should sex between consenting adults ever be illegal?

[cali]

And I don't mean sex that results in bodily harm.

I ask because of this story. Certainly she should be fired and prohibited from teaching again, but the students were all 18 and presumably able to consent. And the charge itself sounds frighteningly vague.

Texas Teacher Convicted After Sex With 5 Students


FORT WORTH, Texas August 17, 2012 (AP)

A former Texas high school teacher has been convicted after having sex with five 18-year-old students at her home.

A jury took less than an hour Friday to find Brittni Nicole Colleps guilty. She was charged with five counts of having an inappropriate relationship between a student and teacher. The second-degree felony is punishable by between two and 20 years in prison per count.

Authorities say the 28-year-old former Kennedale High School English teacher had sex with the students at her Arlington home over two months. Jurors heard graphic testimony from the involved students during the trial and were shown cellphone video of one encounter involving multiple students.

Prosecutors rested their case Thursday; the defense didn't call any witnesses.

<snip>

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/texas-teacher-convicted-sex-students-17029825#.UC6drKDIB2E

[Curtland1015]

1. Are they both republicans?

Joking aside. No.

The whole situation seems creepy to me. But not illegal.

[LeftofObama]

3. Agree!

Creepy, Yes!

Illegal, No!

[LadyHawkAZ]

2. Over 18 doesn't necessarily mean consenting

and the article itself is vague as well. If there were no threats to their grades or schooling and they went into it voluntarily, I don't see why it should be criminal. But there's not enough info.

[cali]

6. If there were threats there would have been charges reflecting that

and unless they were legally incompetent than they were consenting. I don't think there's any vagueness. Texas law allows for a charge of inappropriate behavior with a student- the charge is what I find vague.

[LadyHawkAZ]

15. If that's all it was, then no, there should have been no charges

Consenting adults are consenting adults.

[gollygee]

4. She was in a position of authority over them.

I don't know about legal vs. illegal, but definitely unethical and she should at least be fired. She could have coerced them into it by threatening them with bad grades or something and then that should be illegal. If they were coerced in any way, it wasn't consensual. Just because she was a woman and they are male doesn't make it better than if she were a man and they were female. It's equally wrong in either case. I guess it depends on the specifics here whether it should be illegal or just grounds for firing.

[AngryAmish]

7. It sounds like she was in several positions with them.

[tblue]

127. BWAAAAHAHA!!! DAMMIT!

Dang you for making me laugh at a serious subject! Lol!!!!

I have an 18 yo college-bound kid and I would be extremely upset if a teacher made a pass at him. Not sure if she should do jail time though. What exactly is the charge?

[cali]

8. If they were coerced that would be reflected in the charges.

[gollygee]

11. Hmm one would hope

If it was truly consensual then I would think she should be fired for misusing her position as teacher, but she should not be charged with a crime.

[LWolf]

147. Yes.

Terminated? Absolutely.

Is she charged with coercion?

I'll stick with "just grounds for firing," until there is a law that holds ALL people in authority equally accountable.

How many bosses would be charged then?

[hlthe2b]

5. Coercion could factor in as well--when there are power inequities

as in teacher-student or employer-employee. I'm talking about the extreme of instances where coercion approached the most extreme level and the power allowed for a "blackmail-like" impact on their ability to register consent.

[Cleita]

9. There is a caveat about a person of higher power, like a teacher, having sex

with a person of lower power, like a student even if it's consensual. It is considered as not being ethical, however, I'm surprised Texas has a law against it. I worked at a university and the profs were pretty clear about the unacceptability of dating or having sex with a student until after graduation day and when they were no longer attending the institution of higher learning that they teach at.

I think this could also be extended to a boss dating or having sex with an under-employee. As a matter-of-fact some companies have rules against it and if two people want to be with each other that work at that same company in a supervisor/subordinate capacity, one is expected to quit the job.

Whether it should be considered a crime, is open to question. The fact that this particular incident was extra sleazy is no doubt to me, IMHO.

[HockeyMom]

35. There are still business

that will not hire MARRIED employees to work with each other, even if there are in equal positions.

[Avalux]

10. If she was in a position of authority over them, yes.

Because there's always the possibility she coerced (blackmailed) them in to having sex; even if they were 18 years old. "If you come to my house and have sex with me I'll give you an A". Stuff like that.

[cali]

14. ugh. fire her. but prosecute her for consensual sex. No.

And there is no evidence that she coerced them.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

12. What about sex between two consenting adults in the middle of Times Square?

[Electric Monk]

28. or on my lawn

[LadyHawkAZ]

70. In the middle of Times Square

there would be more than one adult present, who would presumably not all consent to being present for the act, not to mention multiple minors.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

74. That's what I'm thinking.

[Veritas Omnia Vincit]

13. Creepy maybe, illegal not sure...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189883/Brittni-Nicole-Colleps-Teacher-guilty-orgy-students.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

This link has a bit more information. It's a creepy situation no matter what, but according to this article none of the students felt they were victimized.

