TX - Teacher Faces 20 Years For Having Sex With An 18 Year Old Student

[Wudge]

Does anyone know if she was required to sign the Professional Standards page attached to most teachers' contracts? Perhaps this state doesn't have a moral turpitude clause in the contract itself?
In most states, her behavior would result in an immediate Professional Standards Commission meeting and her teaching credentials would be revoked nation-wide. I haven't seen any reference to that. It may be that they are waiting to see how the criminal charges shake out, but that shouldn't be an issue.

If this 25 year old teacher had sex with a student who was a 29 year old male, would those standards apply?

 

[BillyGoatGruff]

Certainly noteworthy, but, obviously, a "student" is not a "prisoner". This student and this teacher are both of legal age and members of our free society, free to make choices, free to consent to sex.

Moreover, under the law, this 25 year old teacher would be in the same situation if she had sex with a student who was a 35 year old man -- lawyer, doctor, scientist, principal, whatever.

If you can't understand the concept of "abuse of authority" inherent in these custodian laws, there's no talking to you.

 

[christine2448]

I agree with you, Eoanthropus.

This one, because the 'victim' is of legal age in the state to consent to sex, seems more of a school disciplinary problem than worthy of prosecution in the court system.

I realize it is not a statuatory rape case and is being tried under a different law that does not differentiate whether the victim is 5 or 18. Surely there should be age levels under this law just like there are under the statuatory rape laws.

I agree with this too...this is just ridiculous, waste of time and $$. The school should be dealing with this not the courts. If she broke the rules, fire her....what law are they saying has been broken here, one which would result in the possibility of this woman being sentenced to 20 yrs?


Also....Wudge :blowkiss: I'm not so law smart in the beginning of the thread you talk about juries and judges and nullify....can you explain that to me? It seems interesting, but I'm not getting it

 

[christine2448]

Sorry, I just skimmed the article, shouldn't be so lazy!

But some lawmakers say the Hebron High School student's status as a legal adult should exempt McElhenney from the felony charge.

State Rep. Helen Giddings, D-Dallas, wrote the Texas law in 2003 that criminalizes sex between educators and students. But she said she wanted the law to apply only to students 17 and younger — uncomfortable with making sex between two legal, consenting adults a felony.

"I feel differently about 17-year-olds than I do about 18-year-olds," Giddings said. "I don't necessarily believe the penalty for the two should necessarily be the same."

Soooo, there is no age written in the law....it's student/teacher of any age?

 

[Wudge]

If you can't understand the concept of "abuse of authority" inherent in these custodian laws, there's no talking to you.

You definitely come across as wanting want this all inclusive law enforced, period.

I do not believe all laws are good laws, and I believe that juries should nullify stupid laws and cases.

As it is written, I believe this blanket law represents a truly moronic law, which I consider it to be highly abusive to personal choice that consenting adults are free to exercise.

Frankly, I would love to see this stupid case taken to trial and hear the Judge tell the jury they do not have the right to nullify a law. Then watch as the jury spits in the Judge's eye by finding this teacher to be innocent, thus, nullifying the law.

Are you seriously of the mind that if she had sex with a student in her class who was a 35 five year old scientist, that would represent "abuse of authority"?

 

[Wudge]

Sorry, I just skimmed the article, shouldn't be so lazy!

But some lawmakers say the Hebron High School student's status as a legal adult should exempt McElhenney from the felony charge.

State Rep. Helen Giddings, D-Dallas, wrote the Texas law in 2003 that criminalizes sex between educators and students. But she said she wanted the law to apply only to students 17 and younger — uncomfortable with making sex between two legal, consenting adults a felony.

"I feel differently about 17-year-olds than I do about 18-year-olds," Giddings said. "I don't necessarily believe the penalty for the two should necessarily be the same."

Soooo, there is no age written in the law....it's student/teacher of any age?

Correct, the law covers students of all ages.

 

[jttnewguy]

I think you miss the point, an 18 year old male is not a "kid". He is of legal age and free to consent to sex. But because of this law in Texas, his consent resulted in a criminal act by the 25 year old female teacher.

Wudge, with all due respect, it's you who's missed the point. The age is totally irrelevant. The point is that the teacher has unilateral power over the student, and that power is conferred upon her by, and backed by, the authority of the state under penalty of imprisonment. The student is not in a position to do what he pleases in the classroom no matter how old he is. Even if the student were 50 and the teacher were 19, the student would still be subject to laws regarding behavior in the classroom that are enforced by the teacher and backed by the school district police; his grades are still under the unilateral control of the teacher with no right to appeal those grades; and whether he graduates or not (and therefore gets to go to college or get any job that requires a degree) is under the control of the teacher. Students' grades and diplomas should be based on how well all of the students do on tests -- not on which of the students agreed to have sex with the teacher and which did not.

It is the same reason why prison guards cannot have sex with prisoners; judges cannot have sex with defendants who appear before them; state child welfare officers cannot have sex with the mothers of the children they supervise; parole officers cannot have sex with parolees they supervise. It's not the age that matters; no matter how old any of these people are, the fact is that in all of these scenarios, one party has enormous power over the other, and the other party is not free to simply walk away and avoid that person in the future because the government forces him or her to continue to interact with that person under penalty of imprisonment.

