Court OKs Sex Between Teachers, 18 yr. olds

[Croynan]

Court OKs sex between teachers, 18-year-olds

Washington judges: Law doesn't bar consensual sex with these students

The Associated Press

updated 6:04 a.m. PT, Wed., Jan. 14, 2009

SEATTLE - Washington state law does not bar teachers from having consensual sex with 18-year-old students, an appeals court ruled Tuesday in dismissing a case against a former high school choir teacher.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28654219/​

 

[Croynan]

i wonder what the court would have said if the student had been a male?

eM.

 

[Puzuzzu]

well...if they are 18....why not?

 

[Crackberry]

well...if they are 18....why not?

You don't think it's a conflict of interest?

 

[Puzuzzu]

You don't think it's a conflict of interest?

nah, not at all

 

[Croynan]

You don't think it's a conflict of interest?

what a superb posting. what does it say about the boundaries between the student and teacher relationship?

eM.

 

[Puzuzzu]

[/COLOR][/B]what a superb posting. what does it say about the boundaries between the student and teacher relationship?

eM.

The person is someone else in class, and another outside of it.

 

[NameTaken]

This is an example of how law, judges, reason, and logic, will produce anything "legal" and "just." Moronic ruling like this would never have happened in my father's generation.

I'm not defending or insulting this ruling (because I'm torn, on the one hand it's a huge conflict of interest, but on the other they are both of legal age), but gay sex probably wasn't legal everywhere in your father's generation... Just saying... :3

 

[Shepherd 2]

Yes it is wrong, and will always be wrong. The difference between an 18 year old student and a teacher is one of power. It is in appropriate behavior even if it is not illegal for any teacher to have sex with a student regardless of age.

Shep+

 

[Puzuzzu]

I'd have to call you a bold-faced liar if you say you don't think this will lead to preferential treatment.

"Well, Johnny's report on ecosystems was atrocious....but if I give him a failing grade he won't gimme that good dick anymore."

*stamps A- onto paper*

nah, because that's a completely different story in which the other students can complain to a higher authority that should take action towards this biased action.
If they are consenting on the other hand, it's not like they are having sex in class and you can't take their rights away.

 

[Puzuzzu]

And women couldn't vote in my grandfather's generation I know. But there has to be a ground of some common sense, forget ethics and morals, those are scary words to use these days. I don't know if it is really logical to say to adults in a schooling environment "hey you can't fuck your 17.5 year old student because that's against the law, but the tort says if she is 18 go ahead fuck her and then grade her math homework."

nah, not at all, it's called not living in a dictatorship

 

[Alpha1851]

This is an example of how law, judges, reason, and logic, will produce anything "legal" and "just." Moronic ruling like this would never have happened in my father's generation.

I beg to differ. We have a separation of powers in our govt. The judicial system is not responsible for creating laws. That's the legislatures job. And guess what, the WA statute only criminalizes sexual engagements btwn teachers and the students when the student is under the age of 18. And, this is pretty common. At 18 you can drop out of school, you can buy cigs, you can vote, you can join the Army and can be drafted, you can move out of your house, you can buy a firearm, you can get a tattoo--you're an adult in the eyes of the law. So, yes, at 18 you can legally nail your teacher. Sounds pretty logical to me. It's also just since you can't punish a person w/o them having due notice of the law. That would be like a Mom spanking her child for walking outside w/o shoes on, BEFORE she even told the child that it was against the rules.

The judiciary isn't in place to create or regulate our morals. Think about it. Some folks believe that porn is immoral. Yet, the judiciary has routinely upheld the right to porn (First Amnd) so long as the material passes the Miller test. Morals are subjective. The legislature creates the law, the judiciary applies and interprets it according to the facts of the case.

You don't think it's a conflict of interest?

Of course. And WA state's code of professional conduct for teachers prohibits "any sexual advance toward or contact with pupils, whatever their age. . ." That means the teacher can be fired and may even even loose their teaching license in that state. But that doesn't give rise to criminal charges. The age of consent in WA is 16.

 

[bluepheonix]

^ THANKYOU!

Lets not go around blaming the courts because they didnt punish someone for what wasn't the law people.

If you have a problem with an 18 year old having sex with a teacher, take it up with the legislature, not the judiciary.

i wonder what the court would have said if the student had been a male?

"Washington state law does not bar teachers from having consensual sex with 18-year-old students"

 

[Morticae]

I don't think this is "moronic", or anything like that. That's one view, but the situation is not absolute as it can be argued for or against.

I'd say it is an acceptable relationship, just as if you were in a relationship with your boss at work. In the end it is up to the individuals to separate their personal life with their work/academic life. If they fail to do so, their business or intelligence might suffer. Granted, there is usually a competitive atmosphere at work/schools but I like a good obstacle. Bring it on.

 

[Rex]

It's wrong but it would be so hot to fuck a teacher in highschool. I had a pretty hot 20 something female English teacher and as far as the gym teacher, he was pretty hot too.