Teachers have a position of authority over their students, and while the students might not compelled the teacher can be taking advantage of their position. Termination is probably more appropriate than incarceration in my opinion.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Fired? Yes. Prison. No.

In general, consensual sex between adults is their business and nobody else.

However, here's a conundrum. What if the guys had been students at another school? I can see firing her if there was a possibility of coercion or reward with her own students but as to the age differences and the sex itself that should remain their business.

[haele]

17. If they were still going to school, she was in a position of authority over them.

That in itself is a big no-no when one is employed in the public sector, even if it is between older consenting adults of the same age. In this case, she is showing that she does not understand that so long as these young people are students that she is potentially supposed to be teaching, even if they are not in her class, and that she needs to keep a professional demeanor when dealing with them. Instead, she is showing all the signs of being a sexual predator, more interested in "taking advantage" of her position with these youths who are supposed to be under her tutelage than earning their respect as an English Teacher.

If it was a Social Services caseworker and her clients, would it be any different? Or, since some of these young people may not have been her students, a therapist at a group practice and a small number of single client customers at that practice, who may have been going to different doctors or therapists?

That woman shows no indication of common sense, especially since to be employed by her district, she probably needs to sign that she has read and understands the district's code of conduct agreement and knows this is a felony that she has been engaging in.

No 18-year old high-school student is worth losing your job over, no matter his or her cute the butt is.

Haele

[cali]

18. Of course she should be fired. That's a no brainer

but prosecuted under a law that criminalizes "inappropriate behavior between teacher and student"? NO.

[haele]

51. Same age range; Male teacher, female students. All of "age of consent"

A Male teacher will most likely be charged with rape - even with the girls at the age of consent, because he's a teacher and it is viewed to be more coercive in this situation than it is if it's a female teacher and male students. Is that fair? No. But there is the element of a authority over the student, especially students of the age where their hormones, cognition and maturity are still developing.
Same as it would be if it were a therapist and a client.

The other issue at the heart of this is how much emotional damage had she done to their future, or do we just consider those young men as immature horn-dogs that a little extra-curricular sex-ed won't hurt a bit - especially when later as adults they are out in public and think that the authoritative boundaries between teacher/student or adviser/client don't mean a damn thing because they feel like having sex? Isn't this why we have laws against predatory sexual behavior with the young or the potentially developmentally challenged?

It's a fine line, and yes, it might be that she's going to jail because the state wants to make sure that at least through High School, they aren't liable to the parents for teachers who can't control their own libido, no matter what age the student is. But if they didn't charge her, the firestorm would be worse. No matter what she or the boys may claim, there can always be made a case that she influenced their participation because of the power she held over them or because of the potential for affecting their future that she could provide. That's what she's being charged with, and that's why the state feels that what she has been involved with is rape.

Personally, I can't say if it is or it isn't; or if the coercion could have made this rape be proven to be involved with only one, all, or none of the students.
But it can be proved that she was a predator who abused her position of authority in a mutual organization to have sex with these High School students. If she had been a manager at the Taco Bell these kids hung out at, no one would have done more than t'ched at the situation and called her a slut. Whether or not real justice is involved in the court's decision, that is why she is going to jail instead of just losing her job as she would have had she done this while teaching at the local Community College.

Haele

[jberryhill]

19. Prison inmates and guards?

Doctors and patients?

Divorce lawyers and clients?

Teachers and students?

There is a whole range of strucutured relationships among people in various professional or employment capacities in which sexual relations muddies the waters and gives rise to undue influence.

[cali]

20. OK, good point. Prison inmates and guards IS one category that I

think calls for criminalization. The rest? NO.

[jberryhill]

22. But why?

If the prison inmate and the guard are both okay with it, why is it anyone's business?

The thing is, what we do NOT want to do is to get into adjudicating those types of questions. It's easier to rule them out. So, in some states, if a lawyer and a client want to have sex, then the client is going to simply have to get a different lawyer.

[cali]

25. easy peasy. because the prisoner inherently can't consent

to sex with his jailer.

And criminalizing sex between consenting adults is sick.

[jberryhill]

32. Why can't the inmate consent?

You are telling me that an adult cannot make up their own mind to have sex with someone? That's nonsense.

What you are really saying is that the prisoner is required to be there.

That is the same for any student who wants a high school diploma too.

[cali]

34. required to be there? how quaint.

prisoners have had a wholesale revocation of their rights. And the comparison to a student is just silly.

[jberryhill]

100. Tell me how to get a high school diploma...

...without having to deal with a state-certified teacher who has the authority to pass or fail me.

Before it was banned in most places, do you have ANY notion about the history of divorce lawyers becoming involved with certain wealthy clients and, consequently, developing a personal interest in the subject of their clients' legal matters?