The point is that decisions about grades, or prison time, or freedom, or whether your child is taken away from you, or whether you get a diploma, or whether you're convicted of a crime, or whether you pass your driving test, or whether you get audited by the IRS, or whether you can get a marriage license -- or any other benefit or punishment that government can confer or deny on you -- should be made on the merits of the decision, not on whether someone consented or refused to have sex with you.

 

[Wudge]

I agree with this too...this is just ridiculous, waste of time and $$. The school should be dealing with this not the courts. If she broke the rules, fire her....what law are they saying has been broken here, one which would result in the possibility of this woman being sentenced to 20 yrs?


Also....Wudge :blowkiss: I'm not so law smart in the beginning of the thread you talk about juries and judges and nullify....can you explain that to me? It seems interesting, but I'm not getting it

Juries are supposed to be "triers of fact" against the charges/law. Judges will tell them they are to apply those facts/evidence to the law that the case was brought under. Judges will remind the jurors that they took an oath to do just that, and that they do not have the "right" to nullify the law.

However, if a jury deliberates and decides that though the law was broken, it is a dumb law, and they do not want to be tools of enforcing an outright stupid/abusive law or a law to which the facts/evidence/circumstances should not apply, they can render a verdict of innocent.

Once the verdict of "innocent" is rendered -- thereby, nullifying the law -- there is nothing a Judge can do but steam. Hence, though Judges tell juries they do not have the "right" to nullify the law, the reality is that juries do have that "power".

But trial Judges will never tell juries they have that "power", and Judges hate it when someone on the jury knows what the truth is and the jury renders a verdict that clearly nullifies the law.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, with all due respect, it's you who's missed the point. The age is totally irrelevant. The point is that the teacher has unilateral power over the student, and that power is conferred upon her by, and backed by, the authority of the state under penalty of imprisonment. The student is not in a position to do what he pleases in the classroom no matter how old he is. Even if the student were 50 and the teacher were 19, the student would still be subject to laws regarding behavior in the classroom that are enforced by the teacher and backed by the school district police; his grades are still under the unilateral control of the teacher with no right to appeal those grades; and whether he graduates or not (and therefore gets to go to college or get any job that requires a degree) is under the control of the teacher. Students' grades and diplomas should be based on how well all of the students do on tests -- not on which of the students agreed to have sex with the teacher and which did not.

It is the same reason why prison guards cannot have sex with prisoners; judges cannot have sex with defendants who appear before them; state child welfare officers cannot have sex with the mothers of the children they supervise; parole officers cannot have sex with parolees they supervise. It's not the age that matters; no matter how old any of these people are, the fact is that in all of these scenarios, one party has enormous power over the other, and the other party is not free to simply walk away and avoid that person in the future because the government forces him or her to continue to interact with that person under penalty of imprisonment.

The point is that decisions about grades, or prison time, or freedom, or whether your child is taken away from you, or whether you get a diploma, or whether you're convicted of a crime, or whether you pass your driving test, or whether you get audited by the IRS, or whether you can get a marriage license -- or any other benefit or punishment that government can confer or deny on you -- should be made on the merits of the decision, not on whether someone consented or refused to have sex with you.

If the student was a 35 year old scientist, would you enforce this law?

 

[jttnewguy]

If the student was a 35 year old scientist, would you enforce this law?

Well, by definition, a "scientist" wouldn't still be in high school. But my point is, isn't it still just as unfair to all of the other students in the class (who might desperately need good grades for college) for one student to get preferential treatment because he's willing to sleep with the teacher, regardless of how old he is? Do we really want teachers, whose salaries and classrooms are paid by our tax dollars, to use the classrooms to cruise for sex?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Juries are supposed to be "triers of fact" against the charges/law. Judges will tell them they are to apply those facts/evidence to the law that the case was brought under. Judges will remind the jurors that they took an oath to do just that, and that they do not have the "right" to nullify the law.

However, if a jury deliberates and decides that though the law was broken, it is a dumb law, and they do not want to be tools of enforcing an outright stupid/abusive law or a law to which the facts/evidence/circumstances should not apply, they can render a verdict of innocent.

Once the verdict of "innocent" is rendered -- thereby, nullifying the law -- there is nothing a Judge can do but steam. Hence, though Judges tell juries they do not have the "right" to nullify the law, the reality is that juries do have that "power".

But trial Judges will never tell juries they have that "power", and Judges hate it when someone on the jury knows what the truth is and the jury renders a verdict that clearly nullifies the law.

Wudge, its never okay for jurors to say a defendant is innocent of something because they think the law broken was "dumb."

 

[jttnewguy]

Wudge, its never okay for jurors to say a defendant is innocent of something because they think the law broken was "dumb."

