Languish.org

Oh, now I get it! It wasn't rape-rape! Well, that makes all the difference in the world.

Link (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57600471-504083/todd-baugh-mont-judge-defends-handing-down-30-day-sentence-to-teacher-in-rape-of-student/)

QuoteAugust 28, 2013 2:05 PM
Todd Baugh, Mont. judge, defends handing down 30-day sentence to teacher in rape of student
By Erin Donaghue

(CBS/AP) -- A Montana judge who sentenced former teacher Stacey Rambold to 30 days in the rape case of a 14-year-old student is defending his decision as outrage grows over his comments that the girl was "older than her chronological age."

In 2010, the girl killed herself at age 16 as the case was pending, and her mother told District Judge G. Todd Baugh Monday her relationship with Rambold was a "major factor" in her suicide.

Baugh handed down the sentence Monday after former Billings Senior High School teacher Rambold, 54, was terminated from a sexual offender treatment program that was part of a deal to have his prosecution deferred. The judge said he wasn't convinced that the reasons for Rambold's termination from the program were serious enough to warrant a 10-year prison term recommended by prosecutors.

In handing down the sentence, Baugh also said the 14-year-old victim was "older than her chronological age" and "as much in control of the situation" as the teacher. The girl's mother, Auleia Hanlon, stormed out of the courtroom yelling, "You people suck!," the Billings-Gazette reported.

Baugh told the newspaper Tuesday that he stood by his comments that the victim was a troubled youth who was older than her age when it came to sexual matters. That didn't make Rambold's sex with the teen any less of a crime, he said.

"Obviously, a 14-year-old can't consent. I think that people have in mind that this was some violent, forcible, horrible rape," Baugh told the paper. "It was horrible enough as it is just given her age, but it wasn't this forcible beat-up rape."

The victim's death complicated the case, Baugh said. The prosecution and defense reached an agreement after her death that Rambold would enter sexual-offender treatment.

If the former teacher completed treatment and complied with other conditions, the case would have been closed.

Rambold was terminated from the program in November when it was learned that he had been having unsupervised visits with minors, who were family members, and did not inform counselors that he had been having sexual relations with a woman.

"I think what people are seeing is a sentence for rape of 30 days. Obviously on the face of it, if you look at it that way, it's crazy," Baugh said. "No wonder people are upset. I'd be upset, too, if that happened."

The judge's ruling has drawn fire from advocates, with some calling for a review of the sentence. An online Moveon.org petition for the judge's resignation has garnered more than 9,000 signatures, and a silent protest was scheduled for Thursday on the Yellowstone County Courthouse lawn, reports CBS affiliate KTVQ.

"As I looked on in disbelief, Judge Baugh stated that our teenage daughter was as much in control of the situation as her teacher was," Hanlon said in a statement, reports the paper. "She wasn't even old enough to get a driver's license. But Judge Baugh, who never met our daughter, justified the paltry sentence saying she was older than her chronological age. I guess somehow it makes a rape more acceptable if you blame the victim, even if she was only 14."

Hanlon also spoke to KTVQ, saying tearfully, "My faith in the justice system is gone."

No-no... that's not what he meant at all. He just meant that it wasn't rape-rape. See?

QuoteBILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — A Montana judge apologized Wednesday for saying a 14-year-old rape victim was "older than her chronological age" and had as much control of the situation as the teacher who raped her — remarks that prompted protests and a petition for his resignation.

District Judge G. Todd Baugh made the comments Monday while sentencing former Billings Senior High School teacher Stacey Rambold to a 15-year prison sentence then suspending all but 31 days and giving him credit for one day already served.

The sentencing came after Rambold, 54, had left a sexual offender treatment program that was part of a deal to have his prosecution deferred. The judge said he wasn't convinced that the reasons for Rambold's move were serious enough to warrant the 10-year prison term recommended by prosecutors.

Faced with backlash over his comments and the sentence that protesters considered too light, Baugh wrote an apology in a brief letter to the editor to The Billings Gazette. The newspaper provided a copy of the apology to The Associated Press.

"I'm not sure just what I was attempting to say but it did not come out correct," he wrote. "What I said is demeaning of all women, not what I believe and irrelevant to the sentencing. My apologies to all my fellow citizens."

"I will add an addendum to the court file to hopefully better explain the sentence," he added.

A protest scheduled for Thursday outside Yellowstone County Courthouse will go on despite the apology, said organizer Sheena Rice, stressing that it's important for the community to show it is not going to stand for victim blaming.

"I'm glad he apologized, but he should have known better as a judge," Rice said. "The fact that he said it makes me think he still believes it."

Is it named after Tony or Hannah?

We can argue hypotheticals all day.  I see absolutely no point in discussing this case specifically without knowing its facts.

AND AGAIN, IT IS NOT A 30 DAY JAIL SENTENCE IT IS A FIFTEEN YEAR SUSPENDED SENTENCE THOSE ARE NOT THE SAME THING

What shit journalism in the linked article.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 03:11:25 PM
Oh, now I get it! It wasn't rape-rape! Well, that makes all the difference in the world.

Oh for Godsake that is hardly the point.  The victim blaming as part of the justification for the sentence is the point.  Obvious common sense indicates there are different levels of rape severity just like any other criminal activity.  But I am not sure taking sexual advantage of a minor that leads to a suicide is all that much better than forcible assault coupled with rape.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 03:11:25 PM
Oh, now I get it! It wasn't rape-rape! Well, that makes all the difference in the world.

Surely it should make quite a bit of difference.

Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2013, 03:34:29 PM
  But I am not sure taking sexual advantage of a minor that leads to a suicide is all that much better than forcible assault coupled with rape.

We don't know why the girl killed herself.

I was all set to be outraged, but then read the article and actually thought about what it said and I am not so outraged.

I am very, very dissapointed Meri.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2013, 03:37:31 PM

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 03:11:25 PM
Oh, now I get it! It wasn't rape-rape! Well, that makes all the difference in the world.

Surely it should make quite a bit of difference.

One would certainly hope so.

I'd be outraged but I'm all raged out.

Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2013, 03:34:29 PM
But I am not sure taking sexual advantage of a minor that leads to a suicide is all that much better than forcible assault coupled with rape.

That's another assumption, though.

She committed suicide two years later.

Obviously, the most likely explanation in the absence of knowledge is that she was profoundly traumatized and her trauma eventually caught up with her.  This is fair enough, and is indeed why we criminalize statutory rape (though reasonable minds can differ as to what degree stat rape is traumatic, and I strongly expect it varies person to person--suggesting a great amount of discretion given to sentencing judges to mete out an appropriate punishment).  But we do not know anything; we can only guess.

We don't know anything except what's in the lazy, biased reporting in the articles.

Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2013, 03:34:29 PM

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 03:11:25 PM
Oh, now I get it! It wasn't rape-rape! Well, that makes all the difference in the world.

Oh for Godsake that is hardly the point.  The victim blaming as part of the justification for the sentence is the point.  Obvious common sense indicates there are different levels of rape severity just like any other criminal activity. 

The judge can't even explain for himself what he meant. What does come across, however, is that he believes that the fault lays - at least partially - with the child. Ie, it's not really rape-rape.

QuoteBut I am not sure taking sexual advantage of a minor that leads to a suicide is all that much better than forcible assault coupled with rape.

Which is pretty much my point.

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 03:41:04 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2013, 03:37:31 PM

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 03:11:25 PM
Oh, now I get it! It wasn't rape-rape! Well, that makes all the difference in the world.

Surely it should make quite a bit of difference.

One would certainly hope so.

The girl was 14. The teacher was 54. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you guys don't see that as a major consideration? No, he didn't beat her, but what he did do to her certainly affected her. After all, she killed herself. Surely that means something.

Quote from: Ideologue on August 28, 2013, 03:42:34 PM

Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2013, 03:34:29 PM
But I am not sure taking sexual advantage of a minor that leads to a suicide is all that much better than forcible assault coupled with rape.

That's another assumption, though.

She committed suicide two years later.

Obviously, the most likely explanation in the absence of knowledge is that she was profoundly traumatized and her trauma eventually caught up with her.  This is fair enough, and is indeed why we criminalize statutory rape (though reasonable minds can differ as to what degree stat rape is traumatic, and I strongly expect it varies person to person--suggesting a great amount of discretion given to sentencing judges to mete out an appropriate punishment).  But we do not know anything; we can only guess.

We don't know anything except what's in the lazy, biased reporting in the articles.

Her mother said that she committed suicide at least in part because of her relationship with the teacher. And the suicide came about a year after the relationship ended. It started when she was 14, continued through her 15th year. She committed suicide when she was 16.

It's a fairly common idea that a rapist should think that he might as well go as brutal and nasty as possible since rape shouldn't be graded at all. I remain unconvinced though.

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 03:40:42 PM
I was all set to be outraged, but then read the article and actually thought about what it said and I am not so outraged.

I am very, very dissapointed Meri.

Agreed.  There are definitely a couple of material misrepresentations out there that are not apparent until you read the full story, no doubt designed to maximize the emotional outrage. 

First is referring to "rape" in the headlines (as well as the thread title, for that matter), which is assumed to be forcible rape.  Whatever your judgment is on the relative severity of statutory rape compared to forcible rape, forcible rape is assumed when "rape" without any qualifiers is used.  Secondly, this isn't sentencing, but re-sentencing.  The original sentence was the treatment.  The re-sentencing came about because the treatment was terminated.  The judge made his decision based on his judgment regarding the appropriateness of the treatment being terminated.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 03:47:41 PM
what he did do to her certainly affected her. After all, she killed herself.

Holy fallacious logic!  People who commit suicide generally do a lot of things while they are still alive.  It doesn't mean that every single one of those things makes them more suicidal.

Wow. Just... wow.

A 54-year-old teacher has sex with his emotionally unstable 14-year-old student, who later commits suicide, and you all are perfectly fine with him getting a whole 30 days in jail for it.

Well sure. What's the harm, really? I'm sure she asked for it. Probably wore short skirts and belly-baring tops, too.

Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2013, 03:52:43 PM

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 03:47:41 PM
what he did do to her certainly affected her. After all, she killed herself.

Holy fallacious logic!  People who commit suicide generally do a lot of things while they are still alive.  It doesn't mean that every single one of those things makes them more suicidal.

Her mother very clearly stated that the girl's relationship with the teacher was a factor in the suicide.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 03:44:40 PM

Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2013, 03:34:29 PM

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 03:11:25 PM
Oh, now I get it! It wasn't rape-rape! Well, that makes all the difference in the world.

Oh for Godsake that is hardly the point.  The victim blaming as part of the justification for the sentence is the point.  Obvious common sense indicates there are different levels of rape severity just like any other criminal activity. 

The judge can't even explain for himself what he meant. What does come across, however, is that he believes that the fault lays - at least partially - with the child. Ie, it's not really rape-rape.

QuoteBut I am not sure taking sexual advantage of a minor that leads to a suicide is all that much better than forcible assault coupled with rape.

Which is pretty much my point.

He did not say that though.

He said that the child had some control over the situation, which means it was not a matter of forcible rape, but rather a matter of statutory rape. He is not blaming her. You can tell because he says that explicitly - "Obviously, a 14-year-old can't consent. "

He states straight out the opposite of the conclusion the article and you wish to say he is saying. Why insist that he means something he has come right and stated in perfectly clear terms he is NOT saying?

There is a difference between this 54 year old guy ambushing a 14 year old girl in the woods and forcibly raping her, and a 54 year old man having nominally (but obviously not legally) consenual sex with a (obviously) troubled 14 year old girl. And the sentencing should in fact be different.

And given that sentence, the guy getting kicked out of the facility for the reasons given (again, clearly having no connection to his actual crime) make the penalty imposed on him relatively reasonable. I don't know if it is the right legal penalty, but if you said "Hey, this guy was in a mandatory treatment facility for having engaged in statutory sex with a minor, and was kicked out for talking to his kids and having sex with his reasonably aged girlfriend when he wasn't supposed to" I would not at all be surprised that he gets a relatively lenient penalty.

If there was any hint of sexual improriety in his contact with said minors, that would be different. If the person he was having sex with was underage, that would certianly be different.

But all those things have to be, well, judged. And we pay judges to do exactly that.

What is there to be outrraged about here, when you talk about the actual FACTS that are known, rather than the emotionally charged and cherry picked interpretations?

I am more outraged that it is likely that this judge will lose his job for showing some discretion and thinking about the case rather than just doing what the howling masses want and throwing the guy in jail for 15 years that would accomplish exactly fuck all for him, society, or even the poor girl who killed herself.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 03:53:36 PM
Wow. Just... wow.

A 54-year-old teacher has sex with his emotionally unstable 14-year-old student, who later commits suicide, and you all are perfectly fine with him getting a whole 30 days in jail for it.

Well sure. What's the harm, really? I'm sure she asked for it. Probably wore short skirts and belly-baring tops, too.

You're on a roll with making reasoned out statements.  You know, it's possible to point out the absurdity of the argument, or how it is based on misleading pieces of information, without making judgment on the conclusion being sought.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 03:47:41 PM
The girl was 14. The teacher was 54. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you guys don't see that as a major consideration? No, he didn't beat her, but what he did do to her certainly affected her. After all, she killed herself. Surely that means something.

I am disagreeing with your original ironic statement that there is no difference between forcible rape (rape-rape) and statutory rape. 

As to his age, I don't think it would have made much difference if he were 30 instead of 54.  There are diminishing returns to age in the Dirty Old Man Rule.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 03:47:41 PM
The girl was 14. The teacher was 54. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you guys don't see that as a major consideration? No, he didn't beat her, but what he did do to her certainly affected her. After all, she killed herself. Surely that means something.

I don't know, it was two years later.  I don't see how or in what way you could prosecute him for the suicide.  I'm sure what happened did affect her, but unless you can show that he specifically drove her to suicide in some way it isn't directly his fault.

Edit: okay, one year, still.

Meri, can't you see you're constructing an elaborate narrative out of only a few plot points?

All we do know is that at some point in the past a 54 year old man had sex with a 14 year old girl; and that she killed herself a year later.  (Her mother does say it's a factor.)

We do not know whether he used his position as a teacher to pressure her or whether her experience was the trauma that led to her suicide.  We also do not know the facts of the sexual activity, which may suggest that she was an active and engaged or even enthusiastic party, which, yes, should make a difference.

Not the difference between "crime" and "no crime," obviously.  No one is arguing that.  But if one cannot recognize a distinction between a girl actively pursuing a teacher and that teacher succumbing to a highly morally wrong temptation, and a teacher monstrously overwhelming a student under color of authority, and the dozens of varying possible situations between those, that's neither human nor humane.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 03:54:47 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2013, 03:52:43 PM

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 03:47:41 PM
what he did do to her certainly affected her. After all, she killed herself.

Holy fallacious logic!  People who commit suicide generally do a lot of things while they are still alive.  It doesn't mean that every single one of those things makes them more suicidal.

Her mother very clearly stated that the girl's relationship with the teacher was a factor in the suicide.

That was a pretty big piece to leave out in the logical chain.  Of course, there are a couple of reasons why the mother's testimony is going to be unreliable, but that's another discussion.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 03:53:36 PM
Wow. Just... wow.

