So reports the Tennesseean; the sentence is apparently at the maximum of the legally allowed range, and on its own strikes me as very high. Partly this is because I suspect that sex between an adult woman and a 17-year-old boy is much less likely to be emotionally or physically damaging than sex between an adult man and a 17-year-old girl. [UPDATE: If you disagree with my suspicion, or have further thoughts about it, please post it in the comments to this other post, which is specifically aimed at dealing with that question.] But even if the judge was ignoring that because of sex equality principles, 12 years is pretty high even for noncoerced sex between an adult male teacher and a 17-year-old female teacher’s aide.
But there are some possible aggravating circumstances: A Sept. 29, 2009 story Tennesseean reports that she was on trial for having sex with three students, and that she testified that she was raped by one of them, and that the claims by the other two were fabricated. The jury verdict suggests that the jury didn’t believe her rape story. Perhaps the judge thought likewise, and increased her sentence for perjury, especially since the perjury was especially likely to be damaging to the boy whom she accused in her testimony. (Such judicial decisions to increase the sentence because the judge thinks the witness perjured herself are generally permitted with no need for a separate perjury trial.)
Also, though she was acquitted of the charges involving the other boys (Tennesseean, Sept. 30, 2009), perhaps the judge concluded that the evidence showed she was likely guilty, even though not beyond a reasonable doubt. That too is a generally permissible basis for a judge’s enhancing a sentence for a crime of which the defendant was convicted.
So perhaps the 12-year sentence reflects the judge’s judgment that the defendant had had sex with three 17-year-old boys, one of whom was her teacher’s aide, and that she had also lied on the stand by falsely accusing one of rape. I’m not positive that 12 years is a suitable sentence for that. And if the judge said, as the article paraphrases, that it “didn’t matter if the children involved were 7 or 17, they were entitled to protection at school” as to the sentencing decision — as opposed to the decision that she is legally guilty in either case — that seems a mistake: Surely it should matter for sentencing purposes whether an adult has sex with a 17-year-old or a 7-year-old. Still, the 12-year sentence is much more plausible if considered in conjunction with the apparent perjury, the apparent false accusation of rape, and perhaps the evidence (if credited by the judge) that a similar crime had been committed as to two other 17-year-olds.
Thanks to Elie Mystal (Above The Law) for the pointer, though he takes a different view of the matter than I do. Of course, all this is based just on news accounts and inferences from those accounts — it may well be that there was other evidence introduced at trial that made the judge’s decision more plausible, or less plausible.
Anderson says:
12 years would be excessive if it were a woman and some 17yo guy or other.
But the element of trust and duty in a teacher-student relationship is an aggravating factor.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:32 pmAllan Walstad says:
Totally insane. No mutually consensual sex for those “boys,” but give them another year and they can be having mutually consensual firefights with Taliban soldiers, courtesy of Bush/Obama.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:33 pmBC says:
I think what boggles my mind most about this case is that the “victims” — 17-year-old boys who were having sex with a teacher who was not exactly hard on the eyes — came forward to disclose the situation to the authorities.
When I was 17, having sex with somebody who looked like this defendant would’ve made you a hero, not a victim.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:35 pmB.D. says:
It seems really excessive to me for a case of non-coerced sex involving an adult and a 17 year-old—or even three 17 year-olds—no matter what the circumstances. The age of consent is necessarily an arbitrary line to draw, and it’s over-inclusive in its “protection” of minors. The closer a victim is to the age of consent, the less likely the interests of justice are served by prosecuting the offending adult. And I agree that the psychological and emotional damage is even more remote when that victim is male.
I can hardly imagine that knowing more about the facts of this case will convince me that a maximum sentence is appropriate . . . especially when you consider that the age of consent laws in many states would render what happened here a non-crime, at least when it comes to statutory rape.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:37 pmAnderson says:
Do any parents of 17-year-olds have an opinion?
My older boy’s 14, but if his teacher poaches on him before he’s out of high school, there will be hell to pay. And I don’t think that’s a terribly prudish reaction. To say nothing of how his *mother* would feel.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:42 pmfwb says:
Question 1: What is the age of majority in the state?
