Texas teacher had sex with her 8th grade English student ‘on almost a daily basis

[Gamevizier]

That's why you don't have sex with children, especially children that are under your authority. It's not like she can claim she didn't know fucking a 13 year old was illegal and she can't claim she didn't know he was 13.

you keep spewing the same thing without even reading what I'm talking about. nobody's arguing about the guilt, so stop talking about it.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I'm not saying the teacher shouldn't do jail time. I'm saying I don't feel bad for or pity the boy in this particular instance.

And that's a pretty shallow way of looking at it. We don't yet know how this will shape the boy in the years to come. He might have gotten some pretty fucked up ideas about sexual relationships from this. I'm not claiming that he has definitely been scarred by this experience...but it's not unlikely.

[Bapestar]

The word has a defined meaning. It means people who are attracted to prepubescent kids. It's not mental gymnastics to use a word properly.

And I clearly said she was a statutory rapist. She will serve jail time. And I'm fine with that.

But forgive me if I don't jump on your soapbox to defend a boy from doing exactly what nature says he should be doing. Spreading his seed. Only in the contruct of modern society is it seen as something wrong. Since the dawning of time until less than 100 years ago there would be absolutley nothing wrong with this kid doing what he is doing.

This is pretty spot on.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

you keep spewing the same thing without even reading what I'm talking about. nobody's arguing about the guilt, so stop talking about it.

You're talking about creating a panel of psychologists to determine the severity of the offense...but that's the courts job. Psychologists can only determine if she is or is not actually, psychologically speaking, a pedophile. They do not and should not have any say regarding the sentencing of criminals.

[Kezotar]

No, but I wouldn't be the boy crying RAPE like some of the posters here.

But it was. A kid can't consent. What's so hard about it. It doesn't really matter if he enjoyed it or not.
I enjoy a lot of things. There are a lot more but those are illegal. Just because I enjoy it doesn't make it less legal.

again, +20 years of a person's life will be gone. you better damn make sure that they deserve it. I'm not saying she shouldn't go to prison, I'm saying the punishments are kinda the same in every situation. some cases are too harsh and some cases are too lenient.

Harsh?
Next time don't sleep with kids. There are people being put in jail for child porn, CHILD PORN. They don't touch any kids, only pictures or videos.
Yet this chick? She actually had sex with one. Multiple times.

[Gamevizier]

You're talking about creating a panel of psychologists to determine the severity of the offense...but that's the courts job. Psychologists can only determine if she is or is not actually, psychologically speaking, a pedophile. They do not and should not have any say regarding the sentencing of criminals.

the court's job is simple and easy when it comes to material possessions, when a thief steals a bike, he has stolen a bike. when a car is stolen, a car is stolen. the severity of the case is apparent and people are punished according to the severity of the case.

we're not talking about material possessions here. we're talking mental abuse, and the only qualified people that can correctly indicate the severity of mental damage, are psycologists. so yes, I do support a committee a psycologists presiding over such cases.

[Kezotar]

But forgive me if I don't jump on your soapbox to defend a boy from doing exactly what nature says he should be doing. Spreading his seed. Only in the contruct of modern society is it seen as something wrong. Since the dawning of time until less than 100 years ago there would be absolutley nothing wrong with this kid doing what he is doing.

When he's ready.
Since when was this about the "Kid". It's the adult.

[Gamevizier]

Harsh?
Next time don't sleep with kids. There are people being put in jail for child porn, CHILD PORN. They don't touch any kids, only pictures or videos.
Yet this chick? She actually had sex with one. Multiple times.

federal child pornography charges are different from this case. stop straw manning it.

[Kapadons]

When he's ready.
Since when was this about the "Kid". It's the adult.

He got her pregnant. His body was clearly ready. Maybe mentally you could argue he wasn't.

[Kezotar]

federal child pornography charges are different from this case. stop straw manning it.

How is different? If the kids in the movie enjoyed it, why shouldn't that also be legal?