A 54-year-old teacher has sex with his emotionally unstable 14-year-old student, who later commits suicide, and you all are perfectly fine with him getting a whole 30 days in jail for it.

That is just blatantly not true, and actively dishonest on a couple of levels.

1. Her later committing suicide is irrelevant to his sentencing, of course.
2. He did not get 30 days in jail for it, he got a suspended sentence and court mandated therapy.

And who said anyone is fine with that? I never did - I don't really know, to be honest. Not enough details of the case to know if that was appropriate it or not. The only details we have are those provided by an article that is very clearly biased and willing to be actively deceitful in its reporting, so who knows?

3. He got thirty days in jail for later violating said sentence by getting kicked out of the therapy.

Quote

Well sure. What's the harm, really? I'm sure she asked for it. Probably wore short skirts and belly-baring tops, too.

If you say so. I don't get the sarcasm, since nobody has made any such claim, you being sarcastically mocking makes no sense, should I assume you are serious? After all, of all the people involved, you are now the only person who suggests she "asked for it".

Berkut brought this to my attention:

QuoteRambold was terminated from the program in November when it was learned that he had been having unsupervised visits with minors, who were family members, and did not inform counselors that he had been having sexual relations with a woman.

OK, the unsupervised visit with minors thing, that's arguable, but fine.  I guess that's erring on the side of caution.  Conceivably fucked up.

But isn't sexual relations with a woman what we want him to be doing? :hmm:

Anyway, another thing that's not being noted, even though it's important, is that although Rambold is not going to gaol (although he could if it is a conditional suspended sentence), he is going to be registered as a sex offender.  Honestly, Meri's right.  We might as well execute him.

Someone please explain to me how it would ever be acceptable for a teacher to have sex with his 14-year-old student, and then get 30 days for it. Under any circumstances, that is not okay. Then, add to it that a year later she commits suicide. And still... 30 days.

Sure, 15 years suspended, but big fucking deal. He didn't do what he was supposed to the first time around he got a whopping 30 days of the 15 years. (By the way, nowhere does it say that he talked to his kids. He talked to family members, but no one knows how they're related.) All he had to do was let someone know what was going on, but he couldn't do that.

And I'm sorry, but saying something like, "Well, it wasn't forcible, it was just statutory rape," is just bullshit. The reason we have those laws is because a child cannot give consent because they can't fully understand what they're doing or what those ramifications can be. I don't care if she climbed him like a tree. As the adult and her teacher (let's not forget that part), his responsibility was to prevent anything from happening.

Now, she's dead, and he is off pretty much scott free. Trying to see how justice was served, and just not able to.

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 04:00:37 PM

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 03:53:36 PM
Wow. Just... wow.

A 54-year-old teacher has sex with his emotionally unstable 14-year-old student, who later commits suicide, and you all are perfectly fine with him getting a whole 30 days in jail for it.

That is just blatantly not true, and actively dishonest on a couple of levels.

1. Her later committing suicide is irrelevant to his sentencing, of course.

Uh, no.  If her suicide can be linked to having been abused by the teacher it is very, very relevant to sentencing.

Quote from: Ideologue on August 28, 2013, 04:05:38 PM
Berkut brought this to my attention:

QuoteRambold was terminated from the program in November when it was learned that he had been having unsupervised visits with minors, who were family members, and did not inform counselors that he had been having sexual relations with a woman.

OK, the unsupervised visit with minors thing, that's arguable, but fine.  I guess that's erring on the side of caution.  Conceivably fucked up.

But isn't sexual relations with a woman what we want him to be doing? :hmm:

Anyway, another thing that's not being noted, even though it's important, is that although Rambold is not going to gaol (although he could if it is a conditional suspended sentence), he is going to be registered as a sex offender.  Honestly, Meri's right.  We might as well execute him.

I'd have been happy with a few years behind bars instead of the poor little old man having to admit he fucked kids.

Well Meri, wasn't the suggestion that she was a whore, 'had knowledge of sexual matters' or something like that.

Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2013, 04:13:10 PM
Well Meri, wasn't the suggestion that she was a whore, 'had knowledge of sexual matters' or something like that.

No, apparently I'm the only one claiming that. Well, me and the judge, but he gets a wash because he said he didn't actually mean it like that.

Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2013, 04:11:48 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 04:00:37 PM

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 03:53:36 PM
Wow. Just... wow.

A 54-year-old teacher has sex with his emotionally unstable 14-year-old student, who later commits suicide, and you all are perfectly fine with him getting a whole 30 days in jail for it.

That is just blatantly not true, and actively dishonest on a couple of levels.

1. Her later committing suicide is irrelevant to his sentencing, of course.

Uh, no.  If her suicide can be linked to having been abused by the teacher it is very, very relevant to sentencing.

Sure, but from what we know there is no such link.

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 04:15:49 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2013, 04:11:48 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 04:00:37 PM

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 03:53:36 PM
Wow. Just... wow.

A 54-year-old teacher has sex with his emotionally unstable 14-year-old student, who later commits suicide, and you all are perfectly fine with him getting a whole 30 days in jail for it.

That is just blatantly not true, and actively dishonest on a couple of levels.

1. Her later committing suicide is irrelevant to his sentencing, of course.

Uh, no.  If her suicide can be linked to having been abused by the teacher it is very, very relevant to sentencing.

Sure, but from what we know there is no such link.

QuoteThe victim's mother testified that the relationship was "a major factor" in her decision to take her own life, The Billings Gazette reported.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 04:12:14 PMI'd have been happy with a few years behind bars instead of the poor little old man having to admit he fucked kids.

You have an odd definition of scot free.  Mr. Miracle this guy is not.

I wasn't really suggesting that you were suggesting we should kill him, but he's already subject to something close to a civic life sentence, if not the death penalty.

I would not be upset with two years, but judges have discretion and I don't see this, without knowing more (i.e., having read the sentencing order and the trial transcripts), as an abuse of that discretion.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 04:13:56 PM

Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2013, 04:13:10 PM
Well Meri, wasn't the suggestion that she was a whore, 'had knowledge of sexual matters' or something like that.

No, apparently I'm the only one claiming that. Well, me and the judge, but he gets a wash because he said he didn't actually mean it like that.

Your right, you should absolutely not listen to what he says about what he means. Surely you know better than he does what he thinks about things like this.

Why are so many people unwilling to ever modify their perceptions about people when it comes to things like this? Someone says something that can be interpreted badly, you get outraged, he actually states that isn't what he meant, even apologizes for any mis-understanding, clearly states that he does not think what you think he thinks in no uncertain terms....


and the response is to go back to his original statement and be outraged some more.

Why even ask for clarification, if you are so married to your outrage that him coming out and stating baldly that he does not think what you are ascribing to him won't actually make you budge one inch from your perception of his views?

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 04:19:01 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 04:15:49 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2013, 04:11:48 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 04:00:37 PM

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 03:53:36 PM
Wow. Just... wow.

A 54-year-old teacher has sex with his emotionally unstable 14-year-old student, who later commits suicide, and you all are perfectly fine with him getting a whole 30 days in jail for it.

That is just blatantly not true, and actively dishonest on a couple of levels.

1. Her later committing suicide is irrelevant to his sentencing, of course.

Uh, no.  If her suicide can be linked to having been abused by the teacher it is very, very relevant to sentencing.

Sure, but from what we know there is no such link.

QuoteThe victim's mother testified that the relationship was "a major factor" in her decision to take her own life, The Billings Gazette reported.

Like I said, there isn't any evidence that there is any such link.

Testimony isn't evidence? Non-rhetorical.

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 04:19:58 PM

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 04:13:56 PM

Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2013, 04:13:10 PM
Well Meri, wasn't the suggestion that she was a whore, 'had knowledge of sexual matters' or something like that.

No, apparently I'm the only one claiming that. Well, me and the judge, but he gets a wash because he said he didn't actually mean it like that.

Your right, you should absolutely not listen to what he says about what he means. Surely you know better than he does what he thinks about things like this.

Why are so many people unwilling to ever modify their perceptions about people when it comes to things like this? Someone says something that can be interpreted badly, you get outraged, he actually states that isn't what he meant, even apologizes for any mis-understanding, clearly states that he does not think what you think he thinks in no uncertain terms....

and the response is to go back to his original statement and be outraged some more.

Why even ask for clarification, if you are so married to your outrage that him coming out and stating baldly that he does not think what you are ascribing to him won't actually make you budge one inch from your perception of his views?

It's not his views that are in question. It's his sentencing. And there's no question that he firmly believes that she was culpable in the relationship. He didn't say otherwise. He was only apologizing for the way that he said it, not for what he said.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 04:10:31 PM


Now, she's dead,

By her own hand. He didn't kill her.

Quote
and he is off pretty much scott free.

That is simply not true at all. At least, there is no reason to believe it is true. He is a registered sex offender, almost certainly lost his job, and was sentenced in court. You might find the sentence inadequate, but to say he is "scot free" is simply false.

Quote
Trying to see how justice was served, and just not able to.

Justice is not served all the time. There are much more egregious examples out there than this one, that is for sure.

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 04:20:25 PM

Like I said, there isn't any evidence that there is any such link.

:huh:

Since when isn't a statement in court evidence?

Quote
Auliea Hanlon testified earlier at the hearing that her daughter's relationship with Rambold was a "major factor" in her suicide, and she begged the judge to order Rambold to prison.

"Please put him behind bars," the woman said.

Chief Deputy County Attorney Rod Souza had asked the judge to order Rambold to serve 20 years in prison, with 10 years suspended.

Souza said Rambold targeted a troubled young girl and violated his position of trust as a teacher by engaging in a sexual relationship with a student.

Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/former-senior-high-teacher-gets-days-for-rape-of-student/article_b1f84190-ef23-5868-8799-b779c0421dc1.html#ixzz2dIjVBLJS

Quote from: The Brain on August 28, 2013, 04:21:55 PM
Testimony isn't evidence? Non-rhetorical.

No no, rhetorical testimony is evidence!

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 04:23:25 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 04:19:58 PM

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 04:13:56 PM

Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2013, 04:13:10 PM
Well Meri, wasn't the suggestion that she was a whore, 'had knowledge of sexual matters' or something like that.

No, apparently I'm the only one claiming that. Well, me and the judge, but he gets a wash because he said he didn't actually mean it like that.

Your right, you should absolutely not listen to what he says about what he means. Surely you know better than he does what he thinks about things like this.

Why are so many people unwilling to ever modify their perceptions about people when it comes to things like this? Someone says something that can be interpreted badly, you get outraged, he actually states that isn't what he meant, even apologizes for any mis-understanding, clearly states that he does not think what you think he thinks in no uncertain terms....

and the response is to go back to his original statement and be outraged some more.

Why even ask for clarification, if you are so married to your outrage that him coming out and stating baldly that he does not think what you are ascribing to him won't actually make you budge one inch from your perception of his views?

It's not his views that are in question. It's his sentencing. And there's no question that he firmly believes that she was culpable in the relationship. He didn't say otherwise. He was only apologizing for the way that he said it, not for what he said.

So him stating that it was not relevant to the sentencing doesn't actually matter in the issue of "his sentencing".

Gotcha. Rage on.

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 04:23:42 PM

By her own hand. He didn't kill her.

I think this is where we differ the most. I believe - as does her mother - that this man's relationship with this girl was a huge factor in her deciding that she'd rather be dead that alive. His actions were a cause in her death.

It's impermissible evidence.  It's hearsay.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 04:24:12 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 04:20:25 PM

Like I said, there isn't any evidence that there is any such link.

:huh:

Since when isn't a statement in court evidence?

Quote
Auliea Hanlon testified earlier at the hearing that her daughter's relationship with Rambold was a "major factor" in her suicide, and she begged the judge to order Rambold to prison.

"Please put him behind bars," the woman said.

Chief Deputy County Attorney Rod Souza had asked the judge to order Rambold to serve 20 years in prison, with 10 years suspended.

Souza said Rambold targeted a troubled young girl and violated his position of trust as a teacher by engaging in a sexual relationship with a student.

Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/former-senior-high-teacher-gets-days-for-rape-of-student/article_b1f84190-ef23-5868-8799-b779c0421dc1.html#ixzz2dIjVBLJS

Regardless of the legal definition of what is and isn't evidence, surely this kind of testimony cannot be considered in any way reliable, on its own anyway.  I'm not going to insult your intelligence by explaining why.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 04:24:12 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 04:20:25 PM

Like I said, there isn't any evidence that there is any such link.

:huh:

Since when isn't a statement in court evidence?

Quote
Auliea Hanlon testified earlier at the hearing that her daughter's relationship with Rambold was a "major factor" in her suicide, and she begged the judge to order Rambold to prison.

"Please put him behind bars," the woman said.

Chief Deputy County Attorney Rod Souza had asked the judge to order Rambold to serve 20 years in prison, with 10 years suspended.

Souza said Rambold targeted a troubled young girl and violated his position of trust as a teacher by engaging in a sexual relationship with a student.

Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/former-senior-high-teacher-gets-days-for-rape-of-student/article_b1f84190-ef23-5868-8799-b779c0421dc1.html#ixzz2dIjVBLJS

It isn't any evidence that I find compelling.

I mean, if that was my daughter, no matter how minor I might consider his role in her death might be, my emotional stance will be 100% that I want him as severly punished as possible, and hence would absolutely testify that his actions were responsible for her death.

Which is why my testimony should not be given much weight, especially compared to testimony from actual professionals who might have had a chance to evaluate the girl in question, he mental state before and after the rape, and what role the rape may have had (or not had) in her death.

I know this is all very tedious and not nearly as exciting as "OMG HE RAPED HER THEN SHE KILLED HERSELF!", so feel free to ignore me and carry on with the outraging.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 04:25:51 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 04:23:42 PM

By her own hand. He didn't kill her.

I think this is where we differ the most. I believe - as does her mother - that this man's relationship with this girl was a huge factor in her deciding that she'd rather be dead that alive. His actions were a cause in her death.

I find your opinion on the matter about as compelling as her mothers.

Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2013, 04:27:04 PM
Regardless of the legal definition of what is and isn't evidence, surely this kind of testimony cannot be considered in any way reliable, on its own anyway.  I'm not going to insult your intelligence by explaining why.

But when the judge weasels out of a damning statement, that's unassailable.

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 04:25:06 PM

So him stating that it was not relevant to the sentencing doesn't actually matter in the issue of "his sentencing".

Gotcha. Rage on.

Where does he say that? He said that because she was as culpable as the adult teacher was, it wasn't the same thing as rape-rape. I don't remember him saying anywhere that it didn't actually matter in his sentencing. Just that, you know, talking to kids without telling anyone wasn't a good enough reason to sentence him to 10 years. Which makes sense, I guess, if fucking one wasn't, why would talking to them?

Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2013, 04:27:04 PM
I'm not going to insult your intelligence by explaining why.

That's a nice change.

Quote from: Ideologue on August 28, 2013, 04:26:26 PM
It's impermissible evidence.  It's hearsay.

If it were the last thing she talked to her mother about, could it pass "dying declaration" muster?

...

And this is how you end up with mandatory minimums.  Women freak out and politicians pass crazy bills.

