Montana judge defends 30-day sentence for rape

[merithyn]

So you don't believe in diminished capacity?

I don't believe that diminished capacity designates one as a child, no.

[Berkut]

Belief has nothing to do with it.

You make unreasonable arguments, then get all offended that people find you to be unreasonable.

You believe whatever YOU want. Play the victim, if you really want to believe that is the issue.

The thing is, Berk, that these recent "unreasonable arguments" were never meant to be arguments. They were off-the-cuff comments that were, at least to me, clearly an exaggeration for effect. I read the damn article. I even read, believe it or not, the last paragraph. I understood what she was trying to say. I disagree with her conclusions but I understood her arguments just fine. At a certain point, it's not worth bothering anymore. When the immediate response to the article is:

So when YOU make an "off the cuff comment" we should all disregard it, but when anyone else does, you should just focus on that and get all pissed off and refuse to make reasoned arguments?

Like this one - which is very reasoned, and very reasonable?

Meri is gonna be PISSED.

Yeah, nuance and context and anything other than "OMG THAT MAN RAPED HER UNTIL SHE DIED!" is clearly signs of some serious defect.

... why should I even bother offering a legitimate response? You and sbr have already decided how I'm going to respond. And on top of that, you've both completely disregarded my perfectly reasonable responses earlier in the thread in order to come to the conclusion that I was totally incapable of having a reasonable argument about this topic.

Oh please. Seriously, you are totally over-reacting.

I do think you consistently, even when making reasonable responses, also make very unreasonable ones, and they are almost always of the form "You don't think he should be hung up by his balls and flayed alive? Fine, then you are saying raping children is ok???"

That is exactly the response to her article you gave (in effect, obviously not in form, since I am exaggerating for effect).

So the response is right back at you.

NOW you make a reasonable response, and in fact one that I largely agree with, and so you get a reasonable response in return.

Hell, this is the story of the entire thread. You started out posting an article that was largely misleading, and followed its lead. But once we got through all the bullshit emotive crap, it turns out we are largely in agreement on the basic fundamentals of the case. My objection to your position throughout (and really the entire topic) has been not about the fundamentals of the case, but rather the dishonest way the media and people portray the facts, where you and they make it clear that they care more about generating a particular emotive response than they do about conveying the actual facts of the case. Or at least that is how I saw your positions, and the position of the media.

For the record, I thought the article was a great assertion of her beliefs with nothing to support it other than her personal experiences and her opinion. She didn't say anything that was of any real value to the discussion so far as I'm concerned.

I don't agree with her conclusions, but her basic point that we should stop trying to pretend like this issue is black and white, cut and dried, and that the concept of "consent" is some binary condition that someone who is 17 years, 11 months, and 30 days old cannot possibly understand and someone who is 1 day older can fully understand is extremely valuable. Much MORE valuable, IMO, then the standard litany of responses that amount to "throw the rapist triple raper in jail for 30 years!!!" that is emotionally satisfying to most people because it makes them feel like they are taking a stand FOR THE CHILDREN!!!

She said she didn't think it was an issue. She said that it's time to have a "real discussion" about the topic at hand, as if that hasn't already been going on for years.

I think she is right, in that it is nearly impossible to have a "real" discussion about the topic at hand. If you have a position other than "throw the raping bastard in jail!" you immediately get exactly the response from people like you (and the media) that you gave "Oh, so you are saying it is ok for 54 year old men to rape 14 year old girls???"

It is a logical fallacy. And no, I don't think "real discussion" is actually possible, which is why we have laws that either ignore the reality, or criminalize all behavior as if it were the same. Hell, this entire article is about the fact that a judge used actual discretion in deciding a sentence, and he is being villified and will likely be forced to resign because he did NOT treat this as if he stalked her late at night, attacked her with a knife and forcibly raped her.

So yeah...in my view, the entire response to this thing in the media has been an effort to make sure "real discussion" cannot possibly happen.

