1902: Arbitrary

[myq]

Originally Posted by DaveNJ

The issue here is that you're taking two very different kinds of institutions, but it's not an apples to apples comparison.

Colleges are institutions, yes, but they're institutions that are attended by adults for a fee. As such, students there are customers. There is no such thing as compulsory college.

This might be adding pineapples or plums into the mix, but the therapist/patient relationship is a customer-type one as well, is it not? Most people definitely choose to see a therapist non-compulsorily, but therapists still CAN go to prison for abusing their power.

So the fact that college is a voluntary, adult institution wouldn't necessarily exempt it from the same logic, and my point that this issue is inconsistently applied or enforced, would it not?

Of course there are situations where someone with power abuses it and exploits someone else, whether they're an adult or not, younger or not, if there is a power dynamic. Some lose licenses, some go to jail, and I know the legal system isn't perfect and obviously the punishment doesn't always fit the crime, but here's what I think about an ideal world (an ideal world where sometimes abuse happens)...

I agree that just because someone thinks they're consenting doesn't mean they necessarily are. If a 13-year-old has sex with an adult, that's assault, abuse, statutory rape at least, even if the 13-year-old says they wanted it. A 13-year-old doesn't have the capacity to completely reasonably assess the situation, but years later, as an adult, most reasonable people who had sex in that situation at 13 would most likely recognize it as abusive in hindsight.

In this situation, I honestly think that this 18-year-old (legally an adult) might go the rest of his life consistently believing that he was not assaulted. And I think that means something. (Of course, I don't know the future. But in a situation where and 80-year-old looks back at having had sex with a teacher at age 18 and still doesn't think he was abused, and has lived the rest of his life happily, I think he is correct.)

I've been reading about institutional sexual assault and learning, because it wasn't a thing I had specifically heard of, and I understand why it's important, but I really think that the age of consent throws at least a bit of a wrench into the universal application here.

Moreover, it's a crime against the social good. In order to have schools, we have to entrust teachers with broad license over the lives of students. Breach of that license in such a manner hurts our ability to safely educate children, a key social good.

I don't disagree with that.
But there are laws against having sexual contact with children. I feel like that's generally enough.
And it's only the fact that this student was legally adult-aged that makes this case more interesting.

Obviously she should never teach again or be afforded a position that affords her institutional power over another.

That outcome alone, though, ignores the multiple reasons for punishment. Sending her to jail also serves as a deterrent to other prospective abusers of institutional power. The threat of jail is a real deterrent, and for it to have effect, it needs to be applied.

This seems completely like an opinion. Do you have any numbers on deterrence? Here are some, about the death penalty: "A recent study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado found that 88% of the nation’s leading criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime."

Most experts believe that the threat of DEATH is not a deterrent. So why would the threat of jail time be any better?

In addition, sending her to jail provides the opportunity to rehabilitate her in a way that simple counseling may not.

I honestly think you make a lot of great points, but that this is not one of them. JAIL has better counseling than places that aren't jail? And what do you mean by "simple counseling"? What's happening in jail that's more thorough as counseling than counseling outside of jail? And if "simple counseling" isn't the answer, then how about "more complex counseling" outside of jail?

If this woman was running a senior center for folks with dementia and having sex with her charges, the consensus would be jail.

Sure, because the charges don't have the mental capacity to consent.
I would still argue that an 18-year-old adult, even one still in school, just might have the capacity to consent.

If it's a crime, it's at least a very different crime than it would be to have sex with a 13-year-old student.

We might be going around in circles at this point. Or we can keep going!
I fully acknowledge that there are times when adults do NOT have the capacity to give consent, but I just think we should be careful as a society not to apply blanket assessments to certain types of situations declaring certain adults incapable of consent, when on an individual basis that might not be the case.

Originally Posted by Scumhook

A fitting punishment for the teacher in question would be to make her read these fucking walls of text.

Agreed!
No one here will ever abuse a child. Or an adult!

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by beckydewbabe

One word: Smegma

another: shower.

have you met a vagina? have you see the stuff it leaves in your panties on a regular healthy day? it is a maze of skin folds that are constantly moist and kicking out a continually texture-shifting discharge. vaginas ain't no prize.

[Enunciated Piffle]

Both are fierce competitors and great at writing out their arguments.