Oh, yeah, and lawyers are bad, blah blah blah.

Quote from: Tonitrus on August 28, 2013, 04:31:17 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on August 28, 2013, 04:26:26 PM
It's impermissible evidence.  It's hearsay.

If it were the last thing she talked to her mother about, could it pass "dying declaration" muster?

Possibly, but 803(3), statement of present mental state, would also be germane.

Actually, was it a sentencing hearing?  Rules of evidence wouldn't apply anyway. -_-

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 04:28:35 PM

It isn't any evidence that I find compelling.

I mean, if that was my daughter, no matter how minor I might consider his role in her death might be, my emotional stance will be 100% that I want him as severly punished as possible, and hence would absolutely testify that his actions were responsible for her death.

Which is why my testimony should not be given much weight, especially compared to testimony from actual professionals who might have had a chance to evaluate the girl in question, he mental state before and after the rape, and what role the rape may have had (or not had) in her death.

While I agree with this mostly, I also don't doubt that her mother would have known how much the relationship affected her daughter far more than just about anyone else. There's a huge difference between, "It was entirely consensual and the girl was older than her years" and "This relationship so affected my daughter that it was a major factor in why she killed herself."

And for what it's worth, I feel like the judge was between a rock and a hard place. I'm upset at the sentencing (and his justification for it), but he was going off what had already been agreed upon. If the prosecutors were okay with a 15-year suspended sentence before, it seems incongruous that they would suddenly - when the spotlight's now on them - ask for 10 years behind bars.

The reason I'm pissed off is that a suspended sentence is, imo, ridiculous for this crime. He deserves time behind bars for what he did.

Quote from: Ideologue on August 28, 2013, 04:36:14 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on August 28, 2013, 04:31:17 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on August 28, 2013, 04:26:26 PM
It's impermissible evidence.  It's hearsay.

If it were the last thing she talked to her mother about, could it pass "dying declaration" muster?

Possibly, but 803(3), statement of present mental state, would also be germane.

Actually, was it a sentencing hearing?  Rules of evidence wouldn't apply anyway. -_-

Then the fact that it might be hearsay is irrelevant.  :P

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 04:29:47 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 04:25:06 PM

So him stating that it was not relevant to the sentencing doesn't actually matter in the issue of "his sentencing".

Gotcha. Rage on.

Where does he say that?

Quote from: THEWORSTESTJUDGEEVER"What I said is demeaning of all women, not what I believe and irrelevant to the sentencing.

Quote
He said that because she was as culpable as the adult teacher was,

Nope, he never said that. In fact, he said exactly the opposite of that. He said the adult was guilty and it was not possible for her to consent. Hence, from the standpoint of culpability (which, btw, means "blame"), the blame was 100% on the teacher. That is what he said.

Quote from: JUDGEASSSHOLEMAN"Obviously, a 14-year-old can't consent."

Quote
it wasn't the same thing as rape-rape.

No, he said that because she had as much control over the situation as the teacher, it was not a forcible rape.

Which is simply true. All your anger and rage doesn't change that, and you aren't even arguing that it isn't the case.

This was a clear case of STATUTORY rape. I don't know what "rape-rape" is, and the judge certianly never uses that term. He simply states that is was not "beat up rape", ie not forcible.

Are you arguing that?

Quote
I don't remember him saying anywhere that it didn't actually matter in his sentencing. Just that, you know, talking to kids without telling anyone wasn't a good enough reason to sentence him to 10 years.

It isn't.

Quote
Which makes sense, I guess, if fucking one wasn't, why would talking to them?

Indeed.

This thread won't end well.  :nostradamus:

Quote from: Ideologue on August 28, 2013, 04:36:14 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on August 28, 2013, 04:31:17 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on August 28, 2013, 04:26:26 PM
It's impermissible evidence.  It's hearsay.

If it were the last thing she talked to her mother about, could it pass "dying declaration" muster?

Possibly, but 803(3), statement of present mental state, would also be germane.

Actually, was it a sentencing hearing?  Rules of evidence wouldn't apply anyway. -_-

But certainly rules of common sense would apply. And no judge should just accept what the victims mother says about the victims suicidal motives at face value in contravention to other evidence to the contrary.

Quote from: Tonitrus on August 28, 2013, 04:39:29 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on August 28, 2013, 04:36:14 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on August 28, 2013, 04:31:17 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on August 28, 2013, 04:26:26 PM
It's impermissible evidence.  It's hearsay.

If it were the last thing she talked to her mother about, could it pass "dying declaration" muster?

Possibly, but 803(3), statement of present mental state, would also be germane.

Actually, was it a sentencing hearing?  Rules of evidence wouldn't apply anyway. -_-

Then the fact that it might be hearsay is irrelevant.  :P

It's unclear whether the testimony was at a sentencing hearing.  Unless I'm missing it in the articles (I did a word search), I don't know where Meri's "mother testified" quote comes from.

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 04:42:28 PM
I don't know what "rape-rape" is,

According to Whoopi, giving an underage girl roofies and then having sex with her while she's still saying no apparently isn't sufficient.

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 04:42:28 PM

Quote from: THEWORSTESTJUDGEEVER"What I said is demeaning of all women, not what I believe and irrelevant to the sentencing.

I missed that. I'm sorry.

Quote

Nope, he never said that. In fact, he said exactly the opposite of that. He said the adult was guilty and it was not possible for her to consent. Hence, from the standpoint of culpability (which, btw, means "blame"), the blame was 100% on the teacher. That is what he said.

Quote from: JUDGEASSSHOLEMAN"Obviously, a 14-year-old can't consent."

Quote
it wasn't the same thing as rape-rape.

No, he said that because she had as much control over the situation as the teacher, it was not a forcible rape.

Which is simply true. All your anger and rage doesn't change that, and you aren't even arguing that it isn't the case.

This was a clear case of STATUTORY rape. I don't know what "rape-rape" is, and the judge certianly never uses that term. He simply states that is was not "beat up rape", ie not forcible.

Are you arguing that?

I'm saying that the affect on the girl was far more than he seems to be implying by saying that she has as much control over the situation as the teacher. In addition, there is no way that a 14-year-old can have as much control over the situation as a 54-year-old teacher. If they could, there would be no such thing as statutory rape. He may not have physically harmed her, but I cannot believe that he didn't actively manipulate her into that relationship. By the very definition of their relationship as well as their ages, he was absolutely the one in control of that situation.

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 04:44:37 PM
But certainly rules of common sense would apply. And no judge should just accept what the victims mother says about the victims suicidal motives at face value in contravention to other evidence to the contrary.

Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2013, 04:29:36 PM
But when the judge weasels out of a damning statement, that's unassailable.

Quote from: Ideologue on August 28, 2013, 04:46:28 PM

It's unclear whether the testimony was at a sentencing hearing.  Unless I'm missing it in the articles (I did a word search), I don't know where Meri's "mother testified" quote comes from.

Link's at the bottom of the quote, Sparky.

I'd have expected a longer sentence but:

1. In Virginia at least statutory rape and what we'd call "forcible rape" (just "rape" in the statute) are different crimes. The penalties for "rape" go up to life in prison, while statutory rape the penalties are much lesser. So the whole "rape-rape" argument is bullshit, it isn't just the judge or the "patriarchy" that is differentiating between traditional forcible rape and physically consensual but illegal sexual contact between adult and minor, the law itself and by extension society has made a distinction between those two crimes and finds one to be much less serious.

2. We give judges discretion for a reason. While I'd argue he should have gotten a couple of years in prison for the crime based on the brief particulars I read in the articles I think this sort of outrage over a judge exercising discretion leads to far greater injustices than the occasional under-sentenced criminal. It leads to heinous things like mandatory minimums which give a judge no discretion to suspend or mitigate the sentence of a "genuinely good person, valuable to society or with strong support structures suggesting high likelihood of rehabilitating their behavior" and instead those people are consigned to long sentences because the letter of the law classifies their crime as serious enough to require a long sentence.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 04:24:12 PM

QuoteAuliea Hanlon testified earlier at the hearing that her daughter's relationship with Rambold was a "major factor" in her suicide, and she begged the judge to order Rambold to prison.

"Please put him behind bars," the woman said.

Chief Deputy County Attorney Rod Souza had asked the judge to order Rambold to serve 20 years in prison, with 10 years suspended.

Souza said Rambold targeted a troubled young girl and violated his position of trust as a teacher by engaging in a sexual relationship with a student.

Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/former-senior-high-teacher-gets-days-for-rape-of-student/article_b1f84190-ef23-5868-8799-b779c0421dc1.html#ixzz2dIjVBLJS

Here you go, Ide.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 28, 2013, 04:52:08 PM
...the whole "rape-rape" argument is bullshit, it isn't just the judge or the "patriarchy" that is differentiating between traditional forcible rape and physically consensual but illegal sexual contact between adult and minor, the law itself and by extension society has made a distinction between those two crimes and finds one to be much less serious.

You won't care, of course, but those who make arguments about "patriarchy" generally hold that "the law itself and by extension society" are constructed to support it.

Saying that the law and society is the reason for something does not in any way counter an argument that the patriarchy is to blame.

It's probably easier and more effective to go with a Monkeybuttian ridicule and dismissal strategy in this case.

Well, I guess he taught her a little something extra.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 04:37:48 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 04:28:35 PM

It isn't any evidence that I find compelling.

I mean, if that was my daughter, no matter how minor I might consider his role in her death might be, my emotional stance will be 100% that I want him as severly punished as possible, and hence would absolutely testify that his actions were responsible for her death.

Which is why my testimony should not be given much weight, especially compared to testimony from actual professionals who might have had a chance to evaluate the girl in question, he mental state before and after the rape, and what role the rape may have had (or not had) in her death.

While I agree with this mostly, I also don't doubt that her mother would have known how much the relationship affected her daughter far more than just about anyone else.

Probably true, but not the point.

Her mother might very well, for all we know, know that her daughter committed suicide because her mother was a complete bitch. I doubt she would testify as such if that were the case.

Her mother might know that her daugher had serious emotional issues, and her hopping in bed with her teacher AND her suicide were both symptoms of those issues.

Either might be the case. Or any number of other possible explanations.

And even so, moms testimony is like to be identical in each case - "She killed herself because she was raped by that teacher".

Mom has incredible pressure on her to say that regardless of what mom really things or knows.

Which is why moms testimony isn't that compelling.

Quote

There's a huge difference between, "It was entirely consensual and the girl was older than her years" and "This relationship so affected my daughter that it was a major factor in why she killed herself."

Well yeah. But the two statements have nothing to do with one another. One is a statement that speaks to why the guilty party is going to get a certain sentence that would be very different if he forcibly raped her, and the other is simply the opinion of someone with completely overriding emotional commitment in the sentencing. The difference between the opinion of the judge, who presumably is objective, and the oppinion of the victims mom, he is certainly not even remotely objective.

Quote
And for what it's worth, I feel like the judge was between a rock and a hard place. I'm upset at the sentencing (and his justification for it), but he was going off what had already been agreed upon.

What do you think is an appropriate sentence for an adult engaging in consensual sex with a minor of that general age difference?

Personally, I agree that no jail time seems much too lenient. This isn't a 18 year old banging his 16 year old girlfriend. And he is a teacher. That makes this about as bad a "consensual" rape situation can be, so I would argue from what little I know that he should have done time. But that is just my opinion, and I would not call the outcome absent the latter parts of the story a travesty of justice.

Quote

If the prosecutors were okay with a 15-year suspended sentence before, it seems incongruous that they would suddenly - when the spotlight's now on them - ask for 10 years behind bars.

Indeed. If the 15 year suspended was ok, then not meeting the terms of the treatment program in the manner related does not strike me as a valid reason to throw the booka t the guy.

On the other hand, if the story was exactly the same, but with the outcome that this guy was then sent to jail to serve out some portion of his suspended sentence, I would not think THAT was a travesty of justice either.

See, I think judges SHOULD in fact be allowed to judge. And I accept that the result of that will be cases where IMO someone gets of a bit too lightlty, and some cases where IMO people get overly punished. Such is that nature of allowing people to make subjective judgements.

Quote
The reason I'm pissed off is that a suspended sentence is, imo, ridiculous for this crime. He deserves time behind bars for what he did.

Then say THAT is why you are mad, not all the other bullshit about rape-rape, culpability, suicide, and whatnot. None of that should even matter - if the punishment doesn't fit the crime, then it doesn't fit the crime no matter what the judge says about the victims role in the rape, or what happened to the guy afterwards.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 28, 2013, 04:52:08 PM
I'd have expected a longer sentence but:

1. In Virginia at least statutory rape and what we'd call "forcible rape" (just "rape" in the statute) are different crimes. The penalties for "rape" go up to life in prison, while statutory rape the penalties are much lesser. So the whole "rape-rape" argument is bullshit, it isn't just the judge or the "patriarchy" that is differentiating between traditional forcible rape and physically consensual but illegal sexual contact between adult and minor, the law itself and by extension society has made a distinction between those two crimes and finds one to be much less serious.

2. We give judges discretion for a reason. While I'd argue he should have gotten a couple of years in prison for the crime based on the brief particulars I read in the articles I think this sort of outrage over a judge exercising discretion leads to far greater injustices than the occasional under-sentenced criminal. It leads to heinous things like mandatory minimums which give a judge no discretion to suspend or mitigate the sentence of a "genuinely good person, valuable to society or with strong support structures suggesting high likelihood of rehabilitating their behavior" and instead those people are consigned to long sentences because the letter of the law classifies their crime as serious enough to require a long sentence.

There were two major mitigating factors, to my mind. This was her teacher, not just some random guy. And she committed suicide a year after the relationship ended.

Those are the two major things that stick with me. Yes, I have a problem with an adult well past his teen years having sex with a 14-year-old, but I would likely have understood a suspended sentence if that were it. It isn't. This man was her teacher. That should be a major factor in any sentencing. Second, she committed suicide. It's hard to believe that the situation surrounding this case didn't factor into her decision to end her life.

Those two things are where my outrage stems from. Those two factors should have, imo, netted him at least a few years behind bars. That the judge chose not to is a problem for me, but not nearly as big of a problem as having the judge say that the girl was a willing participant and older than her years.

No matter what Berkut says, that's taking some of the blame off the teacher and putting it on the girl. Taking it back does not change the fact that he said it, and presumably at the time, meant it. He followed the law, but I think that he believes that the girl was equally at fault for the relationship.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 04:50:32 PM
I'm saying that the affect on the girl was far more than he seems to be implying by saying that she has as much control over the situation as the teacher. In addition, there is no way that a 14-year-old can have as much control over the situation as a 54-year-old teacher. If they could, there would be no such thing as statutory rape. He may not have physically harmed her, but I cannot believe that he didn't actively manipulate her into that relationship. By the very definition of their relationship as well as their ages, he was absolutely the one in control of that situation.

There is such a thing as statutory rape because as a generalization most minors are incapable of making informed judgements about fucking.  Just as a generalization we say most 12 year olds lack the judgement to drive a car and most 16 year olds lack the judgement to cast a vote.  But in the end they're all arbitrary lines which pick up some false negatives and some false positives.

Just because as a legal convention we say that a 14 year old cannot consent does not mean that every single 14 year old is metaphysically incapable of willfull, informed decision to enter into a sexual relationship.

