Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Teacher Jailed for Student Sex

ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 6:02:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
A Texas teacher was sentenced to 5 years in prison for having sex with 5 of her students.

But all 5 students were over the age of 18.
All of them consented.
None of them felt like victims.

Thoughts? Is this a crime punishable by jail just because of the teacher-student relationship?

Isn't 5 years harsh?

I think this sounds silly. They were all adults.
Aren't there better people to lock away? Ones who are actually dangerous and not just horny?

http://www.foxnews.com...
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 6:11:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I agree with you. It's definitely an abuse of power for a teacher to have sex with her students, but if the students are 18 and the sex was consensual, it shouldn't be a punishable crime - she should have just been fired.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 6:35:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Given the composition of this forum is largely, "Young, adult male.", should I play Devil's advocate, or what?
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 6:53:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
None of them felt like victims.

This is irrelevant, as victims often are unaware of their victimhood (think abusive relationships).

Thoughts? Is this a crime punishable by jail just because of the teacher-student relationship?

Are you asking if this should be a crime or a jailable offense? It seems you are opposed to both.

Isn't 5 years harsh?

For five crimes, not really.

I think this sounds silly. They were all adults.

True, but in that sense, should a psychiatrist date a patient? In MN, domestic assualt is not just for spouses, it is also for anyone who intimately knows each other, like a doctor, nanny, or possibly even a teacher.

Aren't there better people to lock away? Ones who are actually dangerous and not just horny?

Taking advantage of one's position is a pretty dangerous thing. Why did the teacher, knowing the ethical issues, decide to have sex with her students? A lapse of judgment. How did they know she was into them? How did she know they were into her?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 7:45:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Imagine if you kidnap someone and brainwash them until the age of twenty to enjoy sex. Then you constantly and consistently have sex with them. Is it just kidnapping if you're caught, or is the sex non-consensual as well?

The answer to that question is essentially the same for this situation in essence. They may consent now, due to the circumstance, but would they if of sound mind? Further, what this shows is a severe abuse of power and situation, which entails a devious mind who can't see the problem in getting a position in power and then using it to fulfil any base desires they have.

Also, seeing as it is sixteen accounts rather than five, and the crime being very well known among the community, it is very hard to defend her actions short of questioning the crime itself. Personally, I think when it is among people taking vocational courses or other things optional it should become legal, however in many cases it is very questionable on what one should be able to do.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 7:54:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't think it is a jailable offence.

She deserves to be fired no question about it but jail? Five years? For having sex with people age 18. They're 18, they agreed, that's completely legal. Maybe a hefty fine or probation or something but prison?

I just found the whole thing to be a little over the top.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 8:08:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 7:54:39 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I don't think it is a jailable offence.

She deserves to be fired no question about it but jail? Five years? For having sex with people age 18. They're 18, they agreed, that's completely legal. Maybe a hefty fine or probation or something but prison?

I just found the whole thing to be a little over the top.

I am more wondering about where it was done, and the evidence given for the court. Just playing through all the pornos in classic sober style... then a jury member asks if he can privately see the evidence... then the judge asks for a reenactment... then it becomes the single strangest and probably best trial since records began.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 8:11:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Chaos88's profile says he is a Libertarian... o_O

My two cents - No, the teacher should not be jailed if the students were no longer students. I understand the power dynamic (as a Labor Studies and Employment Relations major... and I work in Human Resources), and I understand the position of power argument, but a) if they were no longer students than legally there doesn't seem to be a conflict of interest; b) people make bad decisions all the time. Look at musicians. They have considerable sway in terms of sex appeal over people who wouldn't otherwise have sex with them. I mean I think it would be a problem if they were still under the teacher's instruction and whatnot, but post 18 and no longer students I think is fair game. I guess the prosecution's side is that a teacher can flirt with and bait a student to hook up once they graduate... which I guess is wrong, but not that wrong. Not 5 years wrong. And I do think the students should be held liable for their decisions to some degree. If anything I would have just fired the teacher. No legal penalty.
President of DDO
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 8:16:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 8:11:15 AM, Danielle wrote:
Chaos88's profile says he is a Libertarian... o_O

