Texas High School teacher in orgies with teenage boys

[Razgovory]

Generally I agree, but the quetsion would be whether she used the authority of her position to goad/coax the students into sex.

Sure, the abuse of authority issue is why it should be a fireable offense.

I don't have a problem with the law.  We should hold teachers to a higher standard than the general public.

And pay them much less.

[derspiess]

And pay them much less.

Than we pay the general public?

[garbon]

Maybe we could pay them more if we stripped away all that vacation time they get.

[Razgovory]

And pay them much less.

Than we pay the general public?

Pay them less then the general public is payed.  Jeez, do I have to walk you through everything.

[CountDeMoney]

And pay them much less.

Than we pay the general public?

They have it so good, why didn't you consider teaching then?  After all, sounds like a real money gig.  I hear grumbler drives an Aston Martin.

[MadImmortalMan]

Maybe we could pay them more if we stripped away all that vacation time they get.

My mom gets three months off. Usually the whole summer, but if it's the alternative schedule it's 4 month on 1 month off. It's a lot.

[dps]

Generally I agree, but the quetsion would be whether she used the authority of her position to goad/coax the students into sex.

Sure, the abuse of authority issue is why it should be a fireable offense.

I don't have a problem with the law.  We should hold teachers to a higher standard than the general public.

Making it a fireable offense for a teacher to have sex with an 18 year old student already holds them to a higher standard than the general public is held.  For a 28 year old who flips burgers at McDonalds, or runs a cash register at Walmart, or who is the executive assistant to the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, having sex with an 18 year old high school student wouldn't be a fireable offense.

[crazy canuck]

You're not looking at the right section.

Section 153, sexual exploitation, makes it an offence for anybody in a position of authority to sexually touch a young person, regardless of consent.  A young person is defined as someone 16 years of age or more, but under 18.  That goes along with s. 151, which makes it illegal for any adult to sexually touch someone under the age of 16.

The article seems to make it clear there was consent, and there was no abuse of authority.  It is of course dangerous to rely on a newspaper article for facts.  But if the boys were under 18, merely by being their teacher any sexual touching would be illegal.  But over 18, only by abusing that position of authority in order to obtain consent would it be illegal.

Your last sentence is why I posted the section.  In your first post you said that just the fact the boys were 18 would give a defence.  You were mistaken or at least mispoke.

[derspiess]

And pay them much less.

Than we pay the general public?

They have it so good, why didn't you consider teaching then?  After all, sounds like a real money gig.  I hear grumbler drives an Aston Martin.

It would have been a pretty cushy job, you're right.  No real standards to have to abide by, guaranteed raises not tied to performance, and a guaranteed job after a few years.  But teaching just wasn't for me.

[HVC]

Teachers shouldn't be allowed to strike. They hold huge political sway (compared to other groups anyway) and the coupled with strike powers gives them an u fair bargaining power. That and it should be easier to fire crappy tenured teachers. Beyond that teachers are cool with me. 

[dps]

And pay them much less.

Than we pay the general public?

They have it so good, why didn't you consider teaching then?  After all, sounds like a real money gig.  I hear grumbler drives an Aston Martin.

Can't speak for derspiess, but I've very seriously considered getting a teaching certificate.  Unfortunately, right now is not a very good time to be looking for a teaching job in NC.

[CountDeMoney]

It would have been a pretty cushy job, you're right.  No real standards to have to abide by, guaranteed raises not tied to performance, and a guaranteed job after a few years.  But teaching just wasn't for me.

The PTA meetings filled with Meris is worth a hell of a lot more than that.

[garbon]

Generally I agree, but the quetsion would be whether she used the authority of her position to goad/coax the students into sex.

Sure, the abuse of authority issue is why it should be a fireable offense.

I don't have a problem with the law.  We should hold teachers to a higher standard than the general public.

Making it a fireable offense for a teacher to have sex with an 18 year old student already holds them to a higher standard than the general public is held.  For a 28 year old who flips burgers at McDonalds, or runs a cash register at Walmart, or who is the executive assistant to the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, having sex with an 18 year old high school student wouldn't be a fireable offense.

It could be depending on the company.

[derspiess]

And pay them much less.

Than we pay the general public?

They have it so good, why didn't you consider teaching then?  After all, sounds like a real money gig.  I hear grumbler drives an Aston Martin.

Can't speak for derspiess, but I've very seriously considered getting a teaching certificate.  Unfortunately, right now is not a very good time to be looking for a teaching job in NC.

I hear there's a bonus for the millionth WV transplant that became a teacher in NC

[Barrister]

You're not looking at the right section.

Section 153, sexual exploitation, makes it an offence for anybody in a position of authority to sexually touch a young person, regardless of consent.  A young person is defined as someone 16 years of age or more, but under 18.  That goes along with s. 151, which makes it illegal for any adult to sexually touch someone under the age of 16.

The article seems to make it clear there was consent, and there was no abuse of authority.  It is of course dangerous to rely on a newspaper article for facts.  But if the boys were under 18, merely by being their teacher any sexual touching would be illegal.  But over 18, only by abusing that position of authority in order to obtain consent would it be illegal.

Your last sentence is why I posted the section.  In your first post you said that just the fact the boys were 18 would give a defence.  You were mistaken or at least mispoke.

Except it's crystal clear from the article that the state isn't alleging any abuse of position of trust, but are charging based on the position she holds:

Arlington police detective Jason Houston took the stand next and said charges were filed against Colleps because "18 or not, it's a crime" for a teacher to have sex with her students.

I didn't mis-speak because I was discussing this particular case.  Why would I bring up other situations or allegations that aren't relevant to what's being discussed?