For the record I agree with Biscuit; dude should have gotten at least a couple years in the can.

Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2013, 05:00:55 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 28, 2013, 04:52:08 PM
...the whole "rape-rape" argument is bullshit, it isn't just the judge or the "patriarchy" that is differentiating between traditional forcible rape and physically consensual but illegal sexual contact between adult and minor, the law itself and by extension society has made a distinction between those two crimes and finds one to be much less serious.

You won't care, of course, but those who make arguments about "patriarchy" generally hold that "the law itself and by extension society" are constructed to support it.

Saying that the law and society is the reason for something does not in any way counter an argument that the patriarchy is to blame.

It's probably easier and more effective to go with a Monkeybuttian ridicule and dismissal strategy in this case.

But unless Meri is arguing that the penalty for statutory rape should be just as severe as the penalty for forcible rape (which I don't think she is) then the fact that the law makes a distinction and the reasons for the distinction don't make any difference.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 05:02:59 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 28, 2013, 04:52:08 PM
I'd have expected a longer sentence but:

1. In Virginia at least statutory rape and what we'd call "forcible rape" (just "rape" in the statute) are different crimes. The penalties for "rape" go up to life in prison, while statutory rape the penalties are much lesser. So the whole "rape-rape" argument is bullshit, it isn't just the judge or the "patriarchy" that is differentiating between traditional forcible rape and physically consensual but illegal sexual contact between adult and minor, the law itself and by extension society has made a distinction between those two crimes and finds one to be much less serious.

2. We give judges discretion for a reason. While I'd argue he should have gotten a couple of years in prison for the crime based on the brief particulars I read in the articles I think this sort of outrage over a judge exercising discretion leads to far greater injustices than the occasional under-sentenced criminal. It leads to heinous things like mandatory minimums which give a judge no discretion to suspend or mitigate the sentence of a "genuinely good person, valuable to society or with strong support structures suggesting high likelihood of rehabilitating their behavior" and instead those people are consigned to long sentences because the letter of the law classifies their crime as serious enough to require a long sentence.

There were two major mitigating factors, to my mind. This was her teacher, not just some random guy. And she committed suicide a year after the relationship ended.

Those are the two major things that stick with me. Yes, I have a problem with an adult well past his teen years having sex with a 14-year-old, but I would likely have understood a suspended sentence if that were it. It isn't. This man was her teacher. That should be a major factor in any sentencing. Second, she committed suicide. It's hard to believe that the situation surrounding this case didn't factor into her decision to end her life.

Those two things are where my outrage stems from. Those two factors should have, imo, netted him at least a few years behind bars. That the judge chose not to is a problem for me, but not nearly as big of a problem as having the judge say that the girl was a willing participant and older than her years.

No matter what Berkut says, that's taking some of the blame off the teacher and putting it on the girl. Taking it back does not change the fact that he said it, and presumably at the time, meant it. He followed the law, but I think that he believes that the girl was equally at fault for the relationship.

I think you mean "aggravating" factors. "Mitigating" means the opposite.

Of the two, to my mind the most significant factor was the teacher relationship, which I agree ought to be a serious aggravating factor leading to a more significant punishment. The suicide thing I'd need more evidence about.   

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2013, 05:03:05 PM
Just because as a legal convention we say that a 14 year old cannot consent does not mean that every single 14 year old is metaphysically incapable of willfull, informed decision to enter into a sexual relationship.

A good point.  When I was growing up, the age of consent here was 14, and then it was changed to 16.  Did teenagers change all of the sudden five years ago?

Mind you, what this guy did would have been a crime no matter what, because she was under his care (in his capacity as a teacher).

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 05:02:32 PM

Then say THAT is why you are mad, not all the other bullshit about rape-rape, culpability, suicide, and whatnot. None of that should even matter - if the punishment doesn't fit the crime, then it doesn't fit the crime no matter what the judge says about the victims role in the rape, or what happened to the guy afterwards.

All of those are aggravating factors, and are a large part of why I think the man deserves time behind bars.

It was rape-rape, in that this teacher held a position of power over this child, and used it to have sex with her. (At least, that's what the prosecuting attorney claimed.) Just because there weren't physical bruises doesn't mean that his actions didn't affect her just as badly as if there had been. THAT's where my issue with the whole "it's not really rape" comes from. In this case, it is. Not just because of the ages, but because of the situation compounding that issue.

The judge saying that the child was fully engaged in the relationship was completely out of line, which he admitted to. However, by saying it, he essentially took some of the blame off the teacher. The child knew what she was doing, she was older than her years. All of these things say, "She was at least partly to blame for what happened." Even if he backs up and says, "But of course, because of her age, it wasn't her fault," he's already put that out there. "It was her fault, really. I mean, maybe not by law, but yeah.. she knew what she was doing."

The fact that she committed suicide shortly after all of this blew up indicates a number of things. This was clearly an emotionally unstable child that this teacher manipulated into having sex. From that, stemmed a trial where this child had to confront him, deal with a judge, explain herself, and defend her own actions. Adults quail at the thought of doing this, but this child had to follow this through. While doing so, something broke her enough to make her take her own life. It seems odd to assume that it was being mad at mom under these circumstances. I'd think a reasonable assumption would be that the situation that she now found herself in as a result of her relationship with her teacher affected her so badly that she felt that dying was better than living. In other words, having slept with this teacher and all of the baggage that came with it resulted in a situation that she could not live with. All of which stemmed from a relationship that all parties involved - except maybe the teacher - agree that she was too young to be able to agree to in the first place.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 05:02:59 PMThere were two major mitigating factors, to my mind. This was her teacher, not just some random guy. And she committed suicide a year after the relationship ended.

Those would actually be aggravating, not mitigating factors (at least if I read your intentions correctly.)

QuoteThose are the two major things that stick with me. Yes, I have a problem with an adult well past his teen years having sex with a 14-year-old, but I would likely have understood a suspended sentence if that were it. It isn't. This man was her teacher. That should be a major factor in any sentencing. Second, she committed suicide. It's hard to believe that the situation surrounding this case didn't factor into her decision to end her life.

Those two things are where my outrage stems from. Those two factors should have, imo, netted him at least a few years behind bars. That the judge chose not to is a problem for me, but not nearly as big of a problem as having the judge say that the girl was a willing participant and older than her years.

The teacher thing would be legally relevant here in Virginia, the statutory rape law has accelerated penalties for adults in a position of authority over the minor. The suicide issue is something that typically would come up at sentencing, and it did. And it typically is the job of the sentencing authority to determine how important that is. In states where juries determine the sentence they will hear testimony about stuff like that and 1) decide if it was credible and 2) decide if they think it warrants a harsher sentence, in Montana a judge appears to be the one to take that into account. So it's within his discretion to hear the testimony about the suicide and either dismiss it as too biased because it was the girl's mother or interpret it as not being worthy of elevating the sentence (that would be harder for me to understand, but it is within his discretion regardless of his reasons.)

QuoteNo matter what Berkut says, that's taking some of the blame off the teacher and putting it on the girl. Taking it back does not change the fact that he said it, and presumably at the time, meant it. He followed the law, but I think that he believes that the girl was equally at fault for the relationship.

It's possible in the lengthy testimony or fact finding stage of all this information came out that informed the judge's view that the girl was possible an enthusiastic participant in this stuff and that may be what lead him to make such comments. But yes, I would agree you can't easily reconcile calling someone an "equal participant" in a sexual relationship when the relationship itself is illegal because the law deems such relationships are inherently an example of an adult taking advantage of a legal minor's less developed judgment.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2013, 05:03:05 PM

There is such a thing as statutory rape because as a generalization most minors are incapable of making informed judgements about fucking.  Just as a generalization we say most 12 year olds lack the judgement to drive a car and most 16 year olds lack the judgement to cast a vote.  But in the end they're all arbitrary lines which pick up some false negatives and some false positives.

Just because as a legal convention we say that a 14 year old cannot consent does not mean that every single 14 year old is metaphysically incapable of willfull, informed decision to enter into a sexual relationship.

For the record I agree with Biscuit; dude should have gotten at least a couple years in the can.

Absolutely. That's why the fact that she had sex with him wasn't the bigger issue. It was that she was an EMOTIONALLY UNSTABLE STUDENT having sex with her TEACHER which later ended with her suicide.

Quote from: Malthus on August 28, 2013, 05:10:32 PM

I think you mean "aggravating" factors. "Mitigating" means the opposite.

Of the two, to my mind the most significant factor was the teacher relationship, which I agree ought to be a serious aggravating factor leading to a more significant punishment. The suicide thing I'd need more evidence about.

:blush:

Yes, that.

Quote from: Neil on August 28, 2013, 05:10:51 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2013, 05:03:05 PM
Just because as a legal convention we say that a 14 year old cannot consent does not mean that every single 14 year old is metaphysically incapable of willfull, informed decision to enter into a sexual relationship.

A good point.  When I was growing up, the age of consent here was 14, and then it was changed to 16.  Did teenagers change all of the sudden five years ago?

Beyond that, when Meri says that there's no way a 14-year old student could be as in control of the situation as a 54-year old teacher, that just isn't true.  When I was 14, some of my fellow students could have easily physically overpowered some of the teachers--and yes, some of the girls could have overpowered some of the male teachers.

QuoteMind you, what this guy did would have been a crime no matter what, because she was under his care (in his capacity as a teacher).

I'm not sure about that one.  In the US at least, there's a lot of variance in the law.

Quote from: dps on August 28, 2013, 05:19:51 PM

Beyond that, when Meri says that there's no way a 14-year old student could be as in control of the situation as a 54-year old teacher, that just isn't true.  When I was 14, some of my fellow students could have easily physically overpowered some of the teachers--and yes, some of the girls could have overpowered some of the male teachers.

I meant having equal control in a relationship that involves a teacher/student relationship with a signficant age difference. The judge implied that the student was an equal participant. I argue that under the circumstances, that wasn't possible.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 05:23:38 PM

Quote from: dps on August 28, 2013, 05:19:51 PM
Beyond that, when Meri says that there's no way a 14-year old student could be as in control of the situation as a 54-year old teacher, that just isn't true.  When I was 14, some of my fellow students could have easily physically overpowered some of the teachers--and yes, some of the girls could have overpowered some of the male teachers.

I meant having equal control in a relationship that involves a teacher/student relationship with a signficant age difference. The judge implied that the student was an equal participant. I argue that under the circumstances, that wasn't possible.

But really you don't.  You assert that it wasn't possible.  Arguing would imply that an argument is being made.

Quote from: dps on August 28, 2013, 05:05:16 PM

Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2013, 05:00:55 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 28, 2013, 04:52:08 PM
...the whole "rape-rape" argument is bullshit, it isn't just the judge or the "patriarchy" that is differentiating between traditional forcible rape and physically consensual but illegal sexual contact between adult and minor, the law itself and by extension society has made a distinction between those two crimes and finds one to be much less serious.

You won't care, of course, but those who make arguments about "patriarchy" generally hold that "the law itself and by extension society" are constructed to support it.

Saying that the law and society is the reason for something does not in any way counter an argument that the patriarchy is to blame.

It's probably easier and more effective to go with a Monkeybuttian ridicule and dismissal strategy in this case.

But unless Meri is arguing that the penalty for statutory rape should be just as severe as the penalty for forcible rape (which I don't think she is) then the fact that the law makes a distinction and the reasons for the distinction don't make any difference.

I think Meri, once she calms down (women!) is actually arguing that not only is there a difference between forcible and statutory rape, but that there is a difference between various types or maybe severities of statutory rape.

And I would agree, and given the general category, what this guy did falls on the more severe side.

Although I do think that even at that, there are still additionally mitigating circumstances. There is a difference between a man or women succumbing to an offer of sex from a minor, and a man or woman attempting to manipulate such an offer (or manipulate the lack of a refusal even). So that pushes it (slightly) back away from the worst offenders in the "statutory" bucket.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 05:15:48 PM

The fact that she committed suicide shortly after all of this blew up indicates a number of things. This was clearly an emotionally unstable child that this teacher manipulated into having sex. From that, stemmed a trial where this child had to confront him, deal with a judge, explain herself, and defend her own actions. Adults quail at the thought of doing this, but this child had to follow this through. While doing so, something broke her enough to make her take her own life. It seems odd to assume that it was being mad at mom under these circumstances. I'd think a reasonable assumption would be that the situation that she now found herself in as a result of her relationship with her teacher affected her so badly that she felt that dying was better than living. In other words, having slept with this teacher and all of the baggage that came with it resulted in a situation that she could not live with. All of which stemmed from a relationship that all parties involved - except maybe the teacher - agree that she was too young to be able to agree to in the first place.

There is a LOT of supposition there.

Quote from: Neil on August 28, 2013, 05:27:40 PM
But really you don't.  You assert that it wasn't possible.  Arguing would imply that an argument is being made.

Hmm. Okay. Given the examples provided below, I argue that the relationship between this teacher and this student was detrimental to the student, and there could be no "mutual consent" given the power imbalance between them.

Quote"Physical intimacy with students is not now and never has been acceptable behavior for academicians. It cannot be defended or explained away by evoking fantasies of devoted professors and sophisticated students being denied the right to 'true love.' Where power differentials exist, there can be no 'mutual consent.'"

Dzeich argues that much damage occurs because of the betrayal by someone that the student trusted and respected. Moreover, seduction attempts which are masked by pretenses to academic and personal attention are particularly damaging because the student feels complicit in their own abuse.

Dzeich, Billie Wright and Linda Weiner (1990). The Lecherous Professor: Sexual Harassment on Campus, University of Illinois Press

QuoteThere is also the question of the abuse of trust. This occurs when the trust associated with a professional relationship is destroyed because of non-professional actions or requests for non-professional actions. Martin writes, "Teachers are in a position of authority and trust to foster the intellectual development of their students. When they engage in sexual relations with a student, they violate that trust implicit in a professional teacher-student relationship." http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/91aust.html

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 05:15:48 PM
The fact that she committed suicide shortly after all of this blew up indicates a number of things. This was clearly an emotionally unstable child that this teacher manipulated into having sex. From that, stemmed a trial where this child had to confront him, deal with a judge, explain herself, and defend her own actions. Adults quail at the thought of doing this, but this child had to follow this through. While doing so, something broke her enough to make her take her own life. It seems odd to assume that it was being mad at mom under these circumstances. I'd think a reasonable assumption would be that the situation that she now found herself in as a result of her relationship with her teacher affected her so badly that she felt that dying was better than living. In other words, having slept with this teacher and all of the baggage that came with it resulted in a situation that she could not live with. All of which stemmed from a relationship that all parties involved - except maybe the teacher - agree that she was too young to be able to agree to in the first place.

That's quite an elaborate story from quite a limited set of facts.

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 05:39:15 PM

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 05:15:48 PM

The fact that she committed suicide shortly after all of this blew up indicates a number of things. This was clearly an emotionally unstable child that this teacher manipulated into having sex. From that, stemmed a trial where this child had to confront him, deal with a judge, explain herself, and defend her own actions. Adults quail at the thought of doing this, but this child had to follow this through. While doing so, something broke her enough to make her take her own life.