Ultimately, the question comes down to the following:

1) Will KATG fans be able to read said posts?

2) How many will go blind attempting to read these posts?

3) Dave seems to be quite stoic, but strong enough to argue against The Mighty Meat Robot known as Myq Kaplan??

4) ...will this 'Hot for Teacher' debate be made into a children's animated TV special?

5) Will Van Halen make a cameo?

6) Why aren't politicians this dedicated when it comes to debate?

and finally...

7) Who's hungry?

[myq]

Originally Posted by Enunciated Piffle

Both are fierce competitors and great at writing out their arguments.

Dave seems to be quite stoic, but strong enough to argue against The Mighty Meat Robot known as Myq Kaplan??

Who's hungry?

Just ate!

And thanks for the kind words. I think the discussion is worthwhile and enjoyable. I hope Dave does too.

[BrianAlt]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

have you met a vagina? have you see the stuff it leaves in your panties on a regular healthy day? it is a maze of skin folds that are constantly moist and kicking out a continually texture-shifting discharge. vaginas ain't no prize.

Sounds good to me.

[DaveNJ]

Originally Posted by myq

This might be adding pineapples or plums into the mix, but the therapist/patient relationship is a customer-type one as well, is it not? Most people definitely choose to see a therapist non-compulsorily, but therapists still CAN go to prison for abusing their power.

So the fact that college is a voluntary, adult institution wouldn't necessarily exempt it from the same logic, and my point that this issue is inconsistently applied or enforced, would it not?

Of course there are situations where someone with power abuses it and exploits someone else, whether they're an adult or not, younger or not, if there is a power dynamic. Some lose licenses, some go to jail, and I know the legal system isn't perfect and obviously the punishment doesn't always fit the crime, but here's what I think about an ideal world (an ideal world where sometimes abuse happens)...

I agree that just because someone thinks they're consenting doesn't mean they necessarily are. If a 13-year-old has sex with an adult, that's assault, abuse, statutory rape at least, even if the 13-year-old says they wanted it. A 13-year-old doesn't have the capacity to completely reasonably assess the situation, but years later, as an adult, most reasonable people who had sex in that situation at 13 would most likely recognize it as abusive in hindsight.

In this situation, I honestly think that this 18-year-old (legally an adult) might go the rest of his life consistently believing that he was not assaulted. And I think that means something. (Of course, I don't know the future. But in a situation where and 80-year-old looks back at having had sex with a teacher at age 18 and still doesn't think he was abused, and has lived the rest of his life happily, I think he is correct.)

I've been reading about institutional sexual assault and learning, because it wasn't a thing I had specifically heard of, and I understand why it's important, but I really think that the age of consent throws at least a bit of a wrench into the universal application here.


I don't disagree with that.
But there are laws against having sexual contact with children. I feel like that's generally enough.
And it's only the fact that this student was legally adult-aged that makes this case more interesting.


This seems completely like an opinion. Do you have any numbers on deterrence? Here are some, about the death penalty: "A recent study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado found that 88% of the nation’s leading criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime."

Most experts believe that the threat of DEATH is not a deterrent. So why would the threat of jail time be any better?


I honestly think you make a lot of great points, but that this is not one of them. JAIL has better counseling than places that aren't jail? And what do you mean by "simple counseling"? What's happening in jail that's more thorough as counseling than counseling outside of jail? And if "simple counseling" isn't the answer, then how about "more complex counseling" outside of jail?


Sure, because the charges don't have the mental capacity to consent.
I would still argue that an 18-year-old adult, even one still in school, just might have the capacity to consent.

If it's a crime, it's at least a very different crime than it would be to have sex with a 13-year-old student.

We might be going around in circles at this point. Or we can keep going!
I fully acknowledge that there are times when adults do NOT have the capacity to give consent, but I just think we should be careful as a society not to apply blanket assessments to certain types of situations declaring certain adults incapable of consent, when on an individual basis that might not be the case.

As far as I can tell, the rules regarding psychiatrists/therapists differ a little bit regarding institutional sexual assault, but they are more stringent for psychiatrists precisely due to the licensing implications and implicit control they can have over their patients' lives. For more detail on the law, please see below:

Megan's Law Public

Institutional Sexual Assault (18 Pa. C.S. § 3124.2) subsection a.2 pertains to schools, and as you'll notice, it makes no mention of minor status.