 

[Alpha1851]

i wonder what the court would have said if the student had been a male?

Folks would be yelling "Atta boy!" "You stud!" And, "way to fuck the teach." He'd be the top stud of his city for a long, long time. The female teacher would write a book about it.

Seriously, people (jurors, the media, all of us) barely bat an eye when an underage male is screwing his teacher. Boys are horn dogs from the time they are born, girls are pure and chaste. The female teachers get away w/ the behaviors that crucify their male counterparts. It's amazing.

 

[MrWright]

^ THANKYOU!

Lets not go around blaming the courts because they didnt punish someone for what wasn't the law people.

If you have a problem with an 18 year old having sex with a teacher, take it up with the legislature, not the judiciary.



"Washington state law does not bar teachers from having consensual sex with 18-year-old students"

So right....so so so right.


You can't make rulings on higher moralities or senses of ethics because that undoes the power of the law. Laws have boundaries so the state can't take advantage of people anywhere outside of those boundaries. If you don't like the authority figure sleeping with the student, change the law - the ruling should just and only follow what the law dictates.

 

[Alpha1851]

Alpha, you're saying judicial activism doesn't exist in courts who find stuff legal and illegal through the texts? I wouldn't be surprised if a superior court to that will find the same case "illegal."

A superior crt in the same jurisdiction? Of course. And that's just what happened in this case. After the charges were filed, the teacher's atty filed for a dismissal b/c the girl wasn't a minor. The Superior Crt denied the dismissal, and the defense atty appealed to the WA Appl. Crt. Clearly there's a legal controversy or this case wouldn't have made it to the appeals crt level; the attys would've just tried the case on the sexual misconduct charges or plead out.

Does judicial activism exist? Everyone has a different opinion on when the judiciary is overstepping its bounds; yet, we're all pretty sure that it happens. And usually the persons opinion runs right along w/ whether the person believes the "court got it right."

Some say that the CA Supr. Crt. was "legislating from the bench" when it overturned the laws making same sex marriage illegal, thus we had a Prop. 8 vote. Other folks say that the CA Supr. Crt. was just applying the law. Of course, there's room for interpretation in our laws or we wouldn't have crt cases. And different judges subscribe to different approaches when it comes to statutory interpretation--textualism, purpovsivism, intetionalism. No doubt.

And the WA Appl. Crt. looked first to the statute which was vague and then applied intentionalism (what was the intent behind WA legislatures when they created the statute. What did they intend for it to do.) Well, the statute is called, "Sexual misconduct w/ a minor..." and has language which suggests it's only a crim. activity for a teacher to screw around w/ a minor. Charges dismissed--at least at this level.

Don't forget that criminal law is very different than civil law. Someone's freedom is at stake. Are we going to lock a man up for a crime that's not in the statutes? We can't. He has a right to notice. Sure, the legislature can change the statute, but we aren't going to apply the law retroactively and throw this guy in jail. Could the WA Supr. Crt. decide differently? Of course. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Also, the sexual misconduct charges have been dismissed, but that doesn't mean it's over for the teacher. He could be charged w/ other crimes (he hasn't been tried or plead yet,) and the student can sue for money damages in civil court if she has a cause of action and chooses to do so.

That's what makes the law so interesting!

 

[ronboy]

Court OKs sex between teachers, 18-year-olds

Washington judges: Law doesn't bar consensual sex with these students

The Associated Press

updated 6:04 a.m. PT, Wed., Jan. 14, 2009

SEATTLE - Washington state law does not bar teachers from having consensual sex with 18-year-old students, an appeals court ruled Tuesday in dismissing a case against a former high school choir teacher.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28654219/​

I have to agree that an 18-year-old is legally a consenting adult in most states, and sexual relations between consenting adults is legal.

But as an educator of many years standing, I still feel that there is an unwritten wall of restrained professionalism that must exist in a student and teacher relationship. To me, it would not be ethical for a teacher to be fairly grading the work of someone that they are fornicating with. I don't see a problem in a sexual relationship if the student is not enrolled in that teacher's classes, (that goes back to two consenting adults), but my own sense of professionalism is that a currently enrolled student should not be sleeping with their instructor, regardless of the whether or not it is legal.

If educators want to be taken more seriously and professionally, they have to conduct themselves in such a manner.

Okay...I'm done.

 

[Alpha1851]

I'd have to call you a bold-faced liar if you say you don't think this will lead to preferential treatment.

"Well, Johnny's report on ecosystems was atrocious....but if I give him a failing grade he won't gimme that good dick anymore."

*stamps A- onto paper*

Eh, the same thing happens for good football players, for cheerleaders, for rich kids, for kids from influential families, you name it. They get an A b/c of who they are or b/c of what they can do for the school, Johnny get's an A b/c he's a good lay. Hopefully there's a kid out there who's actually studying.