My two cents - No, the teacher should not be jailed if the students were no longer students. I understand the power dynamic (as a Labor Studies and Employment Relations major... and I work in Human Resources), and I understand the position of power argument, but a) if they were no longer students than legally there doesn't seem to be a conflict of interest; b) people make bad decisions all the time. Look at musicians. They have considerable sway in terms of sex appeal over people who wouldn't otherwise have sex with them. I mean I think it would be a problem if they were still under the teacher's instruction and whatnot, but post 18 and no longer students I think is fair game. I guess the prosecution's side is that a teacher can flirt with and bait a student to hook up once they graduate... which I guess is wrong, but not that wrong. Not 5 years wrong. And I do think the students should be held liable for their decisions to some degree. If anything I would have just fired the teacher. No legal penalty.

I think the students were still students of hers. But they were all adults.

She deserves to lose her job but not her life. Her life is basically ruined now because of this sentencing.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 8:40:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If they were still students then she should be legally penalized. Even if I disagree with it personally (not sure I do), it doesn't seem that much different than sexual harassment in the workplace. A boss seeking sex from a subordinate is illegal. Having a teacher be boning her students is problematic for a lot of reasons. Namely, the school board (or district) could probably become liable for any mishaps. I dunno. By putting not only her students in jeopardy but the entire administration, and causing negative publicity, this woman should definitely lose her job. I don't think if the students were over 18 that she should go to jail, but again that might be the law whether I agree with it or not.
President of DDO
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 8:41:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 8:40:24 AM, Danielle wrote:
If they were still students then she should be legally penalized. Even if I disagree with it personally (not sure I do), it doesn't seem that much different than sexual harassment in the workplace. A boss seeking sex from a subordinate is illegal. Having a teacher be boning her students is problematic for a lot of reasons. Namely, the school board (or district) could probably become liable for any mishaps. I dunno. By putting not only her students in jeopardy but the entire administration, and causing negative publicity, this woman should definitely lose her job. I don't think if the students were over 18 that she should go to jail, but again that might be the law whether I agree with it or not.

Valid point. There are similar laws in place in other professional environments. In that case this doesn't irk me as much as it did.

Still don't know if I agree with 5 years jail time though.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 10:22:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well they obviously weren't victims, but I guess a fine or something would do.

Also I laughed like hell at the part where it says that the husband admitted that he and his wife engaged in group sex frequently in the past. Sounds like that's business as usual at that household.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 10:22:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 6:02:45 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
A Texas teacher was sentenced to 5 years in prison for having sex with 5 of her students.

But all 5 students were over the age of 18.
All of them consented.
None of them felt like victims.

Thoughts? Is this a crime punishable by jail just because of the teacher-student relationship?

Isn't 5 years harsh?

I think this sounds silly. They were all adults.
Aren't there better people to lock away? Ones who are actually dangerous and not just horny?

http://www.foxnews.com...

I 100% agree with you.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 10:25:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
And, moreover, I don't think that the sexual engagements of two consenting adults is the business of anyone.

The only rationale I can see for it being against workplace regulation is the potential emotional discord that can result, which can compromise productivity or efficiency.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 11:49:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
These kids weren't damaged by this at all they were old enough to make their own decisions who they want to have sex with. If they were much younger it would be different. I think those who condone this punishment are sick fvcks, personally. You don't give a sh!t about her kids who now have to grow up without a mother. This is what happens when people who have not been to jail/prison, who do not understand the implications of these laws and these punishments, are allowed to make these laws and punishments. You shouldn't even have the ability to vote on any matters that involve sending someone to jail if you've never been there before, and you shouldn't have a say over what happens to someone that has kids if you don't have any because YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FVCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. If people experienced some of the matters they had authority over perhaps this sort of thing wouldn't happen.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 11:56:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Was the teacher a guy or a girl?

Guy: Deserves to go to jail
Girl: Id let it go
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:08:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 11:56:44 AM, imabench wrote:
Was the teacher a guy or a girl?

Guy: Deserves to go to jail
Girl: Id let it go

CLEARLY

And it was a woman. She honestly didn't look like I was expecting based on the situation...
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 3:29:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If the sex happened on school campus, then yeah, she probably deserves to lose her job.