Question 2: How can there be different laws on sex between persons based on one’s job since those would violate the equal protection clause of the 14th? Someone not in a particular job could not be punished for the act while someone in the job could? That is not equal protection.
Aggravating factors cannot be used in law when the federal constitution requires equal protection under the law. Equal is equal.
Of course, those crystal balls the judge keeps under his robe make the judge’s thoughts absolutely correct in every instance.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:52 pmAnderson says:
Aggravating factors cannot be used in law when the federal constitution requires equal protection under the law.
Cite, please?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:55 pmBC says:
Anderson — I don’t think it’s a terribly *uncommon* reaction. As to whether or not it’s prudish, well, I think it’s worth pointing out that for most of history young adults were regarded as “fair game”, sexually, as early as 14 or so. The “kids are sexually unavailable to anyone except their agemates until they’re out of high school” attitude is a relatively recent phenomenon.
And no, I’m not advocating throwing 14-year-olds to the proverbial wolves. I’m just pointing out that attitudes have evolved on this.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:55 pmSteve says:
If it’s true that there was a sentence enhancement because she made a false accusation of rape, I wouldn’t have any problem with that at all. Imagine the consequences for that kid’s life if she was believed.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 7:04 pmOrder of the Coif says:
The judge is female. I wonder if that had any effect?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 7:05 pmakatsuki says:
Frankly I can think of plenty of seventeen year old girls who would not have been victimized if the sexes had been reversed, but I am all for the treating of the situation equally. The legal stance is that a 17 year old is not mature enough to do much of anything (maybe drive and that is even disappearing, an 18 year old can be given a gun and go shoot things, and a 21 year old can drink.)
The relationship of trust and the pattern suggests that she was a serial child raper — basically taking advantage of her position. 17 years is suitable in that instance.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 7:09 pmCDU says:
So statutory rape is OK when it’s female on male?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 7:10 pmGuest101 says:
“Partly this is because I suspect that sex between an adult woman and a 17-year-old boy is much less likely to be emotionally or physically damaging than sex between an adult man and a 17-year-old girl.”
Why? Not trying to be overly PC here, but I really don’t share the intuition that it would make a difference (assuming of course that no pregnancy resulted). Indeed, if the common perception that girls mature faster than boys is correct, wouldn’t one expect the opposite to be true?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 7:18 pmyankee says:
Do you have any basis for this suspicion? A girl is “supposed” to find it traumatizing, and people tend to react in ways social norms expect them to react. But a boy who’s bothered by the experience is unlikely to have his concerns taken seriously by anyone, which would make it much more traumatizing than it otherwise would be. Men are “supposed” to be horndogs who are always raging to have sex with any modestly attractive women, so making any objection public puts his masculinity in question.
I’ll grant you physically damaging though.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 7:28 pmGuy says:
Like other commenters, I’m curious if your opinion that the fact the underaged victim was male is a mitigating factor is based on some kind of evidence, or just based on what “seems” more psychologically damaging to you. Also it’s worth noting that she was in a position of authority over him, which made it harder for him to be able to refuse her advances.
fwb,
This distinction (teacher v. nonteacher) would be subject to rational basis review. Given that teachers have more opportunity to sleep with minors, and, as I already noted, are in positions of authority over their students, I don’t think it would be hard for the law to survive a constitutional challenge.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 7:29 pmOren says:
There can be no such thing as noncoercion in a boss/employee relationship. As far as I’m concerned, remove the relation (heck, even make her a teacher at the school but not specifically his teacher) and it’s clear sailing.
This reminds me of this onion article. Extra props for dissing my alma matter because it was totally spot-on for Reed.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 7:29 pmThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
FWB wrote:
I assume that you must be making some sort of argument about what the Constitution ought to prohibit, because that’s certainly not an accurate description of what the Equal Protection Clause in fact does prohibit.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 7:31 pmtamerlane says:
According to the article, this convict will be eligible for parole in four years. That sounds like a reasonable time behind bars for these offenses. Judges are acutely aware of “real” vs “nominal” sentences and I’m sure this judge knew the time this convict is likely to serve when she passed sentence.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 7:42 pmBC says:
That’s nonsense. Coersion occurs where someone is compelled to do or refrain from doing something by threat. A threat (such as a threat to fire) is not necessarily inherent in a boss/employee relationship, particularly in this day and age when a boss’ ability to hire and fire is oftentimes circumscribed by elaborate human resources rules.