It seems odd to assume that it was being mad at mom under these circumstances. I'd think a reasonable assumption would be that the situation that she now found herself in as a result of her relationship with her teacher affected her so badly that she felt that dying was better than living. In other words, having slept with this teacher and all of the baggage that came with it resulted in a situation that she could not live with. All of which stemmed from a relationship that all parties involved - except maybe the teacher - agree that she was too young to be able to agree to in the first place.

There is a LOT of supposition there.

I bolded the facts. It seems to me that it's a fair assumption that this affected her decision to commit suicide.

Well, just as an example, all these are NOT facts that we know are true from the story, and in fact are likely NOT true from what little understanding I have of how the law works:

-there was a trial.
I thought there was a plea agreement?

-she had to confront him
How do you know this? The article never said any such thing.

-she had to "deal with a judge"
Again, how do you know this, or what does it even mean?

-she had to "explain herself"
Again, what does this mean? How does explaining oneself lead to suicide anyway? Pure supposition that this had some material effect on her.

-she had to "defend her own actions"
Again, who says she had to do any such thing?

-something broke her enough that it "made her" take her own life.
She took her own life, we have no idea if that was a result of the rape, or if her getting involved in a sexual relationship with her teacher was a effect of whatever mental issues caused her to take her own life, or even if the two are entirely unrelated to one another. Lots of teens, sadly, take their own lives who are not raped. It is most certianly NOT a fact that the rape caused her to commit suicide.

While I do agree with you that all this affecting her decision to commit suicide is an assumption on your part, I do not agree that it is a fair one.

There is no compelling evidence that that is in fact the case.

I did a quick google search, and found a little more detail in another article that seems a bit less hperbolic:

QuoteSouza said Rambold targeted a troubled young girl and violated his position of trust as a teacher by engaging in a sexual relationship with a student.

Rambold pleaded guilty to the single felony charge in April in a case that began in 2008, when school officials and police first learned of the sexual relationship between Rambold and the girl, Cherice Morales.

Rambold was placed on paid leave in April of that year and resigned from his teaching job three months later. He also surrendered his teaching certificate.

In October 2008, prosecutors charged Rambold with three counts of sexual intercourse without consent, alleging that the then-49-year-old man had an ongoing sexual relationship with Morales, who was 14 at the time.

While the case was pending, and a few weeks before her 17th birthday, Morales took her own life.

The girl's death caused problems for the prosecution, and in July 2010 Rambold entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Yellowstone County Attorney's Office.

The agreement called for prosecutors to put the case on hold for three years. The charges would be dismissed, the agreement stated, if Rambold completed a sex offender treatment program and complied with other conditions.

Rambold also admitted to one of the rape charges, and he agreed that his admission could be used against him.

The case was revived last December, when prosecutors learned that Rambold had been terminated from the sex offender treatment program.

On Monday, the treatment provider, Michael Sullivan, testified that Rambold was terminated from the program last November after completing two of the three treatment phases.

Problems arose last August, Sullivan said, when Rambold began missing meetings. After meeting with Rambold, Sullivan said, the man appeared to be back on track with his treatment.

But he was terminated from the program in November, when it was learned that he had been having unsupervised visits with minors and had not informed his counselors that he had been having sexual relations with a woman.

The violations were serious enough when taken together to kick Rambold out of the program, although it was learned that the minors Rambold was visiting were family members.

Rambold's attorney, Jay Lansing, argued Monday for the suspended sentence. He said Rambold lost his career, his marriage and his home and has suffered a "scarlet letter of the Internet" as a result of publicity about the case.

Rambold has since continued his treatment with a different program, Lansing said, and an evaluation found that he is a low risk to re-offend and could be treated in the community.

Rambold's criminal history includes only a traffic violation, but now he will be required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life, the attorney said.

Lansing asked the judge to "consider how he's been punished to this point."

Baugh said he was not convinced that the reasons for Rambold's termination from treatment were serious enough to warrant the lengthy prison term suggested by the prosecution.

Baugh said he listened to recorded statements given by Morales before her death and believes that while she was a troubled youth, she was "as much in control of the situation" as Rambold.

The judge also said Morales was "older than her chronological age."

The case also resulted in a $91,000 wrongful-death settlement between School District 2 and Morales' family, who filed a civil lawsuit against the district.

Rambold had been warned by school officials in 2004 to avoid touching or being alone with female students.

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 05:50:43 PM
Well, just as an example, all these are NOT facts that we know are true from the story, and in fact are likely NOT true from what little understanding I have of how the law works:

-there was a trial.
I thought there was a plea agreement?

-she had to confront him
How do you know this? The article never said any such thing.

-she had to "deal with a judge"
Again, how do you know this, or what does it even mean?

-she had to "explain herself"
Again, what does this mean? How does explaining oneself lead to suicide anyway? Pure supposition that this had some material effect on her.

-she had to "defend her own actions"
Again, who says she had to do any such thing?

-something broke her enough that it "made her" take her own life.
She took her own life, we have no idea if that was a result of the rape, or if her getting involved in a sexual relationship with her teacher was a effect of whatever mental issues caused her to take her own life, or even if the two are entirely unrelated to one another. Lots of teens, sadly, take their own lives who are not raped. It is most certianly NOT a fact that the rape caused her to commit suicide.

While I do agree with you that all this affecting her decision to commit suicide is an assumption on your part, I do not agree that it is a fair one.

There is no compelling evidence that that is in fact the case.

She was required to make a statement that the judge (and the teacher) witnessed, as he used that as his reason for saying that it was a consensual relationship. She was asked during that statement what happened and why (explaining herself and defending her actions with the teacher).  I use the term "broke" to mean that she was not emotionally or mentally sound, or she wouldn't have committed suicide.

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether or not it's fair to say that this situation directly affected her decision to kill herself. I believe it is.

So Meri, what would you rather have happen?

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 05:59:53 PM
I did a quick google search, and found a little more detail in another article that seems a bit less hperbolic:

Quote
In October 2008, prosecutors charged Rambold with three counts of sexual intercourse without consent, alleging that the then-49-year-old man had an ongoing sexual relationship with Morales, who was 14 at the time.

Rambold has since continued his treatment with a different program, Lansing said, and an evaluation found that he is a low risk to re-offend and could be treated in the community.

Rambold had been warned by school officials in 2004 to avoid touching or being alone with female students.

:hmm:

Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2013, 06:10:22 PM
So Meri, what would you rather have happen?

I think he should see at least five years behind bars, with another 10 as a registered sex offender after.

Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 05:50:43 PM
While I do agree with you that all this affecting her decision to commit suicide is an assumption on your part, I do not agree that it is a fair one.

There is no compelling evidence that that is in fact the case.

I think it's a reasonable assumption (whether fair or not), but there is not enough evidence that it's in fact a correct assumption that I don't think it should be used as an aggravating factor in sentencing.

Shame Meri can't get this torqued up over Chinese maritime anti-access/area denial warfighting modernization.

Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2013, 05:00:55 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 28, 2013, 04:52:08 PM
...the whole "rape-rape" argument is bullshit, it isn't just the judge or the "patriarchy" that is differentiating between traditional forcible rape and physically consensual but illegal sexual contact between adult and minor, the law itself and by extension society has made a distinction between those two crimes and finds one to be much less serious.

You won't care, of course, but those who make arguments about "patriarchy" generally hold that "the law itself and by extension society" are constructed to support it.

Saying that the law and society is the reason for something does not in any way counter an argument that the patriarchy is to blame.

Indeed.

I'd also go so far as to say that the patriarchy is the reason we often have (although not here) draconian stat rape laws, and while I don't want to go off of nothing and make up stories, I do nonetheless find it highly likely that pervasive slut shaming and allied behaviors contributed to the young girl's very tragic end, rather than the mere feeling of being exploited by one person that she (apparently) did want to have sex with.

Likely enough anyway that I wonder how her parents and peers made her feel about it.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 05:41:08 PM

Quote from: Neil on August 28, 2013, 05:27:40 PM
But really you don't.  You assert that it wasn't possible.  Arguing would imply that an argument is being made.

Hmm. Okay. Given the examples provided below, I argue that the relationship between this teacher and this student was detrimental to the student, and there could be no "mutual consent" given the power imbalance between them.

Quote"Physical intimacy with students is not now and never has been acceptable behavior for academicians. It cannot be defended or explained away by evoking fantasies of devoted professors and sophisticated students being denied the right to 'true love.' Where power differentials exist, there can be no 'mutual consent.'"

Dzeich argues that much damage occurs because of the betrayal by someone that the student trusted and respected. Moreover, seduction attempts which are masked by pretenses to academic and personal attention are particularly damaging because the student feels complicit in their own abuse.

Dzeich, Billie Wright and Linda Weiner (1990). The Lecherous Professor: Sexual Harassment on Campus, University of Illinois Press

QuoteThere is also the question of the abuse of trust. This occurs when the trust associated with a professional relationship is destroyed because of non-professional actions or requests for non-professional actions. Martin writes, "Teachers are in a position of authority and trust to foster the intellectual development of their students. When they engage in sexual relations with a student, they violate that trust implicit in a professional teacher-student relationship." http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/91aust.html

I'm kind of offended at your assertion that I should never enter into any sexual relationships on account of the power differential.

A long prison term is pretty unreasonable I think.  It's inhumane.

Isn't this how MB met his wife?

Quote from: Kleves on August 28, 2013, 08:11:39 PM
Isn't this how MB met his wife?

Yeah, I think you're right. :) :)

 :lol:

A bit more on what happened. He had never been prosecuted. In an agreement, they held off for three years while he was in the treatment center. They wouldn't have charged him at all had he completed the program. :blink:

I'm not sure I understand the thinking behind that. :unsure:

And it seems that Ide was correct. Slut shaming was definitely an issue, if her mother is to be believed on that.

QuoteRambold was charged by Yellowstone County prosecutors in 2008 with three counts of sexual intercourse without consent, the Montana equivalent of a rape charge, linked to Moralez, a student in a technology class he taught at Senior High School in Billings.

Moralez killed herself in 2010 before the case could go to trial. In an agreement with prosecutors later that year, Rambold admitted to a single count of sexual intercourse without consent and prosecutors agreed to postpone the case for three years and dismiss it entirely if Rambold completed sex offender treatment.

Prosecutors reinstated the case after being notified last year by the treatment center that Rambold, who was suspended in 2008 from his teaching post and later resigned, had been dismissed from the program for violating its rules.

In April, Rambold pleaded guilty to the rape charge stemming from the 2007 assault of Moralez in his Billings home, according to legal documents.

The girl's mother, Auliea Hanlon, had testified prior to sentencing that she wanted him put behind bars, saying she believed Rambold's actions were a "major factor" in her daughter's suicide.

"Cherice has paid for the consequences of his actions. He was on paid leave while she was being blamed and ostracized and ridiculed by her peers," she said. "He was as free as a bird while she was getting threatened and treated like trash every day."

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 08:53:27 PM


And it seems that Ide was correct. Slut shaming was definitely an issue, if her mother is to be believed on that.

Quote

"Cherice has paid for the consequences of his actions. He was on paid leave while she was being blamed and ostracized and ridiculed by her peers," she said. "He was as free as a bird while she was getting threatened and treated like trash every day."

If it was coming from her peers, I'd say it was more an example of "Kids are cruel" than "Slut shaming".

It also sort of undermines your "dude drove her to suicide" argument Meri. :hmm:

Quote from: dps on August 28, 2013, 09:01:57 PM

Quote
"Cherice has paid for the consequences of his actions. He was on paid leave while she was being blamed and ostracized and ridiculed by her peers," she said. "He was as free as a bird while she was getting threatened and treated like trash every day."

If it was coming from her peers, I'd say it was more an example of "Kids are cruel" than "Slut shaming".

:huh:

Kids can't cruelly slut shame? :unsure: There's no question that what was happening to her was slut shaming. That it was the kids doing it doesn't change what it was.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2013, 09:03:19 PM
It also sort of undermines your "dude drove her to suicide" argument Meri. :hmm:

I never argued that the "dude" drove her to it. I said that the situation drove her to it. The relationship was a factor in her suicide. Had he not slept with her, it couldn't have gone public, the slut shaming wouldn't have happened, and she may not have committed suicide.

Say, is it possible to torment agirl without engaging in 'slut shaming'?

Quote from: Neil on August 28, 2013, 09:27:54 PM
Say, is it possible to torment agirl without engaging in 'slut shaming'?

Yes.  Yes it is.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 09:28:19 PM

Quote from: Neil on August 28, 2013, 09:27:54 PM
Say, is it possible to torment agirl without engaging in 'slut shaming'?

Yes.  Yes it is.

:lol:

Has you use of Hot Wheels track and anal sex ever driven a girl to self-harm?

Quote from: Neil on August 28, 2013, 09:33:26 PM
:lol:

Has you use of Hot Wheels track and anal sex ever driven a girl to self-harm?

Not if you can deliver on the promise to hurt them more than they can hurt themselves.  It's about the selflessness of giving, you know.

Alright Meri.  It's good to know that you're not completely crazy.  Still, I don't think I agree with you that this guy deserved to be tortured for years.  A month of torture should be enough.

He sounds like a dreadful individual. If I were a relative I wouldn't let my kids near him.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 08:53:27 PM
A bit more on what happened. He had never been prosecuted. In an agreement, they held off for three years while he was in the treatment center. They wouldn't have charged him at all had he completed the program. :blink:

I'm not sure I understand the thinking behind that. :unsure:

And it seems that Ide was correct. Slut shaming was definitely an issue, if her mother is to be believed on that.

Well, if you assume the worst about human nature, it's often true. :(

When I was in high school, there was a girl I knew who was having an affair with one of the teachers.  It was pretty common knowledge (it did lead to the collapse of his marriage, although I don't believe administration was ever apprised).  Afaik, no one ever gave her serious shit and she remained in the popular clique.  It's a tremendous shame about the contrary results here.

That quoted bit notes an "assault."  Blanket term, bad journalism again, or actual assault/battery?

Quote from: Ideologue on August 28, 2013, 10:35:02 PM
That quoted bit notes an "assault."  Blanket term, bad journalism again, or actual assault/battery?

:hmm:

Quoteassault legal definition of assault.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault‎
Assault. At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

Consent obviates an assault, but in any event I am not going to have a legalistic discussion over whether the fact that a 14 year old cannot consent to sexual contact makes the attempt of such contact an "assault" under the common law definition. :lol:

Quote from: Ideologue on August 28, 2013, 10:41:38 PM
Consent obviates an assault, but in any event I am not going to have a legalistic discussion over whether the fact that a 14 year old cannot consent to sexual contact makes the attempt of such contact an "assault" under the common law definition. :lol:

Go with "blanket term". ;)

Who cares about common law definition. It's assault under any real definition.

Fair enough. :P

Oh, and I should've said that except for the student-teacher relationship aspect, there was nothing criminal about the student-teacher affair I mentioned, as she was 16 when the affair began.  He was a basically alright dude.  In those cases, if I were king, I'd legislate only the loss of that job and a permanent bar to teaching in school.

I'd also order a decimation of everyone who could be proven to have made fun of a rape victim, stat or forcible alike.