[Logical]

112. Lol, your whole argument is silly! You know students HAVE to be in school???

[cali]

129. nope. most states allow those who reach 16 to drop out.

[Logical]

140. Lol, so your argument it you have to have sex with your teacher...

Or drop out of school? Wow.

[cthulu2016]

55. I disagree. An inmate can consent to sex with a jailer.

A juror would be correct to give some weight to the intrinsic nature of the relationship in assessing a he-said she-said case but an adult inmate is not legally incapable of consent.

Can an inmate be held accountable for a murder committed in prison?

Inmates are not incompetent.

Minors are presumed in law to be incompetent to consent.

(And yes, charging someone as an adult who cannot sign a contract is a striking inconsistancy in law, but we do not bootstrap new standards from the most problematic deviations in law unless we have an agenda and are striving for a certain desired result.)

[jberryhill]

105. Why do you say a minor cannot sign a contract?

A minor can most certainly sign a contract, and can sue for performance of that contract by the other party.

A 12 year old can buy anything at an electronics store, and can certainly get warranty service.

I am also certain that the names Shirley Temple, Mcauley Caulkin or Britney Spears, to name a few, might ring a bell.

The problem with contracting with minors is NOT that minors are unable to contract. They are, and they do.

The problem is that many contracts are voidable BY the minor. If I enter into a contract with a ten year old, I am legally obligated to perform. However, if the minor breaches the contract, I am limited in my ability to enforce the contract against the minor. The MINOR can void the contract at their discretion, in many instances. I cannot raise minority as a defense to my own breach.

There are, of course, a variety of exceptions and statutory modifications, but this notion that "minors can't contract" is a popular piece of folklore with no relation to the actual law on the subject.

Of course, for this reason, many businesses do not contract with minors, but it is not because minors are somehow unable to contract.

[MattBaggins]

78. Sure a prisoner could consent

[LanternWaste]

26. I imagine we all have an arbitrary line somewhere...

I imagine we all have an arbitrary line somewhere...

[loli phabay]

83. yup its all down to our own interpretation

the op says as long as there is no physical harm, why should that matter if its consensual, if i want my partner to hurt me in some way and i give consent then whos business is it. I think everyones opinion on this is marred by their own interpretation of what is sex.

[jberryhill]

108. However

Once in a while, through our elected representatives, we enact laws on the subject.

Teachers, in particular, are aware of these laws and are presumably in control of their ability to act accordingly.

[loli phabay]

119. yup i get it, i was more picking on the point the op made about as long as there is no physical harm

if you give someone consent to tattoo you during sex or inflict pain then i got no problem with it, its all down to consent being able to be given. Now in this case and others such as correctional officers and inmates consent cant be given by law.

[Blue_In_AK]

114. I was a correctional officer

Fell in love with an inmate, quit my job, married him when he was released, and was married for 17 years. He's the dad of my youngest daughter. I think I did it right by resigning. Would you criminalize me?

Ed. Should add that we never had sex while I was still working there, although the rumor mill was quite busy.

[jberryhill]

120. No, that is the proper course of action

Why would there be anything criminal about that.

It is the same rule for lawyers and other professionals - the professional relationship must terminate in order to pursue the personal one.

[joshcryer]

97. Excellent. Logical and concice.

I like you.

[Ter]

98. What's wrong with a doctor and a patient?

A divorce lawyer boinging his client is perfectly fine. Now, if he boings the oppostion then there's a problem.

[jberryhill]

106. A psychiatrist?

If you do not see the problem with a mental health professional developing a relationship with his/her patient, I do not have the time to explain it.

The divorce lawyer problem is the reason WHY many states have made it a violation for lawyers to commence a sexual relationship with a client which did not exist at the time of the engagement as counsel.

First off, lawyers are to provide clients with objective professional services absent personal interest in the outcome. For a lawyer to take a personal interest in an estate or alimony arrangement gives rise to a conflict of interest. Viz. Anna Nicole Smith and the doings of her estate lawyer cum spouse.

What transpires is that lawyers would take up with wealthy divorcees and widows, be their hero in their time of need, seduce them, marry them, and then divorce them. The entire relationship was premised on personal interest in their what they were supposed to be objectively seeking for their clients, not themselves.

[Hippo_Tron]

102. Prison inmates lose many of their legal rights by virtue of the fact that they're in prison

The other situations you describe are may be cause for somebody to be fired as a teacher or lose their medical or legal license, but not for criminal punishment.

[jberryhill]

117. Do the guards lose theirs?

[Swagman]

135. they certainly lose their freedoms but prisoner's rights should be established and written down.

[Nevernose]

21. In Nevada, that's rape

Say a nineteen year old senior sleeps with an eighteen year old custodian: the custodian has committed felony sexual assault. The age of consent in this state is 16 with no upper age limit for the other partner (unless it's gay sex, then one must be 18). There was a rash of teachers having sex with consenting students, and people were outraged that they could be fired but not sent to prison, so the 2005 legislature criminalizes all sex between students and staff.