The fact that colleges are voluntarily attended and not subject to the same level of public trust certainly justifies different standards for conduct, both on a legal and an ethical level. The boundaries there are different, and ought to be governed by different rules. Again, this isn't to say that people can't take advantage of power dynamics in different areas, just that the extent to which they do so is different on a moral and legal level.

As far as your 13-year old and 18-year old hypotheticals, I don't think that you've treated the approach fairly. It's absolutely possible for an 18-year old student to reflect, later in life, that a teacher took advantage of them, even if they were of legal age. Is it possible for them to be fine with the institutional sexual assault and not see it as a violation? Yes, but the same is true of other types of sexual misconduct that we still make illegal. It's possible for victims of statutory rape to not see themselves as victims as well, but the crimes aren't just against the victims. That's why the state prosecutes criminal cases: such acts are crimes against society. The perception of the victim involved is more relevant in civil law, not criminal law.

The thing about the age of consent is that if you read the law I linked to, it has zero application. Institutional sexual assault is about the abuse of one's charge in an institutional setting, mostly those mandated or licensed by the government.

As for the laws being generally enough?

Hamburg High teacher's aide charged with institutional sexual assault | NEWS

This kind of crime happens. Not necessarily frequently, but it happens. Often enough that we need to punish the criminals involved in order to protect critical social institutions as well as potential victims.

As far as the deterrent impact of jails, your death penalty example makes no sense. The point I was making regarded jail as a deterrent. It's true that the death penalty may not serve as a more effective deterrent than the alternative types of punishment for capital crimes, but those alternative types of punishment all involve going to jail. In no way does the study you linked to indicate that the threat of jail has no deterrent effect on potential criminals. It absolutely does.

Moreover, the threat of jail draws bright lines regarding acceptable and unacceptable conduct. This type of conduct (institutional sexual assault) is completely unacceptable, and jail time for such behavior and the stigma of a criminal record is the best way to make that known.

As far as mandatory counseling is concerned, the absence of criminal conviction severely limits the state's ability to force this woman to attend counseling sessions. In lieu of criminal conviction, counseling for this woman isn't mandatory, it's a suggestion. And yes, jails have counseling resources for their criminal populations. Regardless of their level of efficacy, they're far superior to the suggestion that this woman seek help for her issues with no guarantee of her follow-through.

The mental capacity to consent to sex is only one part of the consent equation. Consent is more than just being old enough. It also entails being in an appropriate state of mind (i.e. not rendered incapacitated) as well as an absence of coercion. Coercion can be physical or mental, and it can derive not merely from action with intent but also from an inherently unequal situation, such as a prisoner and a corrections officer or, as is the case here, a teacher and a high school student. Merely having that coercive power over another individual makes that individual incapable, on a social and legal level, of giving consent. The result is a crime and an abuse.

The thing is, this isn't a blanket assessment. Institutional sexual assault laws are crafted to carefully apply to specific coercive areas that predators could otherwise take advantage of (and did, and continue to do, as in this case).

I have no problem with explaining my thoughts, experiences, etc. in this regard. I don't think we're going around in circles at all, and it's an area I (oddly) have some expertise in.

[Scumhook]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

have you met a vagina?

I've met plenty of cunts. Does that count?

[myq]

Originally Posted by DaveNJ;798236[url=http://www.pameganslaw.state.pa.us/CrimeCode.aspx

Megan's Law Public[/url]

Institutional Sexual Assault (18 Pa. C.S. § 3124.2) subsection a.2 pertains to schools, and as you'll notice, it makes no mention of minor status.

I do see that.
Question: is this only a law in Pennsylvania? I've googled it fairly extensively and haven't seen any other states pop up with anything?

As far as your 13-year old and 18-year old hypotheticals, I don't think that you've treated the approach fairly. It's absolutely possible for an 18-year old student to reflect, later in life, that a teacher took advantage of them, even if they were of legal age. Is it possible for them to be fine with the institutional sexual assault and not see it as a violation? Yes, but the same is true of other types of sexual misconduct that we still make illegal. It's possible for victims of statutory rape to not see themselves as victims as well, but the crimes aren't just against the victims.

