http://wgntv.com/2013/01/22/teacher-avoi...h-student/

Would it work the other way around?

Quote: (01-22-2013 08:47 PM)SpiderKing Wrote:  

Would it work the other way around?

I think we all know the answer. The question is, how can we ensure equal punishment for female sex offenders?

Doubtful...
The parents would probably pull some shit about how hes manipulating her to avoid going to jail.

I wonder though if they got divorced in a year when he turns 18 would the charges still be able to stick and her be prosecuted?

Quote: (01-22-2013 09:11 PM)kinjutsu Wrote:  

Doubtful...
The parents would probably pull some shit about how hes manipulating her to avoid going to jail.

I wonder though if they got divorced in a year when he turns 18 would the charges still be able to stick and her be prosecuted?

Good question. I'm sure this is not a marriage that will last...

My bet - she gets some kind of fertility treatment and has a baby. Divorces him after he turns 18 and she's given birth. Takes him to court and sues for child support. He'll be forced to work to pay child support, and won't testify against the mother of said child.

Quote: (01-22-2013 09:11 PM)MSW2007 Wrote:  

Quote: (01-22-2013 08:47 PM)SpiderKing Wrote:  

Would it work the other way around?

I think we all know the answer. The question is, how can we ensure equal punishment for female sex offenders?

Eh. I'm fine with this double standard.

Quote: (01-22-2013 11:00 PM)Only One Man Wrote:  

Quote: (01-22-2013 09:11 PM)MSW2007 Wrote:  

Quote: (01-22-2013 08:47 PM)SpiderKing Wrote:  

Would it work the other way around?

I think we all know the answer. The question is, how can we ensure equal punishment for female sex offenders?

Eh. I'm fine with this double standard.

You're really okay with men being sentenced to prison for committing similar crimes as to what this woman got away with?

In most states she would still face prison time (though likely only get a slap on the wrist) because the sex occurred before the marriage.

A few of my friends used to nail this relatively hot teacher back in high school. Happened one at a time, each in their senior year during the affairs. She eventually got caught with another kid. Had a husband who also taught at the school, complete burnout after his college athlete career ended, and a newborn.

And no, nothing happened to her. She was fired, "investigated", and nothing came of it.

Quote: (01-22-2013 09:14 PM)MSW2007 Wrote:  

Quote: (01-22-2013 09:11 PM)kinjutsu Wrote:  

Doubtful...
The parents would probably pull some shit about how hes manipulating her to avoid going to jail.

I wonder though if they got divorced in a year when he turns 18 would the charges still be able to stick and her be prosecuted?

Good question. I'm sure this is not a marriage that will last...

My bet - she gets some kind of fertility treatment and has a baby. Divorces him after he turns 18 and she's given birth. Takes him to court and sues for child support. He'll be forced to work to pay child support, and won't testify against the mother of said child.

...and after she dumps him finds another young guy to repeat the process with while he still pays.

Quote: (01-22-2013 11:32 PM)magellan Wrote:  

A few of my friends used to nail this relatively hot teacher back in high school. Happened one at a time, each in their senior year during the affairs. She eventually got caught with another kid. Had a husband who also taught at the school, complete burnout after his college athlete career ended, and a newborn.

And no, nothing happened to her. She was fired, "investigated", and nothing came of it.

Similar circumstances supposedly occurred twice at the high school I attended. From what I heard, two teachers involved in relationships with students were investigated, and then the teachers were asked to resign. As far as I'm aware, no criminal charges were ever filed in either situation. One of the students involved died via opiate overdose a few years afterward.

Quote: (01-22-2013 11:15 PM)MSW2007 Wrote:  

Quote: (01-22-2013 11:00 PM)Only One Man Wrote:  

Quote: (01-22-2013 09:11 PM)MSW2007 Wrote:  

Quote: (01-22-2013 08:47 PM)SpiderKing Wrote:  

Would it work the other way around?

I think we all know the answer. The question is, how can we ensure equal punishment for female sex offenders?

Eh. I'm fine with this double standard.

You're really okay with men being sentenced to prison for committing similar crimes as to what this woman got away with?

In most states she would still face prison time (though likely only get a slap on the wrist) because the sex occurred before the marriage.