Relationships in which the parties have unequal power or status can certainly be coercive. But they are not always coercive, and should not be presumed as such, no matter what the PC police tell us.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 7:42 pmBama 1L says:
Someone needs to tell Professor Volokh that one does not thank Elie Mystal for anything; instead, one remarks about his weight and general physical appearance (preferably with reference to peanuts and cheese), triple the “T” in his last name, and wonder how he could ever have matriculated, let alone graudated, Harvard.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 7:43 pmSplunge says:
If the woman falsely counterclaimed rape, then, based on the viciousness with which sex criminals are routinely treated, I think 12 years in the pokey is quite right, possibly even on the overly lenient side. I would have given her that in a flash for the false charge of rape against a 17-year-old kid, since where it is believed — and there are undoubtably people in his community who now believe it, whatever the Court decides — it will devastate his prospects. Furthermore, it makes it just a smidge harder for every woman who is raped to be believed. A first-class narcissist bitch, that one.
Also here:
I suspect that sex between an adult woman and a 17-year-old boy is much less likely to be emotionally or physically damaging than sex between an adult man and a 17-year-old girl.
Speaking as the father of a 17-year-old girl and the stepfather of a 17-year-old boy, this is a heartless and stupid statement. You’ll reconsider this bit of towel-snapping machismo philosophy when your kid(s) reach 17. Do it ahead of time and gain a reputation for wisdom.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 7:48 pmSgtDad says:
If what Prof. Volokh’s surmise is correct, would it not run afoul of Blakely v Wash. 542 U.S. 296 (2004)?* The judge punished defendant for acts she was not convicted of.
And I am the father of two, both of whom were 17 once. I with Prof. Volokh and disagree with Splunge.
————————
*See more:Wikipedia, Blakely v. Washington, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blakely_v._Washington (as of May 29, 2009, 01:52 GMT).
Quote
November 16, 2009, 7:57 pmKazinski says:
It is just ridiculous that the age of consent in Tennessee is 18. I hope Planned Parenthood is required to report the rape of any teenager under 18 when they attempt to obtain “family planning” assistance.
I ran across this interesting question when researching Tennessee’s age of consent:
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:02 pmThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Is Sex More Likely To Be Emotionally Traumatizing for 17-Year-Old Boys or Girls? says:
[...] response to my earlier remark that “I suspect that sex between an adult woman and a 17-year-old boy is much less likely to be [...]
Malvolio says:
Maybe he’s lived on Planet Earth for more than about 15 minutes.
I don’t know where you are getting the scare-quotes around supposed. I can list 100 public figures who destroyed their reputations and careers to get laid — and gee, all of them are male.
There are probably some males who put an unusually high moral weight on sex, at least compared to their own sex-drives, who might be upset by that kind of hot-for-teacher relationship, but they are a tiny minority.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:17 pmGuy says:
Yes, and we wouldn’t want that “tiny minority” get in the way of our policy of being systematically more lenient toward women who abuse minors. Of course males have less right to decide who they have sex with than females do.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:52 pmLN says:
Malvolio would love to have sex with Rosie O’Donnell. He’s no prude.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:55 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Example:
I heard on the radio some time back, a story about a boy of 15 who was having a sexual relationship with one of his teachers. At first he thought it was pretty cool, but then she began making emotional demands that he could not meet. Of course she did. If you think about it, she knew she was risking prison to have this relationship with the kid. If it was only sex she wanted, she could have gone to a bar and gone home with someone. There was something this child could do for her that a grown man couldn’t, and she was willing to risk prison for it — do you not find that icky as hell? He didn’t want to complain b/c he thought there must be something wrong with him — guys are supposed to take all the sex they can get, right? But eventually he couldn’t stand it any longer and confided in his dad, who went ballistic and then called the police.
