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

[Wudge]

Wudge, I'm reluctant to keep posting because I think we've already made our positions clear to just about everyone here, and I don't want to turn this into some kind of personal battle between us or unnecessarily create hard feelings since I don't really know you, and I'm afraid if I keep posting, that's exactly what's going to happen.

All I will say is this: the difference betwen your position and mine is that you see this issue as being about criminalizing sex. I see it as being about abuse of power. To me, sex isn't the issue at all; in fact, let's take sex completely out of the situation so that you can't keep harping about "criminalizing sex."

Let's say that the teacher didn't have sex with any student, but rather gave out preferential treatment to students who joined communist groups or openly denounced the President of the USA. Now, you and I agree that it's legal for an adult to have sex, and it's legal for an adult to join a communist group, and it's legal to denounce the President. But is it legal for a teacher to use her position as a teacher to encourage or pressure her students into doing these things?

Let's go further....say she used her classroom to recruit students into Al Quaeda. Now, in theory, it's legal for an adult to join Al Quaeda and it's legal to recruit for Al Quaeda (so long as you don't actually plan or assist terrorist attacks, anyway); but is it OK for a teacher to make this part of her everyday classroom curriculum?

Wudge, if your answer to any of these questions is that it's not OK for a teacher to encourage or require her students to engage in these (otherwise legal) acts, then why do you think it's OK for a steacher to make a sexual relationship part of the classroom? All of these things -- sex, communism, denouncing George Bush, recruiting for Al Quaeda -- are legal when adults do them, but do they belong in the classroom? And shouldn't it be illegal for teachers to use their positions and their access to students to seek out students to engage in these acts?

Your "reluctant" post makes it sound like you are somewhat irritated that my position still differs from yours. Obviously, it does. But, for the record, the post you reluctantly responded to was not directed at you. So I was not trying to test your patience or irritate you with my still held position.

Putting that aside, as best I know, the Constitution permits for sex between consenting adults who are part of our free society. And yes, age is definitely a factor, which is why I noted, in one of my recent posts, the defense could well argue that under the Constitution, the Texas law violates an adult's right to chose consenting sex partners who are members of our free society.

Should this case ever get to the point of reconciling conflicting laws, I believe a Constitutional right to chose consenting sex patners -- in the free society -- would trump a Texas' statute that criminalizes consensual sex between adults based on a person's profession. In reconciling the conflict, the Constitution would prevail, because it is the highest law of the land.

I only note the "highest law of the land" aspect, because it has been stated that we must follow laws.

(jury nullification still sounds best to me though)

 

[Nova]

Are you talking about pedophilia,necrophilia or beastiality?

I'm talking about having sex with my gay partner for the past 3 decades, which was illegal in many states until a Supreme Court decision a few years ago. (It was illegal in almost all states when he and I first met.) I must confess we broke the law numerous times; then and now I consider what we do in private none of the government's business.

 

[Masterj]

Are you talking about pedophilia,necrophilia or beastiality?

come on now. I think you know she is not talking about any of those things.

 

[Nova]

Wudge, ... the difference betwen your position and mine is that you see this issue as being about criminalizing sex. I see it as being about abuse of power.

newguy, I don't think anyone here is arguing about the potential abuse of power, nor is anyone here thrilled about the prospect of sexual relationships between students and teachers.

But your argument for the potential for abuse isn't enough to defend criminalization (especially not when such laws are in conflict with other rights, such as those Wudge has enumerated).

In the first place, there are other remedies already, as has been mentioned. I taught for years at a university were teacher/student relationships were strongly discouraged. The power of the teacher was not so absolute as you make it sound. A student could appeal any decision by a teacher, including grades, and, frankly, a sexual relationship would NOT have helped a teacher's position in response to such a challenge. A student could also file suit in court under the same sexual harassment laws that protect employees. Such suits were practically crippling to an educator's career. I can't claim student/teacher affairs never happened, but they were exceedingly rare and all without the threat of criminal penalties.

In the second, if the issue is "abuse of power," there is potential for abuse in many, if not most, relationships. Would you also criminalize sex between rich and poor? Between an employee and any superior? How about between a person with a high IQ and a person with a low one? Between a strong personality and a weak one?

 

[Nova]

come on now. I think you know she is not talking about any of those things.

Thanks, Masterj, but maybe not. I didn't make it clear I was talking about myself. (ETA: or Billy was just joking.) I'm sure Billy meant no offense. (I'm a "he", BTW, but I try not to get hung up on gender labels. LOL)

 

[SewingDeb]

snip

Putting that aside, as best I know, the Constitution permits for sex between consenting adults who are part of our free society. And yes, age is definitely a factor, which is why I noted, in one of my recent posts, the defense could well argue that under the Constitution, the Texas law violates an adult's right to chose consenting sex partners who are members of our free society.

