Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think maybe what happens is that girls and women in our society are taught basically that they can do no wrong sexually speaking and their should be no negative consequences to any of their sexual choices. Then you put them in a position where there are consequences and they can't handle it or even fully comprehend it, especially when they are younger.
Tell a 22 year old teacher's assistance that she can't have sex with the sexy 16 year old boy from the football team who's been flirting with her and that's just going to go right over her head. She's used to just saying "who are you to judge?" whenever anyone is inclined to set a sexual boundary for her.
She's already convicted. At this point, what does she lose? If she can get it overturned she walks, if not she serves her sentence.
I'm not a lawyer, but I strongly suspect that her type of argument could either or both cause the judge to tack on more time and/or limit her ability to be paroled.
An analogous example: if you commit and are convicted of manslaughter, you probably don't want to go and try to make an argument to a judge, for any reason, that manslaughter is constitutional.
It's the exact opposite argument that judges and parole boards want to see. It's the exact perp mindset that gets their time maximized with no parole.
It even rings more faulty than the more common "not guilty" mindset. At least, there, there is always a small probability that the person is not guilty even though the judge does not want to see that from a convicted person either.
In this case, its the worst case scenario. The perp is attempting to argue the morality of their crime (using the constitution as the arbiter of secular morality). It's saying to the judge that a crime is not morally wrong, refuting the morality of the law that convicted her.
She has zero chance of making this defense work, and a good chance of having her time maximized. In fact, the strategy is so faulty that someone should lodge a complaint on her behalf to the state bar where her lawyer is licensed.
My first thought was what the hell? But it's an interesting story.
From the NYPost -
"A former teacher in Alabama is fighting for her right to have sex with students.
Charli Jones Parker, 31, was convicted of having intercourse with two male 16-year-old students while she was a teacher at Pickens Academy. Now she wants her case overturned, claiming that a law prohibiting sex with students is unconstitutional, according to Tuscaloosa News."
So that sets the table. You'd think the case was a slam dunk but it turns out “Alabama law does not make it a crime for members of other occupations to have consensual sex with 16-, 17- and 18-year-olds, even when there is a position of trust or authority,” said attorney Virginia Buck, according to the newspaper."
So if you were a female accountant having sex with 16 year old boys in Alabama, that's okay. But not teachers. Yes, I get the sacred bond between teacher and student and societal norms...yadda yadda. But on strict legal grounds, she just might have a case.
I don't think so. It's analogous to the concept of breach of fiduciary duty. Different people have different duties.
If her case prevails, expect that age to increase. Which is probably a good idea anyway.
That is what should happen anyway. She will likely win her lawsuit despite what anyone thinks about it. The proper course of action would be to at the very least criminalize sex between a minor and anyone in a position of authority.
Should the 20 year old janitor get arrested for having sex with the 17 year old student? I don't believe so.
I'm not a lawyer, but I strongly suspect that her type of argument could either or both cause the judge to tack on more time and/or limit her ability to be paroled.
An analogous example: if you commit and are convicted of manslaughter, you probably don't want to go and try to make an argument to a judge, for any reason, that manslaughter is constitutional.
It's the exact opposite argument that judges and parole boards want to see. It's the exact perp mindset that gets their time maximized with no parole.
It even rings more faulty than the more common "not guilty" mindset. At least, there, there is always a small probability that the person is not guilty even though the judge does not want to see that from a convicted person either.
In this case, its the worst case scenario. The perp is attempting to argue the morality of their crime (using the constitution as the arbiter of secular morality). It's saying to the judge that a crime is not morally wrong, refuting the morality of the law that convicted her.
She has zero chance of making this defense work, and a good chance of having her time maximized. In fact, the strategy is so faulty that someone should lodge a complaint on her behalf to the state bar where her lawyer is licensed.
My first thought was what the hell? But it's an interesting story.
From the NYPost -
"A former teacher in Alabama is fighting for her right to have sex with students.
Charli Jones Parker, 31, was convicted of having intercourse with two male 16-year-old students while she was a teacher at Pickens Academy. Now she wants her case overturned, claiming that a law prohibiting sex with students is unconstitutional, according to Tuscaloosa News."
So that sets the table. You'd think the case was a slam dunk but it turns out “Alabama law does not make it a crime for members of other occupations to have consensual sex with 16-, 17- and 18-year-olds, even when there is a position of trust or authority,” said attorney Virginia Buck, according to the newspaper."
So if you were a female accountant having sex with 16 year old boys in Alabama, that's okay. But not teachers. Yes, I get the sacred bond between teacher and student and societal norms...yadda yadda. But on strict legal grounds, she just might have a case.
Well based upon her picture..
If she wins the case, something tells me there is no more concern about sleeping with anyone, let alone underage kids.
In all seriousness, if there is a loophole, I'm sure the lawyers will find it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
