the case. The sentece should be reduced if minors are enjoying it? That is that quite funny actually.
Minor bones minor -> ok (i.e. no jail) Minor rapes minor -> not ok (i.e. juvie) Minor bones adult -> not ok (i.e. jail) Minor rapes adult -> unlikely, but not ok (i.e. juvie) Adult rapes minor -> very very not ok (i.e. lots of jail) Now, it seems we have a somewhat strange setup. The crux of the issue seems to be consent...? Obviously, rape is not and should never be ok. However, consentual sex... But, regardless of age..? I don't know, are we saying through our laws that no minor (as defined by the local law) is capable of consentual sex with an adult (again as defined by the local law)? That any adult<->minor sexual act is necessarily coercive or even a rape? It's one thing when adult has sex with a 4 year old. Another altogether when adult has sex with 17 year and 11.9 month old (assuming legal age of consent is 18.) Hell, different states in US have different age limits. Some as high as 18, some as low as 16, several have different ages for males vs. females. In Canada, it's 14! In some countries (ex: Chile), it's 12! http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm Is any of that objective in any way at all? What is the basis for determining age of consent? I get the distinct impression of sheer arbitrary handwaving. Probably the smart way to go is to look at each case individually and determine if the minor was mature enough mentally and understood exactly what they were getting into. After all, different people mature at different rates. Seems like most of the age limits (like 18) are overshoot to catch the lowest common denominator in sexual maturity, so to speak. But that's unfair for those who mature way before the official designated date. Hell, some don't mature at all, ever. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So I think I'm on Clarentavious' side.
The guys who wrote the constitution wrote it to fit society as it was back then. That's why the right to carry arms is in there. Law, to have any public support, must reflect the values of a society (quid leges sine moribus?), and these values evolve Law, to be respected by citizens, must be stable and can not change every five minutes. How can we overcome this paradox? Law must be made up of principles. It is impossible to have a rule for every situation. Besides that, law must not be interpreted in a strict way when this goes against common sense or obvious facts. The first thing can be done by people who make law: the people who are usually elected to do so. The second thing must be done by judges. They must have some liberty to adress the situation as it is. Going back to the example: when the judge finds the 15 year old to be capable of making his own decisions in these matters, or when he finds that no harm is done to the childs psyche, he should go easy on the teacher. He must still show her that it is not done, but he must also show that he understands the circumstances. By judging this way, the judge starts from principles (limit the age for sexual intercourse), but can still have public support, which is very necessary in any state of law.
A victimless 'crime' A4ever(y) other post otherwise B- You luv to write lllooonnnggg posts about a 15 year old kid (going on 20) getting his dick wet with a foxy teach. Some of us choose to edit our posts to a reasonable length. keep your post length at the same length as yer sex act (30 seconds)....? butt Ah luvs ya ...? The teacher should be given a medal cuz she's bringin sex-ed to its proper meanin. howz a boy gonna learn all them positions any other way? you tell me? & 15 ain't young. With all the steroids in the meat that "kid" probably pullin his pud 3 times a day anyways.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! & bangin half the chicks in the class.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What the fudge does that mean?? And the rest of your post: too rude. Edit: yeah, I know he isn't serious, but I just don't think it's funny. It's not subtle enough. Learn from the British, LEARN! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Man I was tired when I write those posts last night. Yeah I agree we should consider the circumstances of each crime before deciding on the sentencing. That is what we are already doing though. There is a sentencing guideline for each crime. The leniency of the judges is a big factor. Some prosecutors will seek harsher sentences. If the guideline is there, it should be enforced, or changed if flawed. A4ever: I don't think his post is serious.