You're both "right" on this. The difference is what you mean when you say it's "okay." Wudge is correct in that, technically, the law says that the jury is always supposed to follow a law even if they don't agree with it, and in every trial, the judge will give the jury this instruction. The jury is never supposed to disregard the law and acquit someone just because they want to; otherwise, chaos would ensue if juries thought they could do whatever they wanted to, and the rule of law would mean nothing.

But on the other hand, the reality is that jury nullification -- which is to say, a jury acquittal based on nothing more than the jury's own sense of justice or fair play -- is a time-honored tradition, and still happens now and then, even though lawyers and judges don't talk about it much. It used to happen a lot with laws like the Fugitive Slave Act, when northern juries refused to convict people who helped runaway slaves escape to freedom (which was a serious felony back then), or back in the days of the old Sedition Acts, when colonial juries refused to convict colonists who wouldn't pay taxes to the British (as a historical footnote, did you know that nobody was ever convicted for the Boston Tea Party, even though millions of dollars of tea was destroyed?). It doesn't happen very often anymore because in our modern, open democracy where everyone can vote (including women and ethnic and religious minorities) there are relatively few laws that large majorities of Americans think are truly "unjust."

 

[Jeana (DP)]

You're both "right" on this. The difference is what you mean when you say it's "okay." Wudge is correct in that, technically, the law says that the jury is always supposed to follow a law even if they don't agree with it, and in every trial, the judge will give the jury this instruction. The jury is never supposed to disregard the law and acquit someone just because they want to; otherwise, chaos would ensue if juries thought they could do whatever they wanted to, and the rule of law would mean nothing.

But on the other hand, the reality is that jury nullification -- which is to say, a jury acquittal based on nothing more than the jury's own sense of justice or fair play -- is a time-honored tradition, and still happens now and then, even though lawyers and judges don't talk about it much. It used to happen a lot with laws like the Fugitive Slave Act, when northern juries refused to convict people who helped runaway slaves escape to freedom (which was a serious felony back then), or back in the days of the old Sedition Acts, when colonial juries refused to convict colonists who wouldn't pay taxes to the British (as a historical footnote, did you know that nobody was ever convicted for the Boston Tea Party, even though millions of dollars of tea was destroyed?). It doesn't happen very often anymore because in our modern, open democracy where everyone can vote (including women and ethnic and religious minorities) there are relatively few laws that large majorities of Americans think are truly "unjust."

LOL What an education I get here!!! Thanks.

 

[christine2448]

Thanks Wudge, makes perfect sense now. Preciate ya!

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, its never okay for jurors to say a defendant is innocent of something because they think the law broken was "dumb."

Our founding fathers would disagree with you. They expected the jury to rule against laws they did not support or rule against the application of a law to circumstances that did not warrant its adherence. Simply put, the jury was always supposed to have the final say on both reasonable doubt and nullification of a law.

 

[Wudge]

Well, by definition, a "scientist" wouldn't still be in high school. But my point is, isn't it still just as unfair to all of the other students in the class (who might desperately need good grades for college) for one student to get preferential treatment because he's willing to sleep with the teacher, regardless of how old he is? Do we really want teachers, whose salaries and classrooms are paid by our tax dollars, to use the classrooms to cruise for sex?

Scientists, doctors, lawyers, engineers, principals, etc., often take additional classes after they have graduated and started their profession.

As for fair, 18 year olds fight and die for our country. On that basis alone, I would consider that they have the right to give their sexual consent to whomever they wish.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Our founding fathers would disagree with you. They expected the jury to rule against laws they did not support or rule against the application of a law to circumstances that did not warrant its adherence. Simply put, the jury was always supposed to have the final say on both reasonable doubt and nullification of a law.

Our founding fathers don't know what we have to deal with in today's trials. I'll bet if they sat through a few of mine, I could get them to change their minds on a few things.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Scientists, doctors, lawyers, engineers, principals, etc., often take additional classes after they have graduated and started their profession.

As for fair, 18 year olds fight and die for our country. On that basis alone I would consider that they have the right to give their sexual consent to whomever they wish.

Its called continuing legal education and its required in order to keep our licenses.

 

[Wudge]

Our founding fathers don't know what we have to deal with in today's trials. I'll bet if they sat through a few of mine, I could get them to change their minds on a few things.

The point is that Judges tell jurors that they do not have the right to nullify the law. And they are successful in intimdating most unknowledgable jurors to believe the matter is settled. However, the Supreme Court said otherwise, but few people know that. So, Judges largely succeed in thwarting the Supreme Court and the intention of our founding fathers. It is just another facet of America's imperial judiciary.

I will tell you this much, no matter what a Judge said, if we had professional jurors, they would always know what they could do.

 

[Masterj]

The point is that Judges tell jurors that they do not have the right to nullify the law. And they are successful in intimdating most unknowledgable jurors to believe the matter is settled. However, the Supreme Court said otherwise, but few people know that. So, Judges largely succeed in thwarting the Supreme Court and the intention of our founding fathers. It is just another facet of America's imperial judiciary.

I will tell you this much, no matter what a Judge said, if we had professional jurors, they would always know what they could do.

I swear this is the third day in a row I have read this post. Am I going crazy?