Quote from: MaxWho cares about common law definition. It's assault under any real definition.

Under the everyday and the legal definition, an assault is unwanted.  That's why it's extremely poor verging on yellow journalism to describe a wanted touch as an assault, if that's what it was, because it conjures in the mind violence.  A more accurate word (in denotation and connotation) could have been chosen, but the author was either lazy and using it as a blanket term, scared of backdraft if he was "soft" on a sex offender, or indeed wanted to manipulate his audience's emotional response for his own gain...

...unless it was force or threat of force which was used during the encounter (threat of authority probably still would not move it into the ambit of an assault, although I would argue it's actually worse).  But if that is the case, that's chopping the lede up and burying it in three different counties, because that's an extremely important detail.  So either way you slice it it's still bad journalism.

Assault and statutory rape are different crimes.

Interestingly the original deal this guy received was from the prosecutor, in which case the judge deserves minimal blame for it. Prosecutors are given significant leeway to negotiate plea agreements, and while the judge ultimately has to sign off on them, they tend to defer to the agreement the prosecutor has made because otherwise it makes the whole criminal justice system more laborious in terms of processing cases.

Given the prosecutor agreed to the deferred prosecution, that to me actually makes the judge's actions more reasonable. I can see him saying, "well, you already agreed to this deferred prosecution scheme with him, and the stuff he did to get kicked out of treatment really isn't that egregious...if it was okay for him to receive a deferred prosecution before I don't see that it's in the interests of justice to change that to a 15 year prison sentence just because he committed minor rule breaking while in the treatment program."

There's also the fact the prosecution noted that because of the victim's suicide the trial would be much more difficult, what that means is "difficult to get a conviction." We also give prosecutor leeway to decide when a case is difficult to win and they have the latitude to cut deals.

I also think the suicide is mostly irrelevant. The only person who spoke in court that the relationship lead to the suicide was the mother, whose testimony an impartial judge would be unlikely to give much credence. Teenagers, aside from the elderly, have the highest suicide rate of any age group. It's impossible to know without detailed medical records or a suicide note what drove a teenager to kill themselves. What meri is doing when she creates narratives where it is "obvious" or whatever that the relationship lead to the suicide are just idle speculation and supposition, and really shouldn't be the way an impartial arbiter of the law looks at things.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 29, 2013, 07:58:12 AM
I also think the suicide is mostly irrelevant. The only person who spoke in court that the relationship lead to the suicide was the mother, whose testimony an impartial judge would be unlikely to give much credence. Teenagers, aside from the elderly, have the highest suicide rate of any age group. It's impossible to know without detailed medical records or a suicide note what drove a teenager to kill themselves. What meri is doing when she creates narratives where it is "obvious" or whatever that the relationship lead to the suicide are just idle speculation and supposition, and really shouldn't be the way an impartial arbiter of the law looks at things.

On a serious note, her supposed sleeping around could actually be a sign of her depression.

I think what gets me about these discussions is the intentional confusion of terminology.  The reason this is such a serious issue is that it is fundamentally an unequal relationship.  Whether there was threat of authority or not, the person in power holds a position that requires that they not abuse it.  He did and should be punished, but I don't think it should be conflated with rape or other physical assault (unless it was shown that this occurred).  It's a serious issue, but it isn't the same thing and we muddle both by using the same term.  I don't think he's a serious risk to accost women on the street, he's a risk if you give him positions of authority over women.  It's not that it's a lesser crime (I could see arguments for more severe punishment), it's that it's different.

Quote from: frunk on August 29, 2013, 08:47:14 AM
I think what gets me about these discussions is the intentional confusion of terminology.  The reason this is such a serious issue is that it is fundamentally an unequal relationship.  Whether there was threat of authority or not, the person in power holds a position that requires that they not abuse it.  He did and should be punished, but I don't think it should be conflated with rape or other physical assault (unless it was shown that this occurred).  It's a serious issue, but it isn't the same thing and we muddle both by using the same term.  I don't think he's a serious risk to accost women on the street, he's a risk if you give him positions of authority over women.  It's not that it's a lesser crime (I could see arguments for more severe punishment), it's that it's different.

Except that we've said children of the age that this girl was, cannot consent. I think then you have to call that rape.

Quote from: frunk on August 29, 2013, 08:47:14 AM
I don't think he's a serious risk to accost children on the street, he's a risk if you give him positions of authority over children.  It's not that it's a lesser crime (I could see arguments for more severe punishment), it's that it's different.

FYP

And since he's an adult, he will always be in a position of power over children. He will be a risk, as is shown by the fact that he was warned off by school administrators four years before he took advantage of this particular child.

Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:15:33 AM

Quote from: frunk on August 29, 2013, 08:47:14 AM
I don't think he's a serious risk to accost children on the street, he's a risk if you give him positions of authority over children.  It's not that it's a lesser crime (I could see arguments for more severe punishment), it's that it's different.

FYP

And since he's an adult, he will always be in a position of power over children. He will be a risk, as is shown by the fact that he was warned off by school administrators four years before he took advantage of this particular child.

What makes you more qualified to decide that than the expert who said he was low risk to re-offend?

Quote from: sbr on August 29, 2013, 10:08:41 AM

Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:15:33 AM

Quote from: frunk on August 29, 2013, 08:47:14 AM
I don't think he's a serious risk to accost children on the street, he's a risk if you give him positions of authority over children.  It's not that it's a lesser crime (I could see arguments for more severe punishment), it's that it's different.

FYP

And since he's an adult, he will always be in a position of power over children. He will be a risk, as is shown by the fact that he was warned off by school administrators four years before he took advantage of this particular child.

What makes you more qualified to decide that than the expert who said he was low risk to re-offend?

:huh:

Being on the internet gives me infinite knowledge of other people's abilities, knowledge, and intelligence. Duh. :P

Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 11:01:08 AM
:huh:

Being on the internet gives me infinite knowledge of other people's abilities, knowledge, and intelligence. Duh. :P

:hmm: Maybe we're not so different after all.

Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 11:01:08 AM
:huh:

Being on the internet gives me infinite knowledge of other people's abilities, knowledge, and intelligence. Duh. :P

But what about math skills?

Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2013, 10:14:27 PM
He sounds like a dreadful individual. If I were a relative I wouldn't let my kids near him.

Relax.  Half of what Seedy says is hyperbole.

What's the other half?  :huh:

Quote from: sbr on September 01, 2013, 02:11:02 PM
What's the other half?  :huh:

Rants against corporate fat cats.

Quote from: sbr on September 01, 2013, 02:11:02 PM
What's the other half?  :huh:

Building narratives, speaking truth to power.

I thought that was the hyperbole part, and the other half was loving animals and good football teams.  And I guess Notre Dame.

Fair enough.

Though on second thought I'm not sure his football commentary meets the highest standards of objectivity and dispassionate analysis.  :lol:

Obviously the NFL got to you, and you're a part of the anti-Ravens conspiracy.

No shit.  But Yi was in DC long enough, he was Jack Kent Cooked.  Obvious Foreskins operative.

Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2013, 02:54:52 PM
I thought that was the hyperbole part, and the other half was loving animals and good football teams.  And I guess Notre Dame.

Half of Seedy's comments are hyperbole and slander.  The other half are attempted hyperbole and slander.

Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 08:56:01 AM

Except that we've said children of the age that this girl was, cannot consent. I think then you have to call that rape.

I'm not sure I understand that logic.  If it was strictly an issue of her being unable to give consent wouldn't it be illegal for the girl to have sex with anyone?  Generally teenagers are permitted to have sex with each other, but not adults.  How are they better able to give consent with someone else who also can't give consent?

To me the concern is the abuse of authority (which any adult presumably has over teenagers) that is the overriding concern.

I don't think that teens are permitted to have sex; it's just not criminally punished.

Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:15:33 AM

Quote from: frunk on August 29, 2013, 08:47:14 AM
I don't think he's a serious risk to accost children on the street, he's a risk if you give him positions of authority over children.  It's not that it's a lesser crime (I could see arguments for more severe punishment), it's that it's different.

FYP

And since he's an adult, he will always be in a position of power over children. He will be a risk, as is shown by the fact that he was warned off by school administrators four years before he took advantage of this particular child.

I think he would be fine in a preschool, elementary school or all male high school, so I think that's too general.  It's his abuse of power over teenage and (potentially) adult women that's the danger.

Quote from: Syt on September 02, 2013, 08:17:37 AM
I don't think that teens are permitted to have sex; it's just not criminally punished.

Why aren't we criminally prosecuting these teens for rape?!?!?

Quote from: frunk on September 02, 2013, 08:26:48 AM
Why aren't we criminally prosecuting these teens for rape?!?!?

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?

Statutory rape is one of those cases where the legal system's need for black-and-white comes into direct conflict with common sense.  So for the sake of everyone involved in prosecution and judging of such cases, we pretend that teenagers are mentally retarded, and are totally unable to comprehend the consequences of their actions.  There is no middle ground between an adult being able to give consent, and a woman being physically restrained and held down while penetrated.  I guess it makes it easier for prosecutors to sleep at night after putting away some guy for many years for such "rapes".

There is a bit of a middle ground.  Stat rape is rarely punished with the severity of forcible rape.

Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2013, 12:34:09 PM
we pretend that teenagers are mentally retarded,

And parents of teenagers tend to be the most vociferous proponents of that view.  :lol:

Statutory rape is a can of worms. I'm fine with the legal line we've drawn, that if someone is under the age of consent then legally they can't give consent. I understand why the law has to draw lines like that.

At the same time, in ages past people at the ages between 14-16 were very often self sufficient adults. Even as recently as the 19th century it wasn't all that common for young males in Western cultures to "leave home" to seek their fortune. They might apprentice someone or take up work somewhere and be under the watch of an employer/mentor, but they were on their own making adult decisions. I think we do tend to "infantilize" the typical teenager in America, up to the point that many parents consider their 22 year old college seniors to be "kids."

I think there are some 15 year olds that, even in our culture, have not been so infantilized and are more akin to teenagers in the past who were more self sufficient and out there making their own decisions. There are good reasons to prohibit sexual contact with them, but I do think we should recognize statutory rape is a hard line drawn on an issue that morally and ethically isn't actually as clear cut--but I'm fine with the fact we "do have to draw the line" somewhere.

Let's also be honest, adult men used to regularly be married to women around age 16 and it was acceptable for them to have sex with them. (In most cultures when married to women younger than that, you wouldn't begin sexual activity until a certain age or until first menstruation--which tended to happen much later in the teens before modern diet and lifestyle.) So to act like someone is a pedophile because they find a fully sexually mature 16 year old attractive is a stretch.

Interesting, non-traditional angle from some ex-legal chick.

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

Betsy Karasik is a writer and former lawyer.

There is a painfully uncomfortable episode of "Louie" in which the comedian Louis C.K. muses that maybe child molesters wouldn't kill their victims if the penalty weren't so severe. Everyone I know who watches the show vividly recalls that scene from 2010 because it conjures such a witches' cauldron of taboo, disgust and moral outrage, all wrapped around a disturbing kernel of truth. I have similar ambivalence about the case involving former Montana high school teacher Stacey Dean Rambold. Louie concluded his riff with a comment to the effect of "I don't know what to do with that information." That may be the case for many of us, but with our legal and moral codes failing us, our society needs to have an uncensored dialogue about the reality of sex in schools.

As protesters decry the leniency of Rambold's sentence — he will spend 30 days in prison after pleading guilty to raping 14-year-old Cherice Morales, who committed suicide at age 16 — I find myself troubled for the opposite reason. I don't believe that all sexual conduct between underage students and teachers should necessarily be classified as rape, and I believe that absent extenuating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be criminalized. While I am not defending Judge G. Todd Baugh's comments about Morales being "as much in control of the situation" — for which he has appropriately apologized — tarring and feathering him for attempting to articulate the context that informed his sentence will not advance this much-needed dialogue.

I do think that teachers who engage in sex with students, no matter how consensual, should be removed from their jobs and barred from teaching unless they prove that they have completed rehabilitation. But the utter hysteria with which society responds to these situations does less to protect children than to assuage society's need to feel that we are protecting them. I don't know what triggered Morales's suicide, but I find it tragic and deeply troubling that this occurred as the case against Rambold wound its way through the criminal justice system. One has to wonder whether the extreme pressure she must have felt from those circumstances played a role.

I've been a 14-year-old girl, and so have all of my female friends. When it comes to having sex on the brain, teenage boys got nothin' on us. When I was growing up in the 1960s and '70s, the sexual boundaries between teachers and students were much fuzzier. Throughout high school, college and law school, I knew students who had sexual relations with teachers. To the best of my knowledge, these situations were all consensual in every honest meaning of the word, even if society would like to embrace the fantasy that a high school student can't consent to sex. Although some feelings probably got bruised, no one I knew was horribly damaged and certainly no one died.

On the other hand, awareness of sexual harassment was also much lower. Pretty much every woman I know has been sexually harassed in at least one, and usually many, of her jobs and/or academic settings. I was fired from a waitressing job in Boston in 1979, during my first year of law school, after I refused to sit in the manager's lap like the other girls. I would have much rather seen that sleazebag dragged through the legal system than certain teachers I considered friends despite their sexual relations with students that today would land them in jail.

The point is that there is a vast and extremely nuanced continuum of sexual interactions involving teachers and students, ranging from flirtation to mutual lust to harassment to predatory behavior. Painting all of these behaviors with the same brush sends a damaging message to students and sets the stage for hypocrisy and distortion of the truth. Many teenagers are, biologically speaking, sexually mature. Pretending that this kind of thing won't happen if we simply punish it severely enough is delusional. If anything, to return to Louis C.K., the indiscriminate criminalization of such situations may deter students struggling with sexual issues from seeking advice from a parent or counselor.

If religious leaders and heads of state can't keep their pants on, with all they have to lose, why does society expect that members of other professions can be coerced into meeting this standard? A more realistic approach would be to treat violations in a way that removes and rehabilitates the offender without traumatizing the victim. The intensity of criminal proceedings, with all the pressure they put on participants, the stigma, the community and media scrutiny, and the concurrent shame and guilt they generate, do the opposite of healing and protecting the victim. Laws related to statutory rape are in place to protect children, but the issue of underage sex, and certainly of sex between students and teachers, may be one in which the law of unintended consequences is causing so much damage that society needs to reassess.

Meri is gonna be PISSED.

Quote from: sbr on September 02, 2013, 01:59:24 PM
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.

This is such a good example of how people can use language to deceive.

We really should have a different word for "rape" when we are talking about consenual sex between people where one of the people (if not both)cannot give legal consent. It is in fact very different from the traditional definition, and even obviously so.

But the argument seems pretty reasonable. Rape is when someone forces someone else to have sex with them when they don't want to. Legally, a minor cannot give consent for sex, therefore sex with them is by definition not consensual, therefore why not call it rape?

Here is why: because the word has a specific meaning in general use, and it almost always means forcible sexual contact by someone who uses force or the threat of force to make someone have sex who does not wish to. From a non-legal standpoint, the term rape is not typically used to refer to sex between people who both wish to have sex, but where one of them is legally restricted from consenting.