[cali]

23. holy shit. that's awful

[jberryhill]

24. It is 16 in Pennsylvania too

Is that a can of worms you really want to open up?

[cali]

33. huh? The age of consent is 16 in Vermont too

My son had an thing with a 22 year old when he was 16 and no, it didn't bother me at all. I had my first sexual experience when I was around his age with my boyfriend who was 4 years older than I am. Of all the things that scarred me in life, that isn't one of them. I'm pretty much on the same page as Judith Levine. I don't agree with her about everything, but teenagers having sex just doesn't bother me much. I think it's natural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmful_to_Minors

[MattBaggins]

80. Your parenting choices may be different

but if a teacher in my area was having sex with any student they would face criminal charges.... as they should.

[blueamy66]

115. I'm with ya

I had a huge crush on a teacher when I was 17. No way in hell would he have been to blame if my dreams came true.

The US is backasswards.

[jberryhill]

121. It's called "transference"

...and it is common for students to have crushes on teachers.

I was a substitute teacher in my 20's and, absolutely, if you want to see dewy-eyed 17 year old girls every day, that's the place to be. I found it to be something of a nuisance, but could readily understand how an ill motivated person could exploit the situation.

How many girls in your own class, let alone each class he had every year, had the same crush you did? Now, put yourself in his place.

[blueamy66]

128. Um, I'm pretty sure that my best friend had a crush on him as well.

And I'm pretty sure that she would have done the same that I would have done and kept her mouth shut.

Exploit the situation? I fell asleep every night thinking about him.

I knew wha was up at 17. If my SIL can give birth at 16, raise her child to be a productive member of society and not look back, why can't I have sex at the same age?

Our laws are archaic.

[Posteritatis]

45. Wait, wait - they have a separate age of consent for gay sex? (nt)

[LadyHawkAZ]

75. Yep. n/t

[Posteritatis]

76. How is that even the slightest bit constitutional? (nt)

[LadyHawkAZ]

91. Same reason they can't marry in the wedding chapels

that gave us such unions as Britney Spears. In the minds of some folks being gay means they're not entitled to rights like "real people".

[Nevernose]

109. Yep

Apparently sticking one's schlong into one hole takes more maturity than another hole.

[Ter]

99. Suppose the student is 30?

And the teacher is 32? Still rape?

[Nevernose]

110. The law is applicable to high school age

Although in the 21st century a college professor having consensual sex with a student is a firing offense (and frequently is). In full disclosure, my stepmother was one if my dad's college students.

[jberryhill]

122. None of the laws are drafted that way

Did you ever attend a college?

[robinlynne]

27. i thought this thread was going to be about julian Assange....

[Alduin]

29. No. But...

sex between a person of power and a person below that person (ie supervisor and an employee, teacher and student) isn't right.

[Peepsite]

30. Current or former teacher?

Article says former,I don't see a problem with that.

[jberryhill]

116. Duh - she's a "former teacher" because they FIRED her for it

You think she kept her job until the trial was over?

[still_one]

31. It should be illegal to have sex with a republican. /nt

[meow2u3]

58. It should be illegal for a Republican to have sex

You worded it wrong.

[still_one]

68. You are right

[Horse with no Name]

36. It's illegal in Texas for teachers and students

however, I know of a very similar local case (I actually at first thought it was this one) where the teacher was sentenced to 16 months in prison (served 3 or 4) and then when she was released she was not allowed to work around children, but did NOT have to register as a sex offender and was going to get some type of modified joint custody of her own child.

The difference in the two was that her students were over 16.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. 1 student? Maybe; but 5 sounds a bit -- predatory

It seems like she was deliberately selecting students.

[cali]

44. So what? Yes, it's sleazy but why does the number matter?

If it was one, she presumably deliberately selected him. What does deliberately selecting any of them have to do with whether or not sex between consenting adults should be criminalized? It seems to me she selected those 18 or over.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. She apparently sees students as targets.

I don't know if it's a sex thing or a power trip or what but the deliberately exploitative nature of she treats the teacher-student relationship seems fairly obvious.

Should they just fire her? Ban her from teaching? Can she be around children/teens at all? What if she refuses to comply? Those are serious questions. It seems the law has expedited the debate and made it a felony. Now she will do time and no felon can become a teacher or child care provider.

Perhaps the better question is -- why didn't she decide to refrain from sleeping with students? She made repeated, conscious efforts to break the law.

[MattBaggins]

81. It is not sleazy... It is predatory

[unblock]

38. "consent" is a bit murky when there's a power relationship.

what about a boss having "consenting" sex with a subordinate?
what about a therapist having "consenting" sex with a patient?
what about a guard having "consenting" sex with a prisoner?
what about a parent having "consenting" sex with an adult child?

in the cited case, how "consenting" was the sex?
was there ANY concern at all that they might get worse grades had they refused?
was there ANY concern by any other students that their grades might suffer by their non-participation?