I think it would be a lot less easy for these predators to prey on boys if we dropped some of the nonsense equating manliness with never turning down sex, even if the teacher is “hot” or whatever.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:03 pmShelbyC says:
Well, we can all comment on this issue ’till we’re blue in the face, but nobody’s done it better than South Park.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:05 pmAnatid says:
Interesting phenomenon I observe in people: You tend to forget what you were like when you were younger.
Specifically, you forget what you were like as a teenager. You forget why jumping off the roof into the pool, riding a boogie board, seemed like a good idea. You forget why algebra once seemed hard. You forget that the opposite sex was, for a few years, a completely alien species. You forget that $20 was a lot of a money, that six months into the future was forever, that a single year of age difference meant vast gaps in maturity.
Maybe you also forgot being a nervous virgin with little guidance on what was supposed to be “right” except for friends’ gossip, teen movies, and glares from your parents. Maybe you also forgot that teachers — like parents — weren’t real people, they were Authority Figures. You didn’t necessarily understand them, but you respected them. Even when you disagreed, you knew in your core that you lived under them. Realizing that your teachers and parents were actual people, with thoughts and dreams just like you, would come later.
It’s world-shattering if a parent sexually abuses a teenage child, regardless of gender. Why can’t it be just a little bit wrong when a teacher abuses that authority, regardless of gender?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:15 pmAnatid says:
Link us, Shelby?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:16 pmAndrew_Ess says:
What are the facts and what is the law. 1.A state worker in a position of trust. 2.An underage victim. 3.A defense that involved perjury. Lets throw the gender issue out of the window, right here and now if that apparently is the basis of an argument.
In law we are not to distinguish the perp by gender. Apparently what is self evident is the latter day Chauvanists position of legal inequality. What is current legal practise may fly with the current crop of what is precedent and pass the judicial supreme test. Yet it does no good for the law to show it’s hand in a way that ultimately brings it into disrepute.
There is an assertion that this is a male only crime, which again lays down the current dictates and PC rules for others to follow. Therefore it would do our ‘malvolio’ no end of good with an education to boot to actually RSS the AP news feed to see how many perps are actually female, yet for some reason those stories end up in the editors waste basket.!
These types of stories require two basic essential qualifiers to be listed on the mainstream media template. Perp must be a male, preferably a catholic or moslem. Then it will be allowed passage onto the mainstream media distribution network.
As for the teacher and ‘her’ extra curricular biology lessons. If her was a ‘him’ there is an unlimited public berating then incarceration as is required to keep those numbers up. I believe our taxpayers support more than a million of them most gratis of perjured or avered evidence. Howsoever it is derived.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:20 pmShelbyC says:
“Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy” is the name of the episode, you can see it at South Park studios, the comedy central website. Can’t go there to get the link cuz I’m at work. Brilliant satire on the topic.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:22 pmNowMDJD says:
I don’t know the relationship between the teacher and the student in the school context. If she was his teacher, there was probably a fiduciary relationship. A judge might be inclined t give a harsh sentence for breach of fiduciary trust. If he were subject to compulsory school laws, that would be an aggravating factor; the student was in school under compulsion of the state, and the state has at least a moral responsibility to protect someone whom it has made a ward of the state during school hours.
If the teacher were his supervisor in his aide capacity, the same principle might apply for a different reason. There was a power imbalance.
If she picked him up in a bar with is illegal ID, the circumstances would call for more leniency.
Here is the most interesting question of fact that Prof. Volokh doesn’t state: how did the teacher get ratted out? If the kid was happy about the relationship he likely would have kept mum, or refused to testify, or whatever. The circumstances of how this ever made it into court may have something to do with the aggravating factors leading to a harsh sentence.
The moral: don’t shtup kids over whom you have power, even if they seem to want it.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:22 pmBC says:
I’m not equating manliness with never turning down sex. I’m pointing out that the average 17-year-old male would probably be delighted, not mortified, by the prospect of sex with his reasonably-attractive high school teacher; and that he and his peers would probably look upon it as a conquest, not abuse.