How this story has been reported is a *perfect* example of the problem. There was a CNN article on the story the other day. And within the story, the "journalist" reported that the accused "raped Rambold on three occasions". Now the guy is not only a rapist, he is a *serial* rapist!

That is technically completely accurate from the strictly legal sense. Sex with her was statutory rape, he admitted it happened on at least three occasions, therefore from a strictly legal perpspective, he "raped" her three times.

But of course this isn't a legal article, and the author didn't bother to, at any point, make it clear they were using the legal definition of the term. Instead it is just "he raped her three times".

You could describe the exact same thing by saying "He and Rambold had sex on three different occasions" and it would convet the precisely same information, and in a much more accurate manner that is not likely to mislead anyone as to what exactly happened. And the funny thing is that some people would be angry to see it described in that way. Because it is NOT as misleading as it could be, it does not suggest something that is not true, it does not get people outraged and signing petitions to remove the judge.

The desire to lie "in a good cause" is distressing, and the ability to use language to say one thing while conveying something else is, IMO, rather dangerous.

If this man's actions deserve him going to jail, then they do so on the basis of what he did, not on whether or not we can call it something that suggests something else, that is certainly a good reason to put him in jail. If a teacher having sex with a student is a criminal action, it is criminal even if we call it "sexual conduct with a a minor" rather than "rape".

Concur, although as discussed last week I was a lot more annoyed to see the word "assault," for which even the legal definition is unsatisfied, at least so far as I could tell.

I propose a redefinition of the term "seduction."  It has something of a negative connotation but not nearly so much as rape, it is not used in torts anymore, and it would make Drakken look bad.

It may sound too lenient, though--at least until you start sending people to prison for fifteen years on a seduction beef.

Quote from: sbr on September 02, 2013, 01:59:24 PM
Meri is gonna be PISSED.

Hail patarichy!

I concur with the opinion that high school girls can in fact consent to sexual relations, particularly if I were to be involved.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 02, 2013, 07:27:32 PM
I concur with the opinion that high school girls can in fact consent to sexual relations, particularly if I were to be involved.

I don't believe they would, if you were involved.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 02, 2013, 07:27:32 PM
I concur with the opinion that high school girls can in fact consent to sexual relations, particularly if I were to be involved.

I can't think there are many 14 year olds that can give informed consent to sex with a 54 year old.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 02, 2013, 08:14:13 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 02, 2013, 07:27:32 PM
I concur with the opinion that high school girls can in fact consent to sexual relations, particularly if I were to be involved.

I don't believe they would, if you were involved.

A man can dream though.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2013, 08:18:13 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 02, 2013, 08:14:13 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 02, 2013, 07:27:32 PM
I concur with the opinion that high school girls can in fact consent to sexual relations, particularly if I were to be involved.

I don't believe they would, if you were involved.

A man can dream though.

What a sad man. :x

Quote from: garbon on September 02, 2013, 08:18:55 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2013, 08:18:13 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 02, 2013, 08:14:13 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 02, 2013, 07:27:32 PM
I concur with the opinion that high school girls can in fact consent to sexual relations, particularly if I were to be involved.

I don't believe they would, if you were involved.

A man can dream though.

What a sad man. :x

Nah, he has his cats to keep him happy.

Quote from: dps on September 02, 2013, 08:40:19 PM
Nah, he has his cats to keep him happy.

I only have one cat, and have for the last several years.

Learn to troll properly, dammit.  Learn from garbon: when he calls me 54 years old, he's utilizing exaggeration for the appropriate comedic value.

Amateur.

Quote from: sbr on September 02, 2013, 01:59:24 PM
Meri is gonna be PISSED.

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

Great argument. You guys would totally accept such an argument from me if I were to give it.  :rolleyes:

I wish I were traumatized by Miss Williams in 9th grade. Damn, did she have some smoking legs.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 02, 2013, 10:07:55 PM
I wish I were traumatized by Miss Williams in 9th grade. Damn, did she have some smoking legs.

That's really creepy. I was Miss Williams when you were in the 9th grade.  :ph34r:

Mind you, I was probably also in the 9th grade (or there abouts), but still... creepy....

On a different note, I'm not sure why we should feel for individuals like Mr. Rambold when people take rape to mean that he forced this 14 year old to have sex.

Quote from: garbon on September 02, 2013, 10:29:01 PM
On a different note, I'm not sure why we should feel for individuals like Mr. Rambold when people take rape to mean that he forced this 14 year old to have sex.

Because she was a willing participant, and 100 years ago, it would have been okay. Besides, he didn't physically hurt her, so it doesn't actually count as rape. It's not damaging, just immoral.

Or something.

Quote from: merithyn on September 02, 2013, 10:06:54 PM

Quote from: sbr on September 02, 2013, 01:59:24 PM
Meri is gonna be PISSED.

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

Great argument. You guys would totally accept such an argument from me if I were to give it.  :rolleyes:

Where did she say there was nothing wrong with it?  She said they should lose their jobs and be barred from teachign again until they are rehabilitated.

This was her point:

QuoteI don't believe that all sexual conduct between underage students and teachers should necessarily be classified as rape, and I believe that absent extenuating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be criminalized

Is that really THAT outrageous to you?  I have an 19 and 17 (almost 18) year old daughters and I think it is a reasonable argument.  We have once again gone so far into ZOMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN^TM mode that most people can't think logically about this issue.  You can't even take someone who says "our society needs to have an uncensored dialogue about the reality of sex in schools." seriously, you immediately resort to strawman arguments and mockery.

Quote from: merithyn on September 02, 2013, 10:06:54 PM

Quote from: sbr on September 02, 2013, 01:59:24 PM
Meri is gonna be PISSED.

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

Not at all what she said.

Quote
Great argument. You guys would totally accept such an argument from me if I were to give it.  :rolleyes:

We would mock you unmercifully if you made such a poor argument. Your actual argument, which is a complete strawman, is almost as bad though.

Quote from: sbr on September 02, 2013, 10:54:10 PM
This was her point:

QuoteI don't believe that all sexual conduct between underage students and teachers should necessarily be classified as rape, and I believe that absent extenuating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be criminalized

Is that really THAT outrageous to you?  I have an 19 and 17 (almost 18) year old daughters and I think it is a reasonable argument.  We have once again gone so far into ZOMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN^TM mode that most people can't think logically about this issue.  You can't even take someone who says "our society needs to have an uncensored dialogue about the reality of sex in schools." seriously, you immediately resort to strawman arguments and mockery.

Sure, I'll take issue with her saying that there shouldn't be criminal sanctions.

Quote from: garbon on September 02, 2013, 11:02:54 PM

Quote from: sbr on September 02, 2013, 10:54:10 PM
This was her point:

QuoteI don't believe that all sexual conduct between underage students and teachers should necessarily be classified as rape, and I believe that absent extenuating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be criminalized

Is that really THAT outrageous to you?  I have an 19 and 17 (almost 18) year old daughters and I think it is a reasonable argument.  We have once again gone so far into ZOMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN^TM mode that most people can't think logically about this issue.  You can't even take someone who says "our society needs to have an uncensored dialogue about the reality of sex in schools." seriously, you immediately resort to strawman arguments and mockery.

Sure, I'll take issue with her saying that there shouldn't be criminal sanctions.

There should be criminal sanctions in every single case of student/teacher sex?  What about consensual sex between an 18 year old student and an early 20's first year teacher?

EDIT:  And taking issue with it is one thing, it is healthy.  Are you so outraged that you can't respond without ridiculous arguments?

Quote from: sbr on September 02, 2013, 10:54:10 PM
This was her point:

QuoteI don't believe that all sexual conduct between underage students and teachers should necessarily be classified as rape, and I believe that absent extenuating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be criminalized

Is that really THAT outrageous to you?  I have an 19 and 17 (almost 18) year old daughters and I think it is a reasonable argument.  We have once again gone so far into ZOMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN^TM mode that most people can't think logically about this issue.  You can't even take someone who says "our society needs to have an uncensored dialogue about the reality of sex in schools." seriously, you immediately resort to strawman arguments and mockery.

It is REALLY that outrageous to me that at any point anyone could be okay with teachers and their teenaged students having sex. I've said this repeatedly, but no one seems to be listening. The issues at hand here were the age of the student (14 is far too young to be in a sexual relationship with a man over the age of 20, much less over 50) and the fact that it was her teacher. Those are the reasons that I take issue with this particular case.

IN GENERAL, I have a lot of problems with the criminalization of sex in high schools. The reality is that there are kids having sex at the age of 12 and 13. It's not a question of "right" or "wrong" but of reality. It happens. It's always happened, and it will continue to happen. No, we don't want it to, but it's going to. The issue that I have is that it seems to be either one way or the other: criminalize all sex, or decriminalize all sex.

Personally, I think the law should be written as 14 & 6. In other words, at 14, sex is legal, so long as both partners are within six years of age of one another until the age of 18, when all bets are off. A 21-year-old, legal to drink, really has no business messing around with a kid of 14. That also lowers the risk of the age of a teacher and a student being within the legal limits.

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.

I don't care what you call it: rape, abuse, assault, seduction, breach of ethics. What matters is that we recognize that even though teenagers are having sex, it's not a healthy situation for this kids to be having that type of relationships with people in a position of authority over them. It's also not healthy for them to be having sex with people so much older than them that there's a very limited possibility of a balance of power.

Quote from: sbr on September 02, 2013, 11:05:58 PM
There should be criminal sanctions in every single case of student/teacher sex?  What about consensual sex between an 18 year old student and an early 20's first year teacher?

Yes, every incident. Yes, even with an 18-year-old and a teacher in his or her early 20s.

QuoteEDIT:  And taking issue with it is one thing, it is healthy.  Are you so outraged that you can't respond without ridiculous arguments?

What the fuck ever. Any argument that I give now is going to be read as 'outraged'. Nothing that I say at this point is going to matter, as you've all decided that I'm such an emotional mess over this whole thing that I can't be reasonable. So why bother?

Quote from: merithyn on September 02, 2013, 11:14:38 PM

Quote from: sbr on September 02, 2013, 11:05:58 PM
There should be criminal sanctions in every single case of student/teacher sex?  What about consensual sex between an 18 year old student and an early 20's first year teacher?

Yes, every incident. Yes, even with an 18-year-old and a teacher in his or her early 20s.

QuoteEDIT:  And taking issue with it is one thing, it is healthy.  Are you so outraged that you can't respond without ridiculous arguments?

What the fuck ever. Any argument that I give now is going to be read as 'outraged'. Nothing that I say at this point is going to matter, as you've all decided that I'm such an emotional mess over this whole thing that I can't be reasonable. So why bother?

Your initial response to the most recent article Seedy posted was a complete strawman about the author not caring at all about the issue.  That was silly.  As was some of your reactions at the start of the thread.

At other times you have made reasonable thought out arguments, and when you have those have been acknowledged.  Outside of my typical languish jab about you being pissed about the article I don't automatically assume everything you say as outraged, just the outrageous things.

I like 14&6, but I'd put the universal age of consent at 16, as does South Carolina, in their infinite legislative wisdom. ( :hmm: )

Teacher/student relationships are wrong for a different reason than just lack of consent.  I don't think they should be criminalized, under the same reasoning as Lawrence (the state has no business effecting criminal penalties for consensual sex), but it should lead to a lifetime teaching disbarment (or whatever) unless you can affirmatively prove that no undue influence was used and that no corruption took place, in which case a disbarment should still be put into effect, but for a specified period of time.  I'd consider this an administrative matter.

No public censure at least so far as is possible.  Again, assuming no actual crime (under this regime) has been committed.

(P.S. If undue influence can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, this should remain highly criminal.  "Seduction" probably does not go far enough in this case and I'd be happy with the "rape" label for using authority to coerce sex.  Since abuse of authority is the worst kind of crime--it is a crime not only against a fellow citizen but the state, and not only offends the state but subverts it by employing the state apparatus to criminal ends--it should be punished as all such abominations should, by execution.)

Quote from: merithyn on September 02, 2013, 11:11:29 PM

Quote from: sbr on September 02, 2013, 10:54:10 PM
This was her point:

QuoteI don't believe that all sexual conduct between underage students and teachers should necessarily be classified as rape, and I believe that absent extenuating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be criminalized

Is that really THAT outrageous to you?  I have an 19 and 17 (almost 18) year old daughters and I think it is a reasonable argument.  We have once again gone so far into ZOMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN^TM mode that most people can't think logically about this issue.  You can't even take someone who says "our society needs to have an uncensored dialogue about the reality of sex in schools." seriously, you immediately resort to strawman arguments and mockery.

It is REALLY that outrageous to me that at any point anyone could be okay with teachers and their teenaged students having sex. I've said this repeatedly, but no one seems to be listening. The issues at hand here were the age of the student (14 is far too young to be in a sexual relationship with a man over the age of 20, much less over 50) and the fact that it was her teacher. Those are the reasons that I take issue with this particular case.

IN GENERAL, I have a lot of problems with the criminalization of sex in high schools. The reality is that there are kids having sex at the age of 12 and 13. It's not a question of "right" or "wrong" but of reality. It happens. It's always happened, and it will continue to happen. No, we don't want it to, but it's going to. The issue that I have is that it seems to be either one way or the other: criminalize all sex, or decriminalize all sex.

Personally, I think the law should be written as 14 & 6. In other words, at 14, sex is legal, so long as both partners are within six years of age of one another until the age of 18, when all bets are off. A 21-year-old, legal to drink, really has no business messing around with a kid of 14. That also lowers the risk of the age of a teacher and a student being within the legal limits.

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.

I don't care what you call it: rape, abuse, assault, seduction, breach of ethics. What matters is that we recognize that even though teenagers are having sex, it's not a healthy situation for this kids to be having that type of relationships with people in a position of authority over them. It's also not healthy for them to be having sex with people so much older than them that there's a very limited possibility of a balance of power.

Who has said they are "okay" with student/teacher sex?  Outside of Seed and Ed being Seedy and Ed I haven't seen anyone here that was "okay" with it. I think most everyone thinks the teacher should lose their job and at that point 99.9% will never teach again. 

Also you have an issue with black and white all criminal or not criminal, but you want to criminalize 100% of something else?  No gray area there, huh?

Quote from: sbr on September 02, 2013, 11:23:06 PM

Your initial response to the most recent article Seedy posted was a complete strawman about the author not caring at all about the issue.  That was silly.  As was some of your reactions at the start of the thread.

At other times you have made reasonable thought out arguments, and when you have those have been acknowledged.  Outside of my typical languish jab about you being pissed about the article I don't automatically assume everything you say as outraged, just the outrageous things.

As can be seen by the complete disregard for my real response to you regarding the article, and your only response being to this post.

Of course, the fact that you (and several others) baited me on the article couldn't possibly have been why I didn't bother giving it a real response. You know, since your "real responses" were so well-thought out and provoking.

Quote from: merithyn on September 02, 2013, 11:14:38 PM

Quote from: sbr on September 02, 2013, 11:05:58 PM
There should be criminal sanctions in every single case of student/teacher sex?  What about consensual sex between an 18 year old student and an early 20's first year teacher?

Yes, every incident. Yes, even with an 18-year-old and a teacher in his or her early 20s.