She said that she thought that there are teenagers out there that could reasonably decide to have sex with a teacher. Well, good for her. I disagree with all of her assertions, as I've said repeatedly.

I do think there are teenagers out there who could make a reasonable decision that they want to have sex with a teacher. I don't think there ought to be any teachers out there who should go along with such a decision, because there is no way they could possibly actually evaluate the teens ability to make such a decision, much less when they obviously would have an emotional investment themselves.

But of course there are teens out there who can make such decisions. I am surprised anyone would argue otherwise.

I don't agree with her stance that this should be de-criminalized. However, I DO certainly beleive that the reality is that teens are sexual creatures, and our current hysteria about that drives sometimes responses that are completely counter-productive, and possibly even severely damaging to the teens they are supposed to be protecting.

Your own response to this girls death is a case in point. At no time do you appear to even acknowledge that perhaps the issue we ought to be looking at is not that she had sex with her teacher, and killed herself because of it, but rather that the result of this was a social backlash that resulted in her being ostracized and traumatized by her peers to the extent that she took her own life.

No, rather we simply place 100% of the blame on the criminal who "raped her three times, resulting in her killing herself". There is no nuance, no attempt to understand what is actually happening, just a cry for vengeance targeting the obvious culprit.

That is the primary point the author is making, and I think it is a better and more important point made than any other in the entire thread. It is far, far, FAR from valueless.

Her conclusions? Don't agree.

Are there nuances to every situation? Of course. That's common sense. That doesn't change the fact that one has to have laws that fits the majority of the cases because you can't litigate nuances.

Of course you can. You can give judges the ability to use judgement. You can make different laws for different circumstances. You can do all kinds of things. We litigate nuances all the time, it is why we have an incredibly complex legal code.

[Razgovory]

So you don't believe in diminished capacity?

I don't believe that diminished capacity designates one as a child, no.

It designates them as less then an adult.

[Valmy]

The unintended consequences of laws addressing sex between teachers and students
By Betsy Karasik, Published: August 30

I think she takes this way too far as far as completely uncriminalizing it.  Interesting take though, I do agree that we are far too draconian when it comes to sex offenses and love to use the term 'rape' a bit too loosely.

I am for criminalization of sex offenses, particularly for underage sex and especially for teachers and other authority figures, but the whole 'have them shot at dawn' mentality is a big disservice.

[Valmy]

She knew girls who had sex with teachers. None of them were "traumatized". Ergo, there's nothing wrong with teachers and students having sex.

Strawman?  She never said there was nothing wrong with it.  She said they should lose their jobs.

[dps]

Regardless of that, I think that it should always be illegal for an employee of the school to have sex with a student. Period. There can be no positive from such a relationship, and the issues that it can create aren't worth the risk.

All employees, not just teachers?  So if a 19-year old janitor at a high school has sex with an 18-year old senior, it's criminal and the janitor should go to jail? 

The difference is the age of reason. By 19 or so, one hopes that the individual is at least capable of completely grasping the consequences of their actions.

This is a legal fiction at best.  Teenagers can understand just as well as adults that actions have consequences;  the problem is that teenagers tend to have an attitude of "it can't happen to me".  But most adults, in my experience, still have that same attitude.

Apparently I'm being very coy about this or you guys aren't reading what I'm saying. The problem is TWO-FOLD. The students are KIDS and the adults are TEACHERS.

That's 2 different issues, though.  I don't think that anyone here has argued that there aren't inherent problems with teachers having a sexual relationship with students, but a lot of people disagree with your view that H.S. students are KIDS, especially when we're talking about seniors (many of whom will have already turned 18), but also in regards to 16 and 17 year olds.  I think most of us do agree that the age of consent shouldn't be lower that 16 at the minimum.


FWIW, I largely agree with the position Ide takes in reply #169 in this thread.