Should this case ever get to the point of reconciling conflicting laws, I believe a Constitutional right to chose consenting sex patners -- in the free society -- would trump a Texas' statute that criminalizes consensual sex between adults based on a person's profession. In reconciling the conflict, the Constitution would prevail, because it is the highest law of the land.

I only note the "highest law of the land" aspect, because it has been stated that we must follow laws.

(jury nullification still sounds best to me though)

Do we really have a constitutional right to choose consenting sex partners? In some, if not most, states it is still illegal to have sex outside of marriage. I believe you are referring to the pursuit of happiness, which is not necessarily the pursuit of consenting sex partners...lol...though it could be seen as one and the same.

Just trying to lighten things a little. I do believe this Texas law needs clarification and some fine tuning. Maybe this case will prompt a change.

 

[Nova]

Do we really have a constitutional right to choose consenting sex partners?

Yes. If we don't own our own bodies, we have no rights at all.

 

[Wudge]

I'm talking about having sex with my gay partner for the past 3 decades, which was illegal in many states until a Supreme Court decision a few years ago. (It was illegal in almost all states when he and I first met.) I must confess we broke the law numerous times; then and now I consider what we do in private none of the government's business.

The case you are refering to is Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that a broad Constitutional sexual privacy right did exist.

It should be noted that Lawrence and Garner reversed a prior Supreme Court ruling in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), wherein the Justices ruled that the right to privacy did not include the right to have sex in the privacy of your own home.

 

[Nova]

The case you are refering to is Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that a broad Constitutional sexual privacy right did exist.

It should be noted that Lawrence and Garner reversed a prior Supreme Court ruling in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), wherein the Justices ruled that the right to privacy did not include the right to have sex in the privacy of your own home.

Thanks for the cites, Wudge. I remember both cases pretty well. Doesn't Lawrence also invalidate the laws against extramarital sex mentioned by the previous poster?

 

[Wudge]

Do we really have a constitutional right to choose consenting sex partners? In some, in not most, states it is still illegal to have sex outside of marriage. I believe you are referring to the pursuit of happiness, which is not necessarily the pursuit of sex partners...lol.

In my above post, I refer to the latest ruling from the Supreme Court on this matter, which would support that we do have such a "right".

(at least until some other case comes along...chuckle)

 

[Wudge]

Thanks for the cites, Wudge. I remember both cases pretty well. Doesn't Lawrence also invalidate the laws against extramarital sex mentioned by the previous poster?

As best I know, adultery laws in all states are not yet cleansed. I do think that Lawrence and Garner opened up a multitude of Pandora boxes regarding what government can regulate in this area; e.g. marriage, adultery, polygamy, etc..

 

[SewingDeb]

Well, Wudge, I think that's a good thing.

 

[jttnewguy]

newguy, I don't think anyone here is arguing about the potential abuse of power, nor is anyone here thrilled about the prospect of sexual relationships between students and teachers.

But your argument for the potential for abuse isn't enough to defend criminalization (especially not when such laws are in conflict with other rights, such as those Wudge has enumerated).

In the first place, there are other remedies already, as has been mentioned. I taught for years at a university were teacher/student relationships were strongly discouraged. The power of the teacher was not so absolute as you make it sound. A student could appeal any decision by a teacher, including grades, and, frankly, a sexual relationship would NOT have helped a teacher's position in response to such a challenge. A student could also file suit in court under the same sexual harassment laws that protect employees. Such suits were practically crippling to an educator's career. I can't claim student/teacher affairs never happened, but they were exceedingly rare and all without the threat of criminal penalties.

In the second, if the issue is "abuse of power," there is potential for abuse in many, if not most, relationships. Would you also criminalize sex between rich and poor? Between an employee and any superior? How about between a person with a high IQ and a person with a low one? Between a strong personality and a weak one?

Nova, if you go back to my earlier posts, you'll see that what I emphatically said, in more than one post, is that what I think is especially troubling about a relationship between a high school teacher and student (unlike the university setting that you describe) is not merely that they are unequal in some indeterminate way (such as intelligence or wealth or physical strength), but that the inequality is imposed upon them BY LAW. A high school student is required BY LAW to attend that school except in the relatively few states that allow home schooling (which is why your example of sex between college professors and students does not apply here, because the law does not require that anyone go to college). A high school student cannot act in a way that is unruly or insubordinate (in other words, they cannot disagree too vehemently with the teacher as determined by the sole discretion of the teacher, backed by the school district police), cannot leave school under penalty of the truancy laws (enforced by school district police backed by the juvenile detention system), cannot graduate and receive a government-issued diploma without adequate grades as determined solely by the teacher (and, by the way, in the public school system in my state, there is no appeal of a teacher's grades), and cannot transfer to another school in most school districts (by law, schools are assigned geographically).