- - - Updated - - -

He got her pregnant. His body was clearly ready. Maybe mentally you could argue he wasn't.

Exactly why the age is of sexual consent is set. Argue? Are you sure you want to argue that a boy at 13 wasn't mentally ready to have a sexual relationship with an adult?Really?

[Gamevizier]

How is different? If the kids in the movie enjoyed it, why shouldn't that also be legal?

DUDE NOBODY'S SAYING THAT THIS SHOULD BE LEGAL.

I'm not defending what she has done. pull your head out of your ass and read the posts. and if you can't be arsed to read them fully before pressing the "quick reply" button I'm not gonna bother arguing with you.

[Bapestar]

I bet you there were cases like this where the "victim", had no after effects, and lead a normal life.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

the court's job is simple and easy when it comes to material possessions, when a thief steals a bike, he has stolen a bike. when a car is stolen, a car is stolen. the severity of the case is apparent and people are punished according to the severity of the case.

we're not talking about material possessions here. we're talking mental abuse, and the only qualified people that can correctly indicate the severity of mental damage, are psycologists. so yes, I do support a committee a psycologists presiding over such cases.

You support having people who aren't trained in the law to preside over a court of law? You really think that's a good idea?

The defense will have an opportunity to try and prove "no harm, no foul"... they will be free to call psychologists as witnesses to testify "no harm, no foul" (although any psychologist worth his salt will tell you that it might be years before they can fully determine the severity of mental damage). The verdict will be placed into the hands of a jury and a judge will preside over the case and determine the sentencing if she is found guilty.

[Kapadons]

How is different? If the kids in the movie enjoyed it, why shouldn't that also be legal?

- - - Updated - - -


Exactly why the age is of sexual consent is set. Argue? Are you sure you want to argue that a boy at 13 wasn't mentally ready to have a sexual relationship with an adult?Really?

You want to definitively say this relationship will have any negative effects on this boy? I'm not saying it won't but you seem to want to say you know for a fact that it will. Which seems an odd position to take given all the facts we currently have, or don't have.

[Kezotar]

DUDE NOBODY'S SAYING THAT THIS SHOULD BE LEGAL.

I'm not defending what she has done. pull your head out of your ass and read the posts. and if you can't be arsed to read them fully before pressing the "quick reply" button I'm not gonna bother arguing with you.

you quoted me on my comparison. now you're backing off?

[Gamevizier]

you quoted me on my comparison. now you're backing off?

Arguing with someone who doesn't even know what the argument is about is pointless.

[Kezotar]

You want to definitively say this relationship will have any negative effects on this boy? I'm not saying it won't but you seem to want to say you know for a fact that it will. Which seems an odd position to take given all the facts we currently have, or don't have.

What? You're saying " I quote " - I'm not saying it won't.
Then you question me if I for a fact know this.

Apparently you do?
And the point is not to look at an individual sample.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I bet you there were cases like this where the "victim", had no after effects, and lead a normal life.

What's your point? That being the victim of a crime will affect different people in different ways?

[Kezotar]

Arguing with someone who doesn't even know what the argument is about is pointless.

I don't? Strange. You're the one trying to defend a teacher having sex with her under age student.

[Gamevizier]

You support having people who aren't trained in the law to preside over a court of law? You really think that's a good idea?

The defense will have an opportunity to try and prove "no harm, no foul"... they will be free to call psychologists as witnesses to testify "no harm, no foul" (although any psychologist worth his salt will tell you that it might be years before they can fully determine the severity of mental damage). The verdict will be placed into the hands of a jury and a judge will preside over the case and determine the sentencing if she is found guilty.

there is no "no harm, no foul" here, the guilt is apparent. I'm talking about THE SEVERITY of the crime. how much damage did she do? how harsh should be her punishment? is she going to do it again? how dangerous is she to the society? these are the things that should be determined by a trained, neutral committee of trained psycologists. not just someone brought over by the defending lawyer to smooth the case over.