Texas High School teacher in orgies with teenage boys

[Barrister]

Meowtf?

[HVC]

His girlfriend probably cheated on him whe he was away and now he's bitter. That or he has really crappy taste in Internet comics.

[CountDeMoney]

I see Phil's been cruising bmolsson's website.

[MadImmortalMan]

It's a play on the meme that military wives are notorious for being unfaithful to their husbands, methinks.

[CountDeMoney]

It's a play on the meme that military wives are notorious for being unfaithful to their husbands, methinks.

Yeah, but it would help if it were in English.

[garbon]

It's a play on the meme that military wives are notorious for being unfaithful to their husbands, methinks.

Yeah, but it would help if it were in English.

And if it were funny.

[dps]

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/08/16/4185438/more-students-tell-of-sexual-escapades.html

If convicted, Colleps, a 28-year-old married mother of three, could be sentenced to the maximum 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine on each of five charges of an improper relationship between an educator and student.

The students were 18 or older at the time.

OK, given the bolded bit, this should be something that a teacher can be fired for, but it probably shouldn't be criminal.

[Syt]

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

[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.

[derspiess]

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.

[Barrister]

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/08/16/4185438/more-students-tell-of-sexual-escapades.html

If convicted, Colleps, a 28-year-old married mother of three, could be sentenced to the maximum 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine on each of five charges of an improper relationship between an educator and student.

The students were 18 or older at the time.

OK, given the bolded bit, this should be something that a teacher can be fired for, but it probably shouldn't be criminal.

Well that's presumably the basis of the defence.

In Canada that would be a defense to the charge (though as you say, not to being fired).

[Neil]

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

That doesn't seem to be the question.

[CountDeMoney]

word spread about the sexual encounters to other students, one of whom told their mother, a school employee.

Always a fucking rat.

[crazy canuck]

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/08/16/4185438/more-students-tell-of-sexual-escapades.html

If convicted, Colleps, a 28-year-old married mother of three, could be sentenced to the maximum 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine on each of five charges of an improper relationship between an educator and student.

The students were 18 or older at the time.

OK, given the bolded bit, this should be something that a teacher can be fired for, but it probably shouldn't be criminal.

Well that's presumably the basis of the defence.

In Canada that would be a defense to the charge (though as you say, not to being fired).

Not would, might.

I didnt think you were correct so I looked it up.

Pursuant to section 265 of the Criminal Code, the criminal act (actus reus) of sexual assault is defined as direct or indirect contact with another person's body that is (1) sexual in nature, and (2) engaged in without the consent of the other person.  To be legally effective, consent must be freely given.  Therefore, even in situations where a complainant indicated consent by words or conduct, circumstances may arise which call into question the factors which prompted consent.  According to s. 265(3) of the Criminal Code, the law will deem, that is assume, an absence of consent in assault cases where the consent was obtained by reason of force, fear, threats, fraud, or the exercise of authority.  Further, section 273.1(2)(c) stipulates that in cases of sexual assault, no consent is obtained where the accused induces the complainant to engage in sexual activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority

[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.