[cali]

41. I don't find this case murky at all

what's murky and chilling is the phrasing of the law.n and no, there was no coercion according to the students.

[unblock]

48. you simply cannot go on that alone because the denial could be effectively coerced as well.

many spouses, subordinates, and other would readily deny any coersion out of fear of further problems.

the denial of coersion is certainly relevant evidence in establishing consent, but it's not by any stretch conclusive.



once upon a time a professor assaulted me (mild violence, not sexual). the situation was very problematic for me as i needed a reference from him, no other professor knew my work and performance anywhere near as well. i took steps to protect myself, but i also took steps to ensure that he would be willing to give me a good reference. had anyone publicly asked me about it, i would have denied it. being in a subordinate position forces people to make very difficult choices in such situations.

[cthulu2016]

61. Consent is what an adult says it is. Period.

There are things that make consent impossible (being super drunk, being profoundly developmentally disabled) but being 18 is legally the same as being 55.

And to say that someone's consent is "murky" when they say it is not is to infantalize that person. To set yourself above their autonomy.

Human life is full of complexity. That is why we don't have a circle of hand-wringing busy-bodies decide everything on a case-by-case basis and instead have bright line standards like "adult" when a person turns 18.

[cali]

62. the age of consent to sex varies from state to state

In my state, it's 16. In CT it's 15.

http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html

[cthulu2016]

64. Out of necessity, adulthood and consent must be a legal bright line

In practice there are 16 year olds able to make much better life decisions than some 20 year-olds, but the law cannot function without objective standards.

We say that an 18 year old can vote. A dumb 20 year old can vote. A clever 16 year-old cannot. And we all get that. The point is that there is a line where the average person can sign a contract, join the army, vote, drop out of school. That line must be applied to everyone.

But there is nothing magic about 18. 17 or 19 would function roughly as well.

And with differing ages of consent, a state draws a bright-line somewhere, the same way we draw a bright line for voting nationally.

And that bright-line age of consent means that legally a person that age has consent. They might be immature as hell, but there has to be a line.

If the age of consent in ancient Mesopotamia was 10 then I would say the same thing relative to that legal system.

The age of consent is that legal age at which your personal assertion of consent becomes the legal definition of consent.

[unblock]

65. but adults change what they're willing to say all the time.

prosecutors trying to build a case encounter this all the time.
as long as the victims feel in a power-under situation, they may deny any coersion.

but if the prosecutor can convince them that others have come forward, there's evidence, whatever, we're winning this case, then quite often others who previously denied coersion change their story and admit there was no consent, or at least that their arm was twisted.

and like i said, what an adult says is consent is merely one component (albeit a significant one) of determining consent. if a jury hears someone claim they consented, but then is shown multiple clear videos of incidents with obvious coersion, then the jury is highly likely to find that coersion existed.


and yes, we do have "hand-wringing busy-bodies" deciding things on a case-by-case basis. police, prosecutors, judges, and juries do it all the time. there are of course specific laws to follow, but deciding what the facts are and whether they fit the criteria of the law is certainly a case-by-case matter.

and just to be clear, the law does NOT provide that consent and an adults momentary assertion of consent are exactly the same thing. ESPECIALLY where coersion exists. obviously, if i have a gun to my head, my "consent" and my signature and my agreement are meaningless. less obvious forms of coersion exist, though, and it's up to a jury or judge to determine if consent was and is actually freely given.

[MattBaggins]

82. Is 18 AND finished with school

not that difficult at all for a teacher to grasp the concept that it is illegal for her to ride a train with her students.

[Politicalboi]

39. Who does she think she is

A priest? Unless they were threatened I find this harmless. It wasn't at the school, they walked or drove over there willingly.

[Egalitarian Thug]

40. No. n/t

[hifiguy]

42. No.

Kinda skeevy but if you're an adult and freely consent, no.

[cthulu2016]

43. That law is unconstitutional

It can be grounds for firing, but obviously cannot be a crime.

[cali]

47. Can you explain why it's unconstitutional?

I'm feeling rather dim here, but I don't understand. Why is it obviously not a crime? I think it shouldn't be a crime, but it looks as if is. Has it been challenged?

[cthulu2016]

53. The whole nexus of decisions

from Griswold to Lawrence making sexual association among adults within a constitutional sphere of privacy and free association that government cannot criminalize.

This law is no more or less valid than the Texas sodomy law that was struck down in Lawrence. That law held that the state had a legitimate interest is restricting consensual sexual behavior between adults that a majority of the Texas legislature thought to be somehow bad.

The idea of privacy in Lawrence is not that gay sex is good. It is that gay sex is, like any other kind of consensual activity between adults, is outside the state's authority to regulate.

One could write a book about how unwholesome teacher/adult-student sex is. But people have written many books about how unwholesome sodomy is. Griswold wasn't about whether birth control is good. Lawrence wasn't about whether sodomy is good.