The problem with all of this (as I wrote in another post) is that, unllike an encounter in a bar or other social setting, a student who is inappropriately propositioned by a teacher cannot simply say No, terminate the encounter, walk away, and avoid that person -- he (or she) has to go back to class the very next day and face that teacher again, and possibly be propositioned again, because the LAW REQUIRES IT. That's what I mean when I say that the relationship between a high school teacher and student isn't truly consensual -- because you're not free to leave whenever you want to without possibly risking a government-enforced punishment such as expulsion, suspension or incarceration in juvenile jail. What troubles me most is not merely that there is a possibility of coercion and exploitation, as there is in many interpersonal encounters, but that the coercive power is conferred upon the teacher not because he's actually smart, or attractive, or more mature, but simply BY LAW.

And my belief is simply that if the law requires me to send my children to a government-run school, and force them to obey teachers (under penalty of law) that I did not choose but were chosen for me by the government, then the government should protect them from being sexually exploited while they are there.

 

[Wudge]

Well, Wudge, I think that's a good thing.

It could be that after losing both Roe v. Wade (wrongly decided) and Lawrence and Garner v. Texas (rightly decided), the state legislature said: We can't regulate sodomy or abortion, but we are darn well going to regullate something; so let's regulate professions.

(just joking....well...sort of....with Texas. you never know...snicker)

 

[SewingDeb]

Yes. If we don't own our own bodies, we have no rights at all.

Nova, in NC it is still the law that unmarried people cannot live together. In the last few months a couple who both work in the sheriff's department were charged under that law. Not saying I think it's right at all, but there are so many laws on the books that contradict our right to own our own bodies.

Even though I don't like the idea of teacher/student sexual relationships, I hope if she is given the maximum sentence that she will take it to the highest court possible.

On the other hand, she had to know this law and decided to take the risk rather than wait until this kid graduated.

 

[Nova]

Well, if you go back to my earlier posts, you'll see that what I emphatically said, in more than one post, is that what I think is especially troubling about a relationship between a high school teacher and student (unlike the university setting that you describe) is not merely that they are unequal in some indeterminate way (such as intelligence or wealth or physical strength), but that the inequality is imposed upon them BY LAW. A high school student is required BY LAW to attend that school...

Uh, but, jttnewguy, as far as I can remember, we are only talking about ADULT students here. That's why the Texas law is likely to be challenged. Nobody is arguing about sex with minors.

So your argument doesn't apply, because - as far as I know - no jurisdiction requires ADULT students to attend high school or any other school.

But please don't get me wrong: I very much share your concern about the potential for abuse inherent even with teacher/ADULT student relationships. These, however, can be discouraged by firing the teacher and thus removing him/her from the position of power. It is only going to cost MORE of your tax dollars to keep that teacher behind bars.

 

[Nova]

Nova, in NC it is still the law that unmarried people cannot live together. In the last few months a couple who both work in the sheriff's department were charged under that law. Not saying I think it's right at all, but there are so many laws on the books that contradict our right to own our own bodies.

Even though I don't like the idea of teacher/student sexual relationships, I hope if she is given the maximum sentence that she will take it to the highest court possible.

On the other hand, she had to know this law and decided to take the risk rather than wait until this kid graduated.

Thanks and sorry, Deb. I should have been more clear. I do understand that a Supreme Court ruling doesn't make all the many, many conflicting laws of our land simply disappear. I was just opining that the Lawrence case should strike down such laws, if tested. (Of course, I am naively assuming our courts are ruled by rational process. )

 

[SewingDeb]

LOL to the 'rational process'. I know what you mean.

 

[Paladin]

I think this case is silly. Obviously, the laws were set up with the protection of the child in mind, but legally, this child is really an adult. What are they going to charge this teacher with, giving this "kid" an unshakable sense of self-confidence?

She's beautiful. I've seen her picures. There's no doubt in my mind this "kid" probably benefitted from the whole thing.

EDIT: A little more thought...

Do I think she should go to jail for 20 years? HECK NO!

Do I think she should be fired from her job? Yes...this goes without question.

 

[englishleigh]

She should not be able to keep her job, but to send her to prison is ridiculous. This kid was well over the legal age of consent and an adult in some states.