Of course, it is true that an 18-year-old could later decide there was indeed a violation. But what I'm saying is that, in the case where they never do, then there never was a violation.

In other situations like statutory rape, I believe that some of those laws are too absolutist and harmful sometimes when universally applied. For example, I recently read about two teenagers (one 13 or 14, one 15 or 16) who had what they believed was consensual sex, but the girl's parents pressed charges and now 20 years later the man has sex-offender status attached to his name and record forever and can't get hired to do almost anything (not looking for jobs working with kids, anything). And that seems harsh for when two teenagers had consensual sex (if we accept the word of the participants, which I do, but even if the case I read about wasn't like that, there certainly are many that are). It seems that in some situations, some individual consideration is warranted, but isn't allowed for under the law. And I think that's not ideal. I think rules are important, but not allowing analysis of individual situations additionally is harmful to the greater good.

Certainly you would agree that there are some times when statutory rape charges are unfairly leveled? Or would you not?

As far as the deterrent impact of jails, your death penalty example makes no sense. The point I was making regarded jail as a deterrent. It's true that the death penalty may not serve as a more effective deterrent than the alternative types of punishment for capital crimes, but those alternative types of punishment all involve going to jail. In no way does the study you linked to indicate that the threat of jail has no deterrent effect on potential criminals. It absolutely does.

Do you have any data on that?
Here is an article suggesting the opposite.
The deterrent effect of prison is by no means proven, as far as I've seen. (I haven't taken a class on it in a while, but I've researched some, and there's definitely evidence in both directions, so I'm willing to be shown something definitive, but for now I believe your use of "absolutely" is premature, at least.)

I was bringing up the fact that DEATH doesn't deter people from committing crimes, so why would prison, which most people see as not as harsh as death? That's why I think what I said makes sense still.

The supposed reasons for putting people in jail are generally these:
1) rehabilitation
2) deterrence
3) punishment

(Also maybe "keeping the criminal from re-offending," which might fall under deterrence, at least on a very individual basis.)

My favorite is rehabilitation.
Deterrence sounds good, but honestly from what I've seen, it's not super proven, especially not with the most dangerous and violent offenders.
Punishment I understand, but I don't think makes for the best solution long-term.
Rehabilitation is where it's at.

Which is why I think certain "crimes" should be "punished" with that instead. We don't want the crimes to happen again, so in the case of the teacher having sex with an adult student, permanently barring the teacher from ever teaching again would do that, plus getting the offender treatment somewhere.

As far as mandatory counseling is concerned, the absence of criminal conviction severely limits the state's ability to force this woman to attend counseling sessions.

Then let's change THAT in the system. If the system is flawed, let's fix it, not just work within it and have people slipping through the cracks in either direction if it can be avoided.

Coercion can be physical or mental, and it can derive not merely from action with intent but also from an inherently unequal situation, such as a prisoner and a corrections officer or, as is the case here, a teacher and a high school student. Merely having that coercive power over another individual makes that individual incapable, on a social and legal level, of giving consent. The result is a crime and an abuse.

I understand what you're saying here, and I agree in general, but I don't think that in reality, just because someone is a teacher at a school means that they automatically and universally and necessarily have coercive power over every student, especially if it's not one of their students. (I do understand that an argument can be made in the other direction here, so I'm willing to hear more or agree to disagree on this point.)

Institutional sexual assault laws are crafted to carefully apply to specific coercive areas that predators could otherwise take advantage of (and did, and continue to do, as in this case).

Once again, are these laws everywhere? Not meaning to be glib, and not claiming I did the thoroughest of searching, but are the laws called something different places other than Pennsylvania?

I have no problem with explaining my thoughts, experiences, etc. in this regard. I don't think we're going around in circles at all, and it's an area I (oddly) have some expertise in.

Appreciated, thanks! Can I ask how you came by this expertise? Sincere curiosity.

Originally Posted by Scumhook

I've met plenty of cunts. Does that count?

Sure! It puts the "cunt" in "count."

[Enunciated Piffle]

I don't know what this has to do with anything, but (according to twitter) Myq is on Letterman tonight.

Very cool. Congrats.

[myq]

Originally Posted by Enunciated Piffle

I don't know what this has to do with anything, but (according to twitter) Myq is on Letterman tonight.

Very cool. Congrats.

it's true! thanks for knowing and sharing and caring!