QuoteEDIT:  And taking issue with it is one thing, it is healthy.  Are you so outraged that you can't respond without ridiculous arguments?

What the fuck ever. Any argument that I give now is going to be read as 'outraged'. Nothing that I say at this point is going to matter, as you've all decided that I'm such an emotional mess over this whole thing that I can't be reasonable. So why bother?

If you make reasonable arguments, at least some people will presume you are being reasonable.

If you make unreasonable arguments, even ones like "you've all decided .... I can't be reasonable" then people will in fact think you cannot be reasonable.

Nobody has decided you can't be reasonable, people have observed that you are not being reasonable. It's not the same thing.

You aren't a victim.

Quote from: garbon on September 02, 2013, 10:29:01 PM
On a different note, I'm not sure why we should feel for individuals like Mr. Rambold when people take rape to mean that he forced this 14 year old to have sex.

Not being misleading with words isn't reserved for situations where the victim is sympathetic.

Quote from: sbr on September 02, 2013, 11:31:57 PM
Who has said they are "okay" with student/teacher sex?  Outside of Seed and Ed being Seedy and Ed I haven't seen anyone here that was "okay" with it. I think most everyone thinks the teacher should lose their job and at that point 99.9% will never teach again. 

You certainly implied it right here:

Quote from: sbr on September 02, 2013, 11:05:58 PM

There should be criminal sanctions in every single case of student/teacher sex?  What about consensual sex between an 18 year old student and an early 20's first year teacher?

Quote
Also you have an issue with black and white all criminal or not criminal, but you want to criminalize 100% of something else?  No gray area there, huh?

No gray area, legally, because there can be none. Either it's impossible for an equitable balance of power between a teacher and a teenaged student, or not. THE POSITION OF POWER will always be with the individual who has the right to pass/fail, promote/hold back, or be able to use their position in order to subject another person.

Does that mean that I don't think that a kid can choose to enter into a relationship like that, willingly and knowingly? Yeah, to a degree, it does. I don't think that a kid at 14 years of age (or even 16 or 17 years of age) is capable of fully understanding the complexity of the situation that they are putting themselves into. I say this as the mother of four children, all 14 years of age or older. I've watched them struggle to recognize simple consequences for their actions, much less totally understand all that can and will transpire in a situation like this. In which case, they cannot KNOWINGLY enter into a relationship with an adult teacher, as they aren't capable of fully understanding what's at stake.

Quote from: Berkut on September 02, 2013, 11:35:06 PM
If you make reasonable arguments, at least some people will presume you are being reasonable.

If you make unreasonable arguments, even ones like "you've all decided .... I can't be reasonable" then people will in fact think you cannot be reasonable.

Nobody has decided you can't be reasonable, people have observed that you are not being reasonable. It's not the same thing.

You aren't a victim.

Okay, Berk. Since you say so....

Hell, if it's an issue of undue influence (or its converse, sexual bribery), even sex with an 18 (or 25) year old should be criminal.

Quote from: Ideologue on September 02, 2013, 11:43:52 PM
Hell, if it's an issue of undue influence (or its converse, sexual bribery), even sex with an 18 (or 25) year old should be criminal.

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.

Should bosses who sleep with the people reporting to them be sent to prison as well?  They have a hell of a lot more power over you than teachers do.

Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2013, 11:46:14 PM
Should bosses who sleep with the people reporting to them be sent to prison as well?  They have a hell of a lot more power over you than teachers do.

If their employees are under-aged, yes.

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.

Quote from: merithyn on September 02, 2013, 11:45:38 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on September 02, 2013, 11:43:52 PM
Hell, if it's an issue of undue influence (or its converse, sexual bribery), even sex with an 18 (or 25) year old should be criminal.

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.

You're misidentifying the issue.  The issue is the subversion of a process for personal ends, which needs to be fair for both parties.  If a high school teacher intimidates a student into giving him a blowjob, or if she exchanges blowjobs for A's, that's criminal even if she's 18 (and I mean it actually is criminal, at least in SC, but it should be very criminal--it is morally degenerate and damaging to society as a whole, when a mere relationship that developed out of mutual sexual attraction is at worst damaging to one person).

Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2013, 11:46:14 PM
Should bosses who sleep with the people reporting to them be sent to prison as well?  They have a hell of a lot more power over you than teachers do.

That's different because Amalgamated Accountants, LLP, do not represent the state and carry out state functions.

Quote from: Ideologue on September 02, 2013, 11:51:34 PM

Quote from: merithyn on September 02, 2013, 11:45:38 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on September 02, 2013, 11:43:52 PM
Hell, if it's an issue of undue influence (or its converse, sexual bribery), even sex with an 18 (or 25) year old should be criminal.

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.

You're misidentifying the issue.  The issue is the subversion of a process for personal ends, which needs to be fair for both parties.  If a high school teacher intimidates a student into giving him a blowjob, or if she exchanges blowjobs for A's, that's criminal even if she's 18 (and I mean it actually is criminal, at least in SC, but it should be very criminal--it is morally degenerate and damaging to society as a whole, when a mere relationship that developed out of mutual sexual attraction is at worst damaging to one person).

From what I understand, it is criminal to coerce someone into having sex. It's called rape, for better or for worse.

I don't think it's usually considered rape if a college professor says "I'll fail you if you don't put out."  It's still maybe criminal (I'd have to look it up), and it's definitively actionable, but I don't believe it falls under the ambit of rape.

It's about as bad as rape, and in some ways worse, because of the reasons I've outlined.  So, yeah, fine, call it whatever.

Quote from: merithyn on September 02, 2013, 11:42:55 PM

Quote from: Berkut on September 02, 2013, 11:35:06 PM
If you make reasonable arguments, at least some people will presume you are being reasonable.

If you make unreasonable arguments, even ones like "you've all decided .... I can't be reasonable" then people will in fact think you cannot be reasonable.

Nobody has decided you can't be reasonable, people have observed that you are not being reasonable. It's not the same thing.

You aren't a victim.

Okay, Berk. Since you say so....

Yes, that is certainly the way to convince me you are not being unreasonable.

Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:06:33 AM

Quote from: merithyn on September 02, 2013, 11:42:55 PM

Quote from: Berkut on September 02, 2013, 11:35:06 PM
If you make reasonable arguments, at least some people will presume you are being reasonable.

If you make unreasonable arguments, even ones like "you've all decided .... I can't be reasonable" then people will in fact think you cannot be reasonable.

Nobody has decided you can't be reasonable, people have observed that you are not being reasonable. It's not the same thing.

You aren't a victim.

Okay, Berk. Since you say so....

Yes, that is certainly the way to convince me you are not being unreasonable.

Because your approval is so damn important.

Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:06:33 AM


Yes, that is certainly the way to convince me you are not being unreasonable.

I stopped worrying about that awhile ago. You believe what you want.

Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2013, 12:10:10 AM

Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:06:33 AM

Quote from: merithyn on September 02, 2013, 11:42:55 PM

Quote from: Berkut on September 02, 2013, 11:35:06 PM
If you make reasonable arguments, at least some people will presume you are being reasonable.

If you make unreasonable arguments, even ones like "you've all decided .... I can't be reasonable" then people will in fact think you cannot be reasonable.

Nobody has decided you can't be reasonable, people have observed that you are not being reasonable. It's not the same thing.

You aren't a victim.

Okay, Berk. Since you say so....

Yes, that is certainly the way to convince me you are not being unreasonable.

Because your approval is so damn important.

I kind of doubt it, but she does seem to be annoyed that people are finding her unreasonable.

Quote from: merithyn on September 03, 2013, 12:13:25 AM

Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:06:33 AM


Yes, that is certainly the way to convince me you are not being unreasonable.

I stopped worrying about that awhile ago. You believe what you want.

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.

Quote from: merithyn on September 03, 2013, 12:13:25 AM

Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:06:33 AM


Yes, that is certainly the way to convince me you are not being unreasonable.

I stopped worrying about that awhile ago. You believe what you want.

:hmm:

Meri, do you think there are circumstances where an under age defendant should be tried as an adult?  What about a person who is legally an adult, should they always be tried as an adult?

Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:21:02 AM

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:

Quote from: Berkut on September 02, 2013, 03:05:51 PM

Quote from: sbr on September 02, 2013, 01:59:24 PM
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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

Quote from: merithyn on September 02, 2013, 10:42:32 PM

Quote from: garbon on September 02, 2013, 10:29:01 PM
On a different note, I'm not sure why we should feel for individuals like Mr. Rambold when people take rape to mean that he forced this 14 year old to have sex.

Because she was a willing participant, and 100 years ago, it would have been okay. Besides, he didn't physically hurt her, so it doesn't actually count as rape. It's not damaging, just immoral.

Or something.

And not even immoral.  Just inappropriate.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 03, 2013, 03:17:08 AM
Meri, do you think there are circumstances where an under age defendant should be tried as an adult?

No, I don't.

QuoteWhat about a person who is legally an adult, should they always be tried as an adult?

Yes.

Quote from: merithyn on September 03, 2013, 07:56:44 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 03, 2013, 03:17:08 AM
Meri, do you think there are circumstances where an under age defendant should be tried as an adult?

No, I don't.

QuoteWhat about a person who is legally an adult, should they always be tried as an adult?

Yes.

So you don't believe in diminished capacity?

Quote from: Razgovory on September 03, 2013, 08:49:08 AM

So you don't believe in diminished capacity?

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

Quote from: merithyn on September 03, 2013, 07:55:16 AM

Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2013, 12:21:02 AM

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?

Quote

Quote from: Berkut on September 02, 2013, 03:05:51 PM

Quote from: sbr on September 02, 2013, 01:59:24 PM
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.

Quote

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!!!

Quote
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.

Quote

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.

Quote
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.

Quote from: merithyn on September 03, 2013, 08:51:39 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 03, 2013, 08:49:08 AM

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.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 02, 2013, 01:53:13 PM

QuoteThe 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.

Quote from: merithyn on September 02, 2013, 10:06:54 PM
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.

Quote from: merithyn on September 02, 2013, 11:11:29 PM
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? 

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote from: dps on September 03, 2013, 11:25:03 AM
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.

Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2013, 11:38:54 AM

Quote from: dps on September 03, 2013, 11:25:03 AM
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 never minded when the age of consent was 14.  But then again, I was never a woman.

Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2013, 11:55:28 AM
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?

Quote from: dps on September 03, 2013, 11:51:15 AM

Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2013, 11:38:54 AM

Quote from: dps on September 03, 2013, 11:25:03 AM
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.

Quote from: dps on September 03, 2013, 12:07:15 PM

Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2013, 11:55:28 AM
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.

Quote from: grumbler on September 02, 2013, 09:22:56 AM

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?

Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2013, 12:14:38 PM

Quote from: dps on September 03, 2013, 11:51:15 AM

Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2013, 11:38:54 AM

Quote from: dps on September 03, 2013, 11:25:03 AM
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.

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

Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2013, 06:50:06 PM
You are allowed to say whatever you want. Doesn't make for a convincing argument.

I'm not sure what argument you think that I was making, exactly as far as public policy is concerned.  I asked Meri a question about a position she had taken, and stated an opinion as to my perception of what most posters here seem to think.  I did say that I am pretty much in favor of with Ide's suggestions, but if you're opposed to those, perhaps you should take it up with him, not me.

Hm, interesting developments.

The original deal between the prosecutor and Rambold was a deferred prosecution, in which the charges would have gone away if he had followed the program he was in. That made his punishment completely valid under State law, as he wasn't being convicted of any crime there's really no "minimum sentencing" guidelines for a non-conviction.

However, since he violated that deal, Judge Baugh seems to have based his sentence off the format of the previous deal. He looked at what Rambold was facing, and decided in light of his breaking the terms of his deal he'd have to do a brief stint in jail but wouldn't get the 20 year (10 year suspended) sentence the prosecution was seeking.

Judge Baugh however made an error of law in this decision, as in Montana the mandatory minimum for the crime that Rambold had now plead guilty to was two years, meaning the thirty day sentence was illegal. In Montana, you cannot suspend a sentence beyond the mandatory minimum, so if Rambold had been sentenced to 5 years three of those years could have been suspended, but no more than that. Baugh has recognized his own error, and called a new hearing for this Friday presumably to resentence Rambold to at least a two year sentence to be in compliance of the law.

But it's unclear if that will actually "work" because legally in Montana an illegal sentence is supposed to be rectified through the appeals process (the prosecutor had already planned to file an appeal of the sentence on the basis of the two year mandatory minimum.) So while Baugh may be attempting to fix his error, he may not actually have that option. Rambold's attorney is basically saying they are in very unclear waters as a matter of law in Montana, and that whatever the outcome he plans to object to the sentencing hearing on Friday on the grounds that any change in his client's sentence has to come during an appellate hearing and that Montana law doesn't provide the judge the option to just declare a new sentencing hearing to correct a legal error on his part. The defense attorney is also planning a line of defense based on the fact the prosecutor had not made any objections whatsoever of the thirty day sentence until after the original hearing, I'm guessing he is hoping that may derail the prosecutor's appeal.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 03, 2013, 08:49:59 PM
But it's unclear if that will actually "work" because legally in Montana an illegal sentence is supposed to be rectified through the appeals process (the prosecutor had already planned to file an appeal of the sentence on the basis of the two year mandatory minimum.) So while Baugh may be attempting to fix his error, he may not actually have that option. Rambold's attorney is basically saying they are in very unclear waters as a matter of law in Montana, and that whatever the outcome he plans to object to the sentencing hearing on Friday on the grounds that any change in his client's sentence has to come during an appellate hearing and that Montana law doesn't provide the judge the option to just declare a new sentencing hearing to correct a legal error on his part. The defense attorney is also planning a line of defense based on the fact the prosecutor had not made any objections whatsoever of the thirty day sentence until after the original hearing, I'm guessing he is hoping that may derail the prosecutor's appeal.

Interesting question of when does a judge become functus.  In civil proceedings that doesnt occur until an order is filed in the court - I have been involved in civil cases where things have been changed or clarified after reasons for decision were issued but before the formal order was entered.  But I assume for criminal matters it works differently.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 06, 2013, 03:34:28 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 03, 2013, 08:49:59 PM
But it's unclear if that will actually "work" because legally in Montana an illegal sentence is supposed to be rectified through the appeals process (the prosecutor had already planned to file an appeal of the sentence on the basis of the two year mandatory minimum.) So while Baugh may be attempting to fix his error, he may not actually have that option. Rambold's attorney is basically saying they are in very unclear waters as a matter of law in Montana, and that whatever the outcome he plans to object to the sentencing hearing on Friday on the grounds that any change in his client's sentence has to come during an appellate hearing and that Montana law doesn't provide the judge the option to just declare a new sentencing hearing to correct a legal error on his part. The defense attorney is also planning a line of defense based on the fact the prosecutor had not made any objections whatsoever of the thirty day sentence until after the original hearing, I'm guessing he is hoping that may derail the prosecutor's appeal.

Interesting question of when does a judge become functus.  In civil proceedings that doesnt occur until an order is filed in the court - I have been involved in civil cases where things have been changed or clarified after reasons for decision were issued but before the formal order was entered.  But I assume for criminal matters it works differently.

I love the word "functus". Sounds like a horrible skin disease.  :lol: