For every teacher who looks like that there are twenty that look like this. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0105061nunnelee1.html What if it were a male teacher too?
Kids who are 14 don't make the laws, for good reason. Yes, most boys would say yes to being hit on by an older women, as would most starry eyed girls would say yes to the advances an older good looking man, especially an authority figure. In both cases though, it is illegal, and known as statutory rape. It is an act of abuse of power and authority for an adult, especially a teacher, to have sex with a minor...even worse with their student, period.
Sputdr, I noticed you didn't really address my question: <b> Is anyone here going to stand up and say: "Back when I was 14, if a chick who looks like this: ...had offered to spread her legs for me, it would have been a horrible experience, traumatizing me for life." (Assume her pussy is properly groomed, and smells ok.) Anyone? Anyone who would refuse her offer?</b>
See? Told ya so... That's exactly what I'm saying. The divorce rate in this country is approximately 50%. A ton of those occur under extremely hostile circumstances. Thank goodness for the skilled police investigators that sniff out the liars. However, I have no doubt that a few still slip through the cracks. And just imagine; that's only considering the cases of bitter divorces. In my line of work, the cops bring the victims into the ER to collect the evidence kits. I have been a witness to this scenario numerous times: Teenage girl is pissed at father, step-father, uncle, boyfriend, etc. for whatever reason and accuses them of raping her. A kit is collected and the wet prep comes back negative for semen. The cops confront the teen with this fact and the story changes from being vaginally penetrated to being fondled. It's still molestation so the allegations continue or the cops get her to confess that she's lying. After considering what I've seen and heard from all these cases, it makes me wonder. How many cases of consensual sex, where there is actual evidence present, turns into accusations of rape after the would-be romancer becomes an object of scorn for the girl? You may have a higher sense of faith in people, but after the things I've witnessed, sorry; I don't. Some people, especially children, tend to behave compulsively and they know the boundaries of good faith and under certain circumstances they selfishly do what they want to get what they want. I assure you; it happens a hell of a lot more often then anyone with a good conscience would even come close to being comfortable with. Just like this one: NOTE: In cases of adults having sex with minors this doesn't apply, but even in cases where the victim of the alleged crime is an adult, a sex offense registration doesn't discern the difference in the minds of those that read it. No there doesn't. Child molestation is one of the very few felony charges that doesn't require physical evidence for a conviction. Hearsay witness testimony is also allowed; even if the witness is just a character witness and didn't actually witness the crime. Psychological "syndrome evidence" is also allowed, even though it's still all theory and contains more holes than Dunken Doughnuts. The accused has no right to face his/her accuser; video testimony is allowed with no chance for cross-examination. All this amounts to the accused having to prove his/her innocence and that guilt is presumed. Add rabid media coverage and the mob's outrage about the accusation and you've got one hard as hell job for the criminal defense attorney. If there are any lawyers reading this, please do step in. However, I confirmed all the above with this criminal defense attorney: http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/bin/white_papers-articles/stuckle/false_sex.htm Of course, but at what price? Fear? Fear of disciplining a vindictive teenager? Fear of pissing off a bitch of an ex-wife? Besides, stiffer punishments have nothing to do with a fair trial. Personally I think castration is a fair punishment. However, it doesn't mean that the accused isn't entitled to an unbiased due process. With the present system and the present state of public opinion, that's damn near impossible. The system is broken and the same "liberal" media that so many blast for bias are the ones feeding the frenzy. Why? Because (like I have said in so many threads before) they are in the business of selling the news and sex, violence, and outrage sells. The system is broken because every politician wants to get elected on a harsh on crime platform. It doesn't matter to them whether or not there is actual guilt or innocence involved. They cuddle up to child advocacy groups for the sake of image and they do whatever they can to make the jobs of those groups easier in the name of children. It doesn't matter to them how many innocent people get convicted. After all, doesn't most of America have the very same impression you have?: The system is broken because the prosecution profession is a political one. It doesn't matter to them who they convict; it's how many they convict. The system is broken because the writing of laws are left up to the lawyers. The fox is guarding the henhouse? Hell, the fox built the henhouse.
You are seriously out of touch with typical 14 year old boys. I can assure you that it's a pretty damn good chance that, among his peer group right now, he's the coolest dude they've ever met. His head has probably ballooned several times over with pride. After all, the only reason why he and her got caught was because he was bragging about it. And the bonus: he's got all kinds of adults telling him he's the victim and that he's done nothing wrong. "No worries kiddo; I think with my dick, too." See?: Rearden Metal may not have articulated it in the best way, but he got it right: It doesn't matter whether you think it's rape or not, public opinion about the gender role differences and sex appeal is far out of favor to make this an issue of outrage. No, the real trauma comes later. He's just learned that it's OK to "play" the victim as long as there are those that approve. Let's see how many times he can get away with that scenario in life before he gets burned.
just as an aside, the general background of much of what you say has merit, but there are just some egregious nonfactual errors. you need to do more research for example "Child molestation is one of the very few felony charges that doesn't require physical evidence for a conviction" most felony charges do not require PHYSICAL EVIDENCE for a conviction . there is no such entry in the model penal code, and I am aware of the criminal laws for 4 different states very extensively, and i am not aware of any law or rule of court proceeding that "requires physical evidence" for felony conviction. this is either just made up on the spot, or you have a bad source. it IS true that some TYPES of crimes are less likely to have physical evidence in the prosecution, and that some types of crimes physical evidence is expected. for example. in every drug possession prosecution i am aware of (i am sure there is an exception somewhere but...) there is physical evidence, to wit - the drugs themselves. most bank robbery cases have physical evidence etc, however, it's simply false that criminal cases (felony, misdemeanor) REQUIRE physical evidence, and that child molestation is the exception this is a matter of law. not opinion. there is no such criminal statute or rule of procedure that says what you claim one of the primary issues with child molestation (and domestic violence and rape) is that the alleged victim KNOWS (usually) the suspect and in the vast majority of cases could have animus/reason TO lie. there are two facts about rape, molestation and domestic violence that are well backed by statistics, polls, and common sense. rapes, molestations, and domestic violence are underrreported to the authorities. iow, a lower %age of these crimes are reported to police, when they occur, than other violent crimes such as robbery, non-domestic assault, etc. and "date rape" is less likely to be reported than "stranger rape" it is ALSO true that given those incidents where there is a report, that a greater %age of rape, molestation and DV assault cases are fraudulent (on the part of the victim) because there are so many ulterior motives to lie (animus towards the suspect), than in most other felonies. the vast majority of rape, domestic violence, and molestation reported to authorities are bona fide. but a HIGHER %age of these crimes reported are simply false reports vs. many other crimes. the really interesting case law right now is before the supreme court in the admissibility of 911 tapes and onscene victim testimony in cases where the victim refuses to testify. this is very interesting case law. in many states, these out of court statements are admissible even when the victim does not testify in court, due to a # of questionable hearsay exceptions that have largely been developed in rape and domestic violence law. many argue this is unconstitutional, because you can't present testimony from a victim/witness that refuses to testify (the def. has the right to confront an accuser in court and to cross examine)., watch this case closely.
No, I didn't make it up. I'm not an attorney, nor have I claimed to be. What I know is from reading and from what I've been told. However, I don't know any criminal attorneys; mostly cops. The link I provided is one example of a criminal defense attorney's opinion on the matter that I have read. You are basically saying he is full of crap? So what you are saying is actually more disturbing to me than what I've heard previously about felony convictions. The fact that physical evidence is not required is ridiculous to me. Am I out of line to say that it would appear that the defense has the burden to prove innocence rather than to simply establish a reasonable doubt in those type cases? In high profile cases like child molestation where the public demands a conviction, would the defense not be straddled with an uphill battle because physical evidence is not required AND have to deal with the sense of presumed guilt? So a person can be convicted of a felony with not much other than a possible motive, lack of an alibi, and favorable testimony for the prosecution? Don't get me wrong; I'm not being hostile. I am truly curious and perplexed in light of some of the things you've said.
One of them got killed in jail recently actually. The guy that did it said that he heard the priest talking and the priest said he was worth 300 children when asked about the 30 lives he had ruined. The convict said he just thought that it had fallen to him to off the guy so he did.
i'll address this point by point... "No, I didn't make it up. I'm not an attorney, nor have I claimed to be." i wouldn't insult you by calling you an attorney dood " What I know is from reading and from what I've been told. However, I don't know any criminal attorneys; mostly cops. The link I provided is one example of a criminal defense attorney's opinion on the matter that I have read. You are basically saying he is full of crap?" i didn't read the link. i responded to what u said. if u (or he says) that felony crimes require physical evidence, that is false what u said was direct, to the point, and incorrect - saying that physical evidence is required in felony cases except for child molestation. if u are saying that child molestation is an exception to this (nonexistent) requirement, than that is not even addressable, since the premise (that felonies require physical evidence) is false. "So what you are saying is actually more disturbing to me than what I've heard previously about felony convictions. The fact that physical evidence is not required is ridiculous to me. Am I out of line to say that it would appear that the defense has the burden to prove innocence rather than to simply establish a reasonable doubt in those type cases? " there is (i will say it again) NO REQUIREMENT for PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in any case (felony or otherwise) that i can think of off the bat. regardless, it is certainly not a requirement for MOST. that IS absurd. there are probably some exceptions (well, for example - proving drug possession requires physical evidence - the drugs. as a counterexample, proving conspiracy to purchase drugs does not require physical evidence (in the case of actual drugs), although there may be physical evidence such as audiotape of surreptitious recordings of the conspiracy agreement. it is entirely different to say that most crime (felony or misdemeanor. there is no 'stricter" standard for felonies in regards to evidence fwiw. that is another fallacy) may or may HAVE physical evidence in a trial. that may or may not be true. depends on the type of crime. and how loose you want to get with the definition of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. but i repeat - THERE IS NO 'PHYSICAL EVIDENCE RULE' THAT APPLIES TO FELONIES IN GENERAL, OR MISDEMEANORS FOR THAT MATTER. "n high profile cases like child molestation where the public demands a conviction, would the defense not be straddled with an uphill battle because physical evidence is not required AND have to deal with the sense of presumed guilt?" any case where there is great public demand, has that problem. sometimes it works FOR the defense (see: OJ) sometimes it works against them (see: McMartin Preschool (which was false allegations of child abuse) "So a person can be convicted of a felony with not much other than a possible motive, lack of an alibi, and favorable testimony for the prosecution?" there is only one way a person can be convicted of a felony (apart from pleading out) a jury must agree that there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. now, under the prosecutor code of ethics, a prosecutor cannot BRING a case to trial unless they believe it CAN be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. and it must pass the muster of various defense motions, including summary dismissal (with or without prejudice) prior to it ever being brought to trial but the "finder of fact" in a criminal trial, by default - is the jury. if the jury (all of them) believes the case has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then they vote to convict. that is how the system works. are innocents sometimes convicted? absolutely. are the guilty sometimes not convicted? yes. Don't get me wrong; I'm not being hostile. I am truly curious and perplexed in light of some of the things you've said.