Your anecdote appears to bear this out. The boy thought the relationship was awesome until the woman started making unreasonable emotional demands on him. That was when he spoke up.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:26 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Yes, exactly. And even if he were not subject to compulsory school laws — parents do not send their minor children to school to have sex with the staff.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:27 pmAllan Walstad says:
It is. But 12 years in the slammer’s worth? Fire her. Give her some community service and probation. Get tougher next time. Seriously, what do people get for violent assaults? A revolving door? What fraction of 17-year-olds are having sex anyway? Where’s the proportionality?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 10:13 pmGuy says:
(emphasis mine)
So a harsher punishment would be called for if she were ugly? Or if she were a man?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 10:19 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
He spoke up after it had gotten bad enough that he had to put aside the machismo teen culture crap and admit to his dad that he wasn’t manly.
Seriously, you are looking at this from the point of view of the teenage boy with his nose pressed to the candy store window. From the point of view of the woman — why would she risk prison if it’s only sex she’s after? Answer: She wouldn’t, she’s not after only sex. The candy is poisonous and the kid doesn’t realize it. That’s why parents get so angry at the thought of their boys being on the receiving end of this.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 10:30 pmBC says:
No. Just that said 17-year-old male probably would have been mortified had the woman resembled Helen Thomas.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 11:29 pmBC says:
I’m pretty sure that was abundantly clear from my first post, when I marvelled that a 17-year-old boy would confess to the affair in the first place.
Yup, and it’s completely inconceivable that she’s just an idiot, or crazy, or that her lust temporarily overrode her brain. After all, human behavior is perfectly susceptible to rational explanation when love and sex are concerned.
As for parents getting worked up: my day job involves a steady diet of work with the parents of teenagers. It is their nature to give birth to multiple bovines whenever they intuit that their precious little angels are in any way endangered, warranted or not, and irrespective of the teen’s own culpability in the situation. The parental freak-out is indicative of nothing other than that the freakers-outers are, in fact, parents.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:00 amJack says:
FWIW A woman in Illinois named Laurie Augustine, a library assistant at a HS, picked up 9 years, 4 months on a guilty plea for sex with three boys. She was easy on the eyes too.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:08 amCornellian says:
That sentence is completely insane. Note this quote from the story:
The judge said it didn’t matter if the children involved were 7 or 17, they were entitled to protection at school.
Is that judge really so dense that he cannot see any difference between sex with a 17 year old and sex with a 7 year old? How many guys here when they were 17 would have turned down the opportunity for sex with a not bad-looking teacher in her mid-30s? Anyone? anyone? Didn’t think so.
I wish they had interviewed the 17 year old for that story, and not in the presence of his parents. I’d bet serious money there’s no way he wants to see her in prison at all, let alone for 12 years.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:09 amCornellian says:
The one thing that I think really hurts the teacher’s case is that, according to the story, she originally claimed she was raped, presumably in order to save herself. If there’s anything that could justify that insane sentence, this is it.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:14 amGuy says:
Does this surprise you? Do you expect a teacher who sleeps with an underaged student to be morally upright, as opposed to a filthy sleazeball?
Quote
November 17, 2009, 1:20 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Then why did he tell his parents about it in the first place?
I see some serious denial here.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 8:14 amSteve2 says:
I agree that the false claims of rape would justify harsher punishment, but that’s because I regard them as the only things that would justify any punishment absent a clear “quid pro quo” threat to an underling (which there may have been, he being her teacher’s aide).
And that legal stance is utterly ridiculous. A 17-year-old isn’t a child, and the law shouldn’t be treating it as a child, whether for sex law, labor law, contract law, or anything else.
I remember full well what it was like to be a teenager, since it wasn’t that long ago and it left a very strong impression. I was unfortunate enough to not be able to get rid of my virginity until I was 22 and had already graduated college. If I’d had my way it would have been gone almost a decade earlier. Along the way I had several teachers who while I might have hesitated because of the whole teacher/student thing (I took pride in my A’s, wouldn’t want anyone to think I’d got them unfairly), I’d have happily and voluntarily been their “statutory rape victim” if they’d wanted.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 9:12 amNRWO says:
Strange discussion: I’m a father of a son and daughter, both under 10 years. If, when my daughter was a teenager (13–17), I learned that a male teacher (18+) and my daughter had consensual sex, my inclination would be to punch the teacher in the face – regardless of context. Sure, my inclination would be irrational and, sure, mitigating events might reduce the punch in the face to a punch in the gut, but so be it.
