Does gender play into how teachers who molest students get punsihed? For example, take Debra Lafave, whose lawyer said she was ‘too pretty to go to jail’. I’ve been hearing some comments about her case and the way she has been treated. It made me ponder if she was male, and loutish, what kind of reaction the public would have to hearing the punishment was three years of house arrest.
Also, do you believe that female sex offenders have as difficult of a time estabilshing a residency as male sex offenders? Personally, I feel that many people wouldn’t feel as ‘threatened’ if they knew their neighbor sex offender was a woman. Not that it would totally absolve the ick/disdain of it, but rather just make the person seem less of a threat.
For whatever reason a lot of people don’t seem to think that a female teacher having sex with a male student is as harmful as a male student having sex with a female student. For whatever reason gender seems to play an important role in the acceptability of these relationships. I guess there’s still a kind of “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” attitude towards males have sex that isn’t present for females.
I’d rather have a female sex offender living near me then a male one. I know sex offender is a broad definition but I don’t know how many women have been convicted of forcible rape.
Since the label of “sex offender” is about the same as “communist” during the McCarthy era or “heretic” during the Inquisition, I’d say we as a society NEED TO use far more discretion in deciding who is a sex offender.
The victimization of the younger party must be established. I have a really hard time with the idea of a 25 year old being prosecuted for having consensual sex with a fully developed and sexually active teenager.
After some googling, I can’t find a verifiable mention of a named individual who has been forced to register as a sex offender after being caught urinating in public. However, I did find a case from 1973 in which a defendent was permitted to retract a guilty plea to public urination because he had not been advised that a guilty plea would require him to register as a sex offender.
Under W. Va. Code, § 15-12-2, any person who was convicted and the sentencing judge made a written finding that the offense was sexually motivated is also subject to sex offender registration. So, at least in West Virginia, if a judge determines at sentencing that any crime - ranging from public urination or even burglary (as in State v. Whalen, 214 W.Va. 299, 588 S.E.2d 677 (W.Va.,2003)) - had a sexual motive behind it, then onto the sex offender list you go.
If the “victim” is a 15 year old boy with a 26 year old female teacher, or the 17-year-old girlfriend of an 18-year-old, something tells me it’s not John Wayne Gacy we’re dealing with.
But what if the victim is horrified of the idea of being identified publicly and being put on the witness stand? I think too many people are minimizing this boy’s feelings based upon their own fantasies.
So it should be legal to maim the masochistic? It should be legal to murder the suicidal? That sends a great message to criminals: make sure your victim is hypothetically willing, because that means their dignity is worth less. Bad precedent to base punishment on the demographics of the victim.
Lafave’s sentence is a joke and an insult to both sexes. I’d feel less threatened by her than I would by a male sex offender neighbor, but then, I don’t have a son.
There are examples of ‘rape’ where the victom was drunk (and thus ‘unable to consent’) or where the victom was presured by an authority figure (and thus unable to consent); but does that really matter?
There IS a double standard for women verses men. This woman has been set free (from her SECOND offence) while under probation (the terms of which, it seems were to NOT do such a thing again).
It is not only illegal to have sex with anyone of that age (often over looked when both parties are minors, which is NOT the case here), it is WRONG for a teacher to have sex with a student. The fact that this was a ‘boy’ and there for ‘wanted it’ is well, sexist.
Sure there is a double standards. Always have been, always will be. Reading about other sexual subjects and standards, like the Male Roe v. Wade debacle, reveal that men and women will not be treated equally no matter how much we wish otherwise.
I have a very difficult time imagining Lafave as a dangerous sex offender; or, frankly, having engaged in criminal activity anymore egregious than jaywalking. While I suppose it is technically possible for a pretty woman of 25 to sexually victimize a teenage boy of 14, I think there needs to be a strong case for her to have done him a grievous harm. Maybe, just maybe, the boy was a victim of rape, but I doubt it.
If the boy was truly victimized, I believe, then it was probably the parents, the law, and the media that turned the situation into circus act for public viewing that victimized him.
Lafave, apparently, is “undergoing therapy for bipolar disorder” and is (now?) a Christian woman.
I find this really a funny thing to say. Who cares what her religious beliefs might be? But then I forget that “criminals” are seemingly obliged to show contrition through psychiatry and Christianity–and express lofty goals for her post-rehabilitation.
(2) The following persons shall be required to register pursuant
to paragraph (1):
(A) Any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been or is hereafter
convicted in any court in this state or in any federal or military
court of a violation of Section 207 or 209 committed with intent to
violate Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, Section 220, except
assault to commit mayhem, Section 243.4, paragraph (1), (2), (3),
(4), or (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 261, or paragraph (1) of
subdivision (a) of Section 262 involving the use of force or violence
for which the person is sentenced to the state prison, Section
264.1, 266, or 266c, subdivision (b) of Section 266h, subdivision (b)
of Section 266i, Section 266j, 267, 269, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.5,
or 289, Section 311.1, subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section
311.2, Section 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, 311.11, or 647.6, former Section
647a, subdivision (c) of Section 653f, subdivision 1 or 2 of Section
314, any offense involving lewd or lascivious conduct under Section
272, or any felony violation of Section 288.2; or any statutory
predecessor that includes all elements of one of the above-mentioned
offenses; or any person who since that date has been or is hereafter
convicted of the attempt to commit any of the above-mentioned
offenses.
What people are charged with for public urination:
Every person who willfully and lewdly, either: 1. Exposes
his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in
any place where there are present other persons to be offended or
annoyed thereby; or, 2. Procures, counsels, or assists any person
so to expose himself or take part in any model artist exhibition, or
to make any other exhibition of himself to public view, or the view
of any number of persons, such as is offensive to decency, or is
adapted to excite to vicious or lewd thoughts or acts,
is guilty of a misdemeanor.
At least people in California have been made to register for public urination.
Granted a good attorney could probably help avoid conviction under 314, but many people without attorneys plead to it and are forced to register. District attorneys over charge, and usually don’t give a shit if somebody is forced to register for stupid things like pissing outside. I recall a highschool kid who was convicted of a 314 violation for mooning people at a highschool football game and was forced to register as a sex offender for life. :eek:
That’s one possibility. On the other hand, what if he doesn’t want to testify against her because he doesn’t think she did anything wrong?
Yes!
If the “victim” is willing, he isn’t a victim at all. Why should someone be locked up for a consensual act?
Look at boxing, for instance. If you punch a stranger on the street, you’re a thug. If you punch someone in the boxing ring, you’re just an athlete. The key difference is that he climbed into the ring willingly to fight you.
Er, actually, the message it sends is “make sure you get permission before touching someone”, which sounds fine to me.