[garbon]

That's 2 different issues, though.  I don't think that anyone here has argued that there aren't inherent problems with teachers having a sexual relationship with students, but a lot of people disagree with your view that H.S. students are KIDS, especially when we're talking about seniors (many of whom will have already turned 18), but also in regards to 16 and 17 year olds.  I think most of us do agree that the age of consent shouldn't be lower that 16 at the minimum.

Funny, of course, that people were so quick to drift to the 17/18 year olds when that wasn't even at issue with the inciting case.

Also, I think you are fooling yourself, cradle robber, if you think that most 18 year olds are more like adults than children.  You, of all people, should know better.

[dps]

That's 2 different issues, though.  I don't think that anyone here has argued that there aren't inherent problems with teachers having a sexual relationship with students, but a lot of people disagree with your view that H.S. students are KIDS, especially when we're talking about seniors (many of whom will have already turned 18), but also in regards to 16 and 17 year olds.  I think most of us do agree that the age of consent shouldn't be lower that 16 at the minimum.

Funny, of course, that people were so quick to drift to the 17/18 year olds when that wasn't even at issue with the inciting case.

Also, I think you are fooling yourself, cradle robber, if you think that most 18 year olds are more like adults than children.  You, of all people, should know better.

It's not that I thinki that 18 year olds are fully mature, it's just that I find most people well above that age to be childish and immature.

[Neil]

I never minded when the age of consent was 14.  But then again, I was never a woman.

[dps]

I never minded when the age of consent was 14.  But then again, I was never a woman.

Would you have minded if you'd been around a Grallon-type when you were 14?

[garbon]

That's 2 different issues, though.  I don't think that anyone here has argued that there aren't inherent problems with teachers having a sexual relationship with students, but a lot of people disagree with your view that H.S. students are KIDS, especially when we're talking about seniors (many of whom will have already turned 18), but also in regards to 16 and 17 year olds.  I think most of us do agree that the age of consent shouldn't be lower that 16 at the minimum.

Funny, of course, that people were so quick to drift to the 17/18 year olds when that wasn't even at issue with the inciting case.

Also, I think you are fooling yourself, cradle robber, if you think that most 18 year olds are more like adults than children.  You, of all people, should know better.

It's not that I thinki that 18 year olds are fully mature, it's just that I find most people well above that age to be childish and immature.

I don't know why your views on humanity, Gral, should influence public policy.

[Neil]

I never minded when the age of consent was 14.  But then again, I was never a woman.

Would you have minded if you'd been around a Grallon-type when you were 14?

We would simply have beaten him.  It wasn't alright to be gay back then.

Nevertheless, it didn't really matter.  Rape (which is to say forcible rape) was still a crime.

[frunk]

Because it would be a foolish waste of resources?  Why should we criminally prosecute minors for teenage sex "rape" when we generally don't for other crimes?

Generally teens will be prosecuted if they rob, assault, murder or otherwise violate the law.  Perhaps the punishment isn't as severe, but there at least is an effort to track down and find those who commit these crimes.  How is rape less worthy of attention?

[dps]

That's 2 different issues, though.  I don't think that anyone here has argued that there aren't inherent problems with teachers having a sexual relationship with students, but a lot of people disagree with your view that H.S. students are KIDS, especially when we're talking about seniors (many of whom will have already turned 18), but also in regards to 16 and 17 year olds.  I think most of us do agree that the age of consent shouldn't be lower that 16 at the minimum.

Funny, of course, that people were so quick to drift to the 17/18 year olds when that wasn't even at issue with the inciting case.

Also, I think you are fooling yourself, cradle robber, if you think that most 18 year olds are more like adults than children.  You, of all people, should know better.

It's not that I thinki that 18 year olds are fully mature, it's just that I find most people well above that age to be childish and immature.

I don't know why your views on humanity, Gral, should influence public policy.

Beyond the fact that we're a democracy and we have freedom of speech, there's no reason why they should.

[garbon]

You are allowed to say whatever you want. Doesn't make for a convincing argument.