If the sex happened in private property (her home), then I see no reason why anyone would give her scrutiny being that the students were of age and were not in her workplace. The jail time is uncalled for.
turn down for h'what
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 3:36:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 11:56:44 AM, imabench wrote:
Was the teacher a hot girl or ugly girl?

Ugly girl: Deserves to go to jail
Hot Girl: Id let it go

fixed
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 3:42:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 11:56:44 AM, imabench wrote:
Was the teacher a guy or a girl?

Guy: Deserves to go to jail
Girl: Id let it go

THEY WERE LEGAL CONSENTING ADULTS.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 3:45:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 3:43:49 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't know much about the story. Were they her students? If so, the power dynamic would make it unethical in my opinion.

It was unethical for her to use her position of authority in that way, yes. She should lose her job. But prison? That's way overboard. I bet none of the supporters of the prison-time could look her children in the eye and give their opinions to them...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 3:47:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 3:45:47 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 8/19/2012 3:43:49 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't know much about the story. Were they her students? If so, the power dynamic would make it unethical in my opinion.

It was unethical for her to use her position of authority in that way, yes. She should lose her job. But prison? That's way overboard. I bet none of the supporters of the prison-time could look her children in the eye and give their opinions to them...

If she abused her position in that manner, then what she did was tantamount to rape. I support prison time.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 3:48:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It really depends on your definition of liberty. I tend to favor the non-domination principle over the non-interference principle for consequentialist reasons.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 4:06:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I never got why people don't take it seriously when a woman abuses her power to have sex with young men. I mean, a man can feel just as powerless as a woman and sex isn't everything to a man. I personally think sex is disgusting if there isn't some kind of relationship behind it, but that's just me I guess.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 4:07:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 3:48:53 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
It really depends on your definition of liberty. I tend to favor the non-domination principle over the non-interference principle for consequentialist reasons.

Is any relationship based on non-dominance? Is there really a strict difference between dominance and non-dominance? Although the same can be said that there is no real difference between voluntary and non-voluntary actions, or at the very least that it exists as a gradient.

But I'm mainly against the state based on public choice theory and not based on any real philosophical reasons.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 4:30:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 4:07:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/19/2012 3:48:53 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
It really depends on your definition of liberty. I tend to favor the non-domination principle over the non-interference principle for consequentialist reasons.

Is any relationship based on non-dominance? Is there really a strict difference between dominance and non-dominance?
I'm not sure you understand the non-domination principle . . .

It's a bit difficult for me to explain. If you're interested, look up civic republicanism and Phillip Pettit.
Although the same can be said that there is no real difference between voluntary and non-voluntary actions, or at the very least that it exists as a gradient.

But I'm mainly against the state based on public choice theory and not based on any real philosophical reasons.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 4:33:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 4:30:36 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/19/2012 4:07:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/19/2012 3:48:53 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
It really depends on your definition of liberty. I tend to favor the non-domination principle over the non-interference principle for consequentialist reasons.

Is any relationship based on non-dominance? Is there really a strict difference between dominance and non-dominance?
I'm not sure you understand the non-domination principle . . .

It's a bit difficult for me to explain. If you're interested, look up civic republicanism and Phillip Pettit.
Although the same can be said that there is no real difference between voluntary and non-voluntary actions, or at the very least that it exists as a gradient.

But I'm mainly against the state based on public choice theory and not based on any real philosophical reasons.

Which works would you recommend?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 4:36:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 4:33:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/19/2012 4:30:36 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/19/2012 4:07:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/19/2012 3:48:53 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
It really depends on your definition of liberty. I tend to favor the non-domination principle over the non-interference principle for consequentialist reasons.

Is any relationship based on non-dominance? Is there really a strict difference between dominance and non-dominance?
I'm not sure you understand the non-domination principle . . .

It's a bit difficult for me to explain. If you're interested, look up civic republicanism and Phillip Pettit.
Although the same can be said that there is no real difference between voluntary and non-voluntary actions, or at the very least that it exists as a gradient.

But I'm mainly against the state based on public choice theory and not based on any real philosophical reasons.

Which works would you recommend?

A Theory of Freedom: From the Psychology to the Politics of Agency

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy also explains the basic parts of the theory in simple terms (I could use them, but that would be plagiarism, and I would feel stupid), in case you cannot obtain access to the book. I actually found the book online and downloaded it.