I didn't really mean the being sentenced to prison part, just the way it's viewed by society. Obviously you have to look at these on a case by case basis, but in general I think that a man taking advantage of a girl (age 15-17) is worse than a woman taking advantage of a boy of the same age, especially if said minors are virgins. Society seems to feel the same way, and I would imagine it's been like this for a long time.

I think the reason is that it's much more damaging to a girl since, especially at that age, girls are much more emotionally connected to sex, they put way more at risk when they have sex, and it brings their value down. Even if a 15 year old boy truly was taken advantage of by a woman (they always seem to be decent looking), at worst it's going to have basically no effect on him, but more likely than not it's going to benefit hit in the short and the long term.

Now when I say "taking advantage", I mean it literally, not in the feminist sense of a man having consensual sex with any girl under 18 or any girl younger than them for that matter. I mean truly taking advantage. We all know about underage girls throwing themselves at men and then when it's found out, the man is demonized as a rapist and pedophile. That's horseshit.

Quote: (01-22-2013 08:47 PM)SpiderKing Wrote:  

http://wgntv.com/2013/01/22/teacher-avoi...h-student/

Would it work the other way around?

Yes, it would also work the other way around, assuming parental consent to marry.

They had sex when he was 15. He's now 17 and it still hasn't come to trial. And they live in a weird state where spouses can't submit testimony against each other.

So rather than just saying, "Hey, I won't testify." apparently they have to get married so the court can't ask him to testify/renders invalid all testimony they have so far from him. And without his testimony, there is no case at all.

Not sure if after seven years the case against her is dead or not, or if the statue of limitations even applies. But since they're getting married to get immunity from his testimony, it's likely the instant they get divorced the state will call him as a witness and re-open the case.

Only real solution is to move the hell out of that state.

I had a friend who was 19 and his girlfriend was 16. Her mother wanted him charged with statutory rape, so they ran off to Nevada where the age of consent is 16 and eloped. Here in California there is spousal immunity, so she couldn't be compelled to testify against him. I guess it stopped the investigation in its tracks, because he was never charged.

If he agreed to marry her it probably means that he didn't felt used and violated by her.

But he will feel used and violated when she divorces him.

Now that would be a story.

It's also 100% that they will divorce. I only hope it is him who will initiate the divorce first when he understands there are hotter and younger babes to pull and I hope it happens before he starts earning money and if so maybe she would be the one to pay more in divorce.

Guys, clearly this kid and his family were paid off to do this. Props to the lawyer who set this up. A damn smart and shrewd lawyer if there ever was one. This is a lawyer who definitely earned his retainer.

Quote: (01-23-2013 02:22 AM)Mage Wrote:  

If he agreed to marry her it probably means that he didn't felt used and violated by her.

His feelings don't matter in statutory rape. But his martial status does:

Quote:Quote:

Statutory rape laws are based on the premise that until a person reaches a certain age, that individual is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. Thus, the law assumes, even if he or she willingly engages in sexual intercourse, the sex is not consensual.

The original purpose of statutory rape laws was to protect young, unwed females from males who might impregnate them and not take responsibility by providing support for the child. In the past, the solution to such problems was often a "shotgun wedding", a forced marriage called for by the parents of the girl in question. This rationale aims to preserve the marriageability of the girl and to prevent unwanted teenage pregnancy.

Historically a man could (and in a some jurisdictions still can) defend himself against statutory rape charges by proving that his victim was already sexually experienced prior to their encounter (and thus not subject to being corrupted by the defendant).

In the past, sex involving an adult female and an underage male was often ignored by the law, and was often interpreted as a sexual initiation for the younger male. However, in recent years, some countries' social perceptions have shifted, partly because mental health experts have noted that such sexual encounters can often be characterized as abusive, resulting in serious, long-term problems for the boys involved. Additionally controversial were cases when the adult female is in a position of responsibility over the boy, and there have now been a number of high profile cases (Mary Kay Letourneau, Debra Lafave, Pamela Rogers Turner), in which adult females have been prosecuted for participating in sexual relationships with male minors. Under English and Scottish common law, such cases would be viewed as indecent assault and some have been prosecuted.

In at least one case the U.S. courts have held that male victims of rape are liable for child support for any children resulting from the crime. In County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J. the victim discussed a future relationship with the perpetrator and stated that the sex was "mutually agreeable." Given this testimony, the California Court of Appeal held Nathaniel J. financially responsible.

(wikipedia)