The thing does not hinge on whether something is considered unwholesome. It is beyond the state's power to criminalize "unwholesome" sex between consenting adults.

Even if we took it as a given that sodomy is evil it would still be outside the scope of legitimate interest.

As grounds for firing a teacher? Sure. No problem. But if this can properly be a crime then any sex act or any "inappropriate" partnering can be criminalize. Which we know it cannot.

[cali]

57. Thanks for the explanation.

I wonder if this law has been challenged?

[lumberjack_jeff]

67. This is the law in many if not most states.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/school_law/2010/11/washington_states_highest_cour.html

[cthulu2016]

69. And thankfully I can maintain it is unconstitutional

Th alternative is to say that all courts decisions are correct.

I support Marbury v. Madison in terms of the balance of powers in the government, but I am not required to think that the Constitution actually says whatever the Supreme Court says, except in terms of practical effect.

Doing so would be to make the Supreme Court a sort of religious body akin to the Pope.

The have the authority (because somebody must), but we citizens are not required to presume them to be infallible.

Thanks for the link.

In that law it specifies that the law covers up to 21. Since we have drinking ages of 21 (which is nuts, legally, whatever its practical benefits) I could argue their side... but not with conviction.

If a person can consent to sex they can consent to sex. Otherwise the state is maintaining a list of which adults you may or may not sleep with.

And that is nuts on its face.

[MattBaggins]

85. This would never get to the Supreme Court and if it did

they would spend all of five minutes upholding it.

Age of consent varies from state to state and there is more than enough examples of people in power being prevented from such activities as evidenced by the military.

There is nothing wrong with telling teachers they have to leave their students alone until they finish school.

[cthulu2016]

93. That's gibberish

"Age of consent varies from state to state"

Awesome observation. In how many states does it exceed 18?

Duh.

[lumberjack_jeff]

89. You're welcome to think what you want.

But I'd recommend not acting on it.

[Poll_Blind]

125. Absolutely awesome post. +1 nt

PB

[jberryhill]

139. And it would be a substantial one...

...absent a state interest in maintaining a professional atmosphere in schools.

[jberryhill]

138. That is a ridiculous analysis

You are correct that the state had no interest in Lawrence.

The state most certainly DOES have an interest in the conduct of schools, and in avoiding the disruptive effects of sexual relationships between teachers and students in those schools.

[Wednesdays]

107. It's unconstitutional? Then we'd better fucking pack the SCOTUS until it IS constitutional!

Where's Justice Scalia when you need him?

[cthulu2016]

46. Text of the facially unconstituional law

Sec. 21.12. IMPROPER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDUCATOR AND STUDENT. (a) An employee of a public or private primary or secondary school commits an offense if the employee 1) engages in sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse with a person who is enrolled in a public or private primary or secondary school at which the employee works 2) holds a certificate or permit issued as provided by Subchapter B, Chapter 21, Education Code, or is a person who is required to be licensed by a state agency as provided by Section 21.003(b), Education Code, and engages in sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse with a person the employee knows is A) enrolled in a public primary or secondary school in the same school district as the school at which the employee works; or(B) a student participant in an educational activity that is sponsored by a school district or a public or private primary or secondary school, if i) students enrolled in a public or private primary or secondary school are the primary participants in the activity; and(ii) the employee provides education services to those participants; or(3) engages in conduct described by Section 33.021, with a person described by Subdivision (1), or a person the employee knows is a person described by Subdivision (2)(A) or (B), regardless of the age of that person.(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.(b-1) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that 1) the actor was the spouse of the enrolled person at the time of the offense; or(2) the actor was not more than three years older than the enrolled person and, at the time of the offense, the actor and the enrolled person were in a relationship that began before the actor's employment at a public or private primary or secondary school.(c) If conduct constituting an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under another section of this code, the actor may be prosecuted under either section or both sections.(d) The name of a person who is enrolled in a public or private primary or secondary school and involved in an improper relationship with an educator as provided by Subsection (a) may not be released to the public and is not public information under Chapter 552, Government Code.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. What makes it unconstitutional? Honest question. n/t

[appleannie1]

52. Her teaching credentials should be revoked but prison? No.

[quaker bill]

54. Yes, when you ask it that way

I have a sufficiently vivid imagination to come up with scenarios that should reasonably be prohibited. These have more to do with location and context. What consenting adults do in private is their own business, what they do in public should be less protected.

Unless the curriculm and lesson plan included specific instructions in intercourse techniques, the teacher should be fired and lose her certificate. (and perhaps in this case remanded to mental health counseling)

[cthulu2016]

56. Something not many in this thread seem to realize

Adult students have a RIGHT to have sex with willing teachers.

Is this Nancy Gracified nation of ninnies so utterly corrupt that the self-identified interests of adults are to be set aside while we peer into everybody's business and pass judgment on whether WE think that THEY are capable of consent?

Adults of sound mind are the sole arbiters of their own consent.

Unless these students are somehow not legal adults they have a RIGHT to have sex with a willing teacher, vis-a-vis the criminal law. They can perhaps be expelled, but they cannot be charged with a crime. (A student has a First Amenmndment right to scream awful things at everyone. They will be expelled, but not imprisoned.)

And being in high school when you turn 18 does NOT mean you are not an adult.

Adults, even adults someone might prefer to think of as children, have RIGHTS. Remember those?

[MattBaggins]

86. No they do not

If this were a state that allowed consent at 15 the teacher ought to be in jail just as if they were 18. All she had to do was wait till they graduated but as a predator she couldn't do it. She was doing this with full knowledge that it was illegal. The predator in her wanted the thrill from that.

[cthulu2016]

94. WTF?

Word salad. But you are so self-righteous in tossing it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

90. Maybe.

But prosecutors have a responsibility to throw those willing teachers in jail.

[Ilsa]

59. If it was college, I wouldn't sayit was criminal unless there was coercion.

But this is high school. I think criminal charges need to be considered. A high school teacher should not be going after students she has authority over. Even if they've turned 18.

[cali]

60. that's just crazy. Who cares if it was high school?

The age of consent is 18. The students had all reached the age of consent. What if she was a teacher at one school and was fucking an 18 year old student from another school? Should that be a criminal offense. These posts like yours are freaking me out.

[cthulu2016]

63. Hold onto your hat, Cali...

The law applies to students within the same school district

I am also freaked out, but accustomed to it. Though this case involves a female teacher and male students the reactions here are the detritus of second-wave feminism that is so popular on this board, and almost nowhere else.

The council of busy-bodies who will decide whether an adult woman is capable of consent is the infantalization of women who are not strident second-wave feminists and are thus not capable of thinking for themselves. There are people here who believe, literally, that a woman cannot meaningfully consent to sexual intercourse with a man. (Though she can consent to same-sex relations.)

It os grotesque.

We have a question here. What constitutes consent on the part of an adult?

The obvious answer is, "What that adult considers to be consent." If we cannot define our own consent then we might as well be farm animals!

But we get all this stuff about how consent is murky... which is fine for the philosophical pondering of free will but obviously inapplicable to law.

And the punchline is that if some council of busy-bodies can decide whether you gave meaningful consent, a council of busy-bodies can decide whether you did not consent.

"She says she was raped, but she isn't very experienced. We have a better idea of her consent than she possibly could."

The Handmaid's Tale and the Dorkinistas are just two sides to a coin. Which group of smug busybodies gets to tell women who they are?

[MattBaggins]

87. Yes it would still be illegal

If she was having sex with 15 year olds?

[LadyHawkAZ]

73. By that definition no police officer would ever be allowed to date

Nor any member of public office.

The line of consent is drawn at a certain age and, in the absence of provable physical or mental disability than makes consent impossible, that's the way it needs to stay. We have no business telling otherwise recognized adults that they don't know when they can and can't say yes or no.

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. Yes.

This story is exhibit A.

Teachers shouldn't have sex with students.

[Proles]

71. Generally, two consenting adults having sex

shouldn't be illegal, even in the case of prostitution in my opinion.

But with a mentor/student dynamic, I do believe that should be illegal. It's certainly entirely unethical.

As others have pointed out, there's too much room for exploitation, no matter if the teacher is a man or a woman.

Even if it seems consensual, you never know if grades are being influenced.

[SilveryMoon]

72. I think in some cases it should be heavily discouraged

Last edited Fri Aug 17, 2012, 08:08 PM - Edit history (1)

In teacher/student cases, the potential is just too great that a teacher will misuse their power or authority. Same goes for employer/employee situations.

[jody]

77. Not if one is mentally incompetent. nt

[aikoaiko]

79. Its really easy not to screw your students.

I'm ok with criminalizing sexual relationships that involve doctors-patients, nurse-patients, secondary teachers-students, etc.

[cali]

130. ugh. I'm so sick of this puritanical bullshit coming from the left.

do fill me in on who the etc. is. How about boss-subordinate?

[aikoaiko]

137. I am no more puritanical than you are supportive of abusive relationships

Last edited Sat Aug 18, 2012, 09:19 AM - Edit history (2)

I refer you to the law if you need specifics.

As a society we generally consider 18 to be the threshold for adulthood, but sometimes we set specific standards above and below 18.

We charge minors as adults for some crimes and the age of consent forI sex in most cases is 16. On the other hand you can't legally purchase alcohol in most places or purchase a new handgun until 21.

The intent of the law in question is to prevent grooming and abusive sexual relationships.

In the professional side of my academic discipline there is an ethical standard that one does not engage in sexual relationships with clients until the professional relationship is over for 2 years. I wouldn't oppose that rule having legal sanctions.

I really wonder about a teacher who would engage in such behavior knowing that it is a felony and a job ending decision.

[cali]

143. I'm afraid you are. As are all of those who think there's a need to protect 18 year olds

from sex.

interesting that you relate sex with abuse.

[aikoaiko]

145. Are you not concerned about teachers grooming minors while under 18 for sexual relationships

as soon as they turn 18 but are still students?

I really don't think it is a hardship to require teachers to wait up to 10 months for sex for a student to become a former student.

Let me ask why you think this behavior is so wrong that someone should lose their job and career but not be unlawful.

[PD Turk]

84. No

There are a lot of things that might cost your job that shouldn't send you to jail.

Edited to add one possible exception, sex between brothers and sisters, we already have enough republicans

[Butterbean]

88. Honestly I don't know. Too much gray area. Also

I wonder if the reactions to this case would have been so mild if the teacher was male and the students were female and the tryst was taped? I only ask this (as a female), because I notice that when young girls have (seemingly consenting) sex with older men or men in positions of power, people are grabbing their torches and pitchforks before you can say "statutory." However, when the sexes of the parties involved are reversed, some people get upset, but some shrug their shoulders.

There are so many layers to this argument, it could go on for days...I'm so glad I'm not a lawyer or law maker.

[Nye Bevan]

92. I believe incest should be illegal.

There is a very good reason why society should send a message discouraging incest.

[cthulu2016]

95. Could she legally MARRY one of those students?

Yes.

So the issue as absurd. The law is corrupt. It's supporters are disgusting.

[taught_me_patience]

96. Not enough for jail but definitely enough to be fired. n/t

[RKP5637]

101. This would make an interesting poll!

[Swede Atlanta]

103. In a normal situation this would be clear to me...not guilty...

but the report states she had sex with 5 young men. As a teacher, as with a spiritual advisor, therapist, etc. she has a special relationship and corresponding responsibility to these young men. If this was an intimate relationship with one young man I might suggest the facts need to determine any impact of her "out of bed" relationship with him. But 5 young men?

[cherokeeprogressive]

104. Was there a quid pro quo?

[Kaleva]

111. Her children are going to be hearing about this from their classmates for a long time.

[blueamy66]

113. NO!!!!!!

I am so sick of this BS. Shit, a 16 year old man/woman knows what the heck they are doing. An 18 year old? - ADULT!!!

Let's get out of the dark ages!

[Monk06]

118. Who has a position of authority over an eighteen year old. Come on think back people

[limpyhobbler]

124. nevermind

[davidpdx]

126. The fact that they are 18 doesn't necessarily mean it is consenting

Her position of authority over them makes a difference. I don't think coercion needs to be necessary proven, it can be implied. The question for the people saying she shouldn't go to jail would be to ask, what if the teacher was a man? There would be quite a bit more outrage over what happened and he (a male teacher) would be labeled a rapist even before being convicted. I think people need to be careful not to give one gender or the other the benefit of the doubt over the other. In terms of these cases, it seems that many people do.

Another question is how long was this going on? If there were several students, would any of them have been under 18 when this started? I don't know. It's not as clear cut as saying they are 18, they are consenting adults.

Obviously she's going to lose her job since she slept with her students. One shouldn't be the trade off for the other however because they are separate legal issues.

[cali]

131. I expected a handful of neo-puritans to self-righteously

support criminalization of sex between consenting adults, but I didn't expect this many. It's frightening. Now I know DU skews to the ancient side, but c'mon folks. It's depressing to see people here supporting all kinds of criminalization of sex between consenting adults.

Liberal my ass. You're not.

[Warren DeMontague]

132. Yes

but only for aesthetic reasons.

[B Calm]

133. Why nothing like that ever happen to me

Last edited Sat Aug 18, 2012, 05:54 AM - Edit history (1)

when I was in school?

[Swagman]

134. I don't think so but when someone is in authority there must be boundaries

but the penalty seems excessive and the destruction of one's career and life is just wrong.

[cali]

136. I don't mind the destruction of career. Someone who's fucking students should

be fired and banned from teaching. They just shouldn't be prosecuted.

[datasuspect]

141. there's some people here, you'd almost think they thought ALL sex was rape

sometimes people, sometimes.

[MadrasT]

142. Well it is clearly unethical

So she should lose her job and I'd go so far as to say she should lose her teaching certificate. (Do they have them in that state? We have them in PA.) But only because it was the same school district, if they went to a different school and were not part of the same power structure, it's not anybody's business.

Should not be criminal. In a case where there was coercion, maybe rape charges could be filed (?) but that is a differen crime. If it was consensual and they are old enough, not criminal.

[etherealtruth]

144. There are several situations that come to mind (quickly)

Most have been identified in the thread (prison guards and inmates, mentally incompetence ...).


Should sex between consenting adults ever be illegal? YES

[coalition_unwilling]

146. Just one more way Texas goes about perverting any common-sense notion

of "Justice". Texas also puts innocent people to death, so I really don't expect much different.