As stated, the teacher is unquestionably culpable. The degree is the question, which the judge ruled on. Why anyone reading the article would assume that a judge on the bench would be soft on actual rape is baffling.
Consider that during the trial she did in fact commit suicide. That fact is clearly in the article. At fourteen she may have thought he was cute. What 14 year old doesn't form a crush on a teacher at one point or another? This does not mean that they want to have sex, is doesn't mean they should have sex. It only means they are at a vulnerable developmental stage in life (too much data on that to repeat it here). That is the whole point of statutory rape. It concedes that the victim in question may have appeared willing at first, and may continue to appear willing. The point is that the victim is in no state to be able to effectively choose. That culprit was a teacher makes it more grievous as he is in a position of authority over the student, making it even harder for the student to say no. Kids are taught to be respect and obey the teachers. There is a level of trust implied with the position.
What could it possibly gain the judge? Is he presumed to be a sudden moron, a woman hater, or just plain evil?
He sure comes across as a moron in defending his position, no presumption necessary. Whether it is sudden or not remains to be seen. As for being a woman hater..... It is quite possible, why do you suggest it? Do you know something more about this judge? As for being just plain evil? I don't know..... He seems to fit better into the moron field.
What is? That morons can be placed in positions of authority and power? Look at some of the US presidents that have been in office..... 'nuff said. Or do you feel it is unfathomable that a male judge can be sexist? That is just moronic. Maybe you think one appointed to the bench could in no way be evil..... An evil little man once ruled all of Germany and committed many attrocities, no reason a lesser position of power couldn't draw the attention of a lesser evil.
Again, what is the source of this "fact"? It is certainly possible, but it is also possible that she committed suicide from some other affair from a teen pregnancy, from mental instability, from her "troubled" past as the article referred to it, including the possibility that she felt some sort of guilt if she encouraged the affair.
Interesting that the ONLY source we have to suggest she had any form of "troubled past" is the judge himself....... And HE didn't even give any indication of what that so-called troubled past was. Was it trouble caused from her acting out after the rape? Was it caused by a previous rape she endured at the hands of another (or continued abuse by the teacher) ? Or, as there was no mention of a father figure, was her "troubled past" issues stemming from possible death of her father? Any of these situations could very easily made her "act much older than her age".
I readily admit that your scenario is not only possible, but perhaps likely, but if known in that community, the judge's sentence makes even less sense.
Now you get the point. The only way this makes any sense is if he is lenient toward pedophiles/child molesters. Or if he buys into the "she was asking for it, even as her lips said no she was still saying yes" mentality. You can try and defend the man all you want and say there must be some other reason, but there is nothing. At least nothing that fits with the facts as presented. Even if the girl's "troubled past" was promiscuity..... that would only suggest prior abuse making her more susceptible to his control at her age.
If you are writing a novel, perhaps they might be there, but this is reality, and you don't get the convenience of third-person omniscience. There are things the Court knows that you and I and the internet do not know.
Unfortunately, deductive reasoning is not adequate to explain human behavior. Humans do things for reasons that are hidden from the passerby, and sometimes, even hidden from their closest family or friends. To presume you know what you
suppose, is the greatest folly and should be kept far away from judicial decisions.
Further, you suggest that she was coerced or abused. That is not at all necessary in statutory rape cases. You are using "rape" in a limited meaning, one that applies to the normal rape cases we encounter between adults. Remember that statutory rape can be upheld in cases where a girl (or guy) might lie about his age and even elope and be enthusiastically pursuing the partnering. Rape is still a valid charge in court if the state in which it occurs deems the age of the younger partner to be under the age of consent. This could and does happen in cases in which the elder partner may be 21 and the younger only a few years below.
None of this is to suggest that the teacher
didn't groom, coerce, or manipulate the girl. But, if you follow that reasoning, you must then explain the highly illogical conclusion that the same evidence was put before the judge and he capriciously and maliciously swept it away, with a grieving mother of the deceased before him, and effectively let a rapist walk. Why would he? That is much more illogical than any cautious handling of the statutory rape scenarios I have proffered.[/QUOTE]