On the other hand, if, when my son was a teenager, I learned that a female teacher and my son had sex, my inclination would be to … do nothing at first, but investigate the context. I might ask if my son could be moved to a different classroom, or to a different school, but I wouldn’t be inclined – as an initial reaction – to want the teacher to face 14+ years of jailtime. Conversely, the man who had sex with my daughter can go to jail – and then to hell – no matter what the circumstances.
I’d bet that most fathers – certainly most in my orbit – would have the same initial reaction after hearing about their daughters having sex, yet have a much more context-dependent response after hearing about their sons have sex.
I guess I’m living in an alternative universe, filled with dads with weird views about the way things are. I’d probably justify my views by stating that sons can’t get pregnant but daughters can, and noting that the consequences of the latter are more severe than the former. But, alas, my justification would be a post-hoc rationalization, having no bearing on my reaction to the events.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 11:49 ammischief says:
Rational connection to a legitimate government interest.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:01 pmmischief says:
You’re equating manliness with never turning down sex. You not only point that out, you argue that the law ought to presume that.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:03 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Maybe he’s equating manliness with turning down sex with unattractive women. Because real men only look at a woman’s appearance; her personality and character are unimportant to them. Also, even if a real man is seventeen and the object of his desire is in her thirties, sex with her represents a “conquest” and not a mutually agreed-upon, mutually pleasurable experience.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:40 pmSgtDad says:
I am the father of both a boy & a girl & I remain angry at those who defend & enable Roman Polanski. That said, I stand with Prof. Volokh on this issue. But why all the comments on this?
To me, the legal question is whether Blakely applies.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:42 pmShelbyC says:
Men don’t turn down sex with unattractive women. We just act as if we would.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:47 pmBC says:
Or maybe, like Cornellian, I’m pointing out the perfectly obvious and uncontroversial fact that the libido of the average 17-year-old male is such that he’s unlikely to turn down the sexual advances of a reasonably-attractive female of the species, even if she happens to be twice his age.
Good grief, Laura: if there’s some sort of Internet prize for obtuseness you’ve certainly won it running away (as opposed to mischief, who’s just plain lying about what I’ve said in this thread). This isn’t hard stuff: it’s not academic navel-gazing about gender constructs. I do not equate sexual libertinism with masculinity, and if pressed would actually argue that real manliness is exhibited through chastity, commitment, and monogamy. I’m simply observing that out here in the real world, young men tend not to turn down sex, and so I’m always surprised when one fesses up to a “hot for teacher” scenario.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 3:11 pmmarkm says:
No, he’s pointing out that 17 year old boys rarely want to turn down sex.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:09 pmBaseballhead says:
Yet they seem to fess up to them all the time, which seems to indicate that their their libido isn’t very good at decision-making beyond their immediate rooting interests (so to speak), that other factors — adult factors — come into play that they aren’t ready to deal with yet. That’s why it’s important that the adults in their lives must be trustworthy enough not be looking to take advantage of their penis-guided brains.
I’m surprised by the length of the sentence, but not disappointed. If this had happened to my son, I’d push for the maximum legal sentence as well.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 5:36 pmLee says:
I am the father of three sons, aged 16, 11 and 10. And I’m not sure how I feel about the sentence.
I think 12 years for having sex with a 17 y/o boy is excessive. But accusing him of rape is a SERIOUS aggravating circumstance.
When I was 17 I would have jumped at having sex with someone like her. But her rape charges could have ended in the boy being labeled a sex offender. That ain’t right!
Lee
(Conflicted)
Quote
November 17, 2009, 6:08 pmBTP says:
As the cops said in “Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy”,
Nice...
Quote
November 17, 2009, 6:46 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
BC, you have repeatedly said that you were surprised that the minor boys reported the illicit sex. Yet you can’t seem to comprehend that that obviously means that there is a factor you aren’t considering; for instance, what I and others keep telling you, that it isn’t a 100% benign experience for them. You keep saying that it must be, and then that you are surprised that the boys are reporting to their parents. Talk about obtuse.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 7:14 pmShelbyC says:
I still can’t get over the image of Kyle poping up out of the tub with his snorkel gear.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 7:29 pmmethodact says:
“Can you say pogrom, class?”
Quote
November 17, 2009, 7:55 pmSgtDad says:
I think Laura(southernxyl)is projecting her own thoughts on to things. The boys likely reported the encounter because their parents insisted. It does not follow that it wasn’t “a 100% benign experience for them.” At least, as they perceived it. Laura just assumes the boys perceive the encounter — and the world more generally — as she does. I did not sleep with my teachers when I was 17, though I did find one very attractive. Had I done so, it would have been wrong, but I do not think I would have suffered emotional harm as a consequence.
Had this happened to one of my sisters, or my daughter, that would have been altogether a different thing. I know them well enough to conclude they would have been harmed.
The fact is, boys & girls are put together differently.
And I still think Blakely is the interesting issue. From what I can tell, none of the factors listed in the comments were found by the jury to be facts. If that is so, the judge has no business using those factors when considering sentence.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 8:32 pmShelbyC says:
Oh, I’m sure many “fess up” to anybody who will listen...
Quote
November 17, 2009, 8:39 pmBC says:
SgtDad’s response to Laura is as good as any I would’ve written — that the boys ultimately fessed up doesn’t in and of itself imply that they didn’t consider it a benign experience — and so I’ll leave it at that.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 9:06 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
What sense does that make? Why would the parents insist on the boys reporting the encounter before the parents even knew about it? Do you insist on your kids reporting things that you don’t know happened? “Tell me that you had sex with your teacher!” “But I haven’t, Dad!”
But you still don’t know why they reported it, right? Still inexplicable to you?
Quote
November 17, 2009, 9:15 pmSgtDad says:
Sigh, ... None of us really know why they reported it. Either their parents found out (e.g., they were ratted out by a sibling) or they boasted to their friends & their friends told someone, etc. Whatever the reason, it is a complete non sequitur to conclude the boys were emotionally harmed. Laura appears to assume the boys would react to the situation as she would if she were in their shoes.
Thinking with one’s feelings is a sure route to error.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 10:00 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Teacher Charged With Statutory Rape
Quote
November 17, 2009, 10:13 pmJoeInLA says:
I know someone who had a sexual relationship with a female teacher while he was in high school. When he broke off the relationship, she retaliated against him by making snide remarks to him in front of other students and generally doing her best to make his life at school miserable. When he finally told his mother what was going on, she sued the school district and of course the teacher flatly denied that anything had happened between them. The whole thing caused him some pretty serious emotional trauma which he was still dealing with three or four years after it happened. After hearing about (and seeing first-hand) the pain this caused him, I no longer view this sort of thing as harmless fun, even if a boy is 17.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 10:34 pmsup says:
Blakely doesn’t apply because the judge sentenced within the statutory range.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 10:52 pmSgtDad says:
The teenager told his parents. OK. If I was Dad, I would have reported it, too. It does not follow, however, that the boy was harmed in any significant way.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 10:55 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
SgtDad, it also doesn’t follow that he wasn’t.
My point was that BC kept asserting (a) that no harm could possibly have been done, (even though he knew neither the teacher nor the kid,) and (b) that he didn’t understand why the boy told. Do you not see a disconnect there?
...Going to bed now.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 11:06 pmTraci Hillman says:
I have a 17 yr old son and I could not get mad at a older woman, teacher or not for having sex with him at this age. I know my sons friends whom all are about the same age and I can tell you, I would rather they had sex with older woman then all these teen girls that are getting pregnant. With guys reaching thier sexual peek in thier late teens and 20’s and woman in thier late 30’s and early 40’s, I would guess this sort of thing happens alot. It just seems natural that it would work that way.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 3:49 am