Search Box

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Statutory rape

There's been a fair amount of publicity in the past year about teachers who've had sex with their teenage students. I'm often struck by how attractive the female teachers are.

I can't help but remember what I was like at fifteen. If some attractive twenty-five year old woman had tried to seduce me, well, it wouldn't have been all that traumatic. I've talked to other guys about this, and their reaction is almost universal: "Where was she when I was in high school?!"

I can't speak for girls, but I know that some are supposed to have crushes on their male teachers. Should teachers take advantage of that? Of course not. But sometimes, when I read about it, it seems more like forbidden love than a crime.

This does seem to be an area where there is a difference between the way the law might regard men and women. This goes against the spirit of the previous post which advocated equal rights (and responsibilities) for all, but my guess is that boys are generally less traumatized by this than girls.

A teacher should unquestionably lose his job over an affair with a student. And he should never work again as a teacher. But should he go to jail?

The most famous teacher involved in such a case, Mary Kay Letourneau, was obviously a little batty. She seduced a 13 year old, not a 17 year old. She gave up her family, including her four children, to continue to pursue this illicit love, even after being forbidden to do so by the authorities. (Parents who willingly give up their children are always at least a little bit off.) But how much harm did she do to her young lover (with whom she had two more children)? Generally, if someone hurts you in some way, you get away from them. But those two married, and are still together, which says something. (I don't think the Stockholm syndrome is in effect here.) She is now 47, he is 26. My guess is that by the time he is 39 and she is 60, he will have strayed. And that would be only fitting. But it would not be any indication that he was traumatized by that early experience.

In a sense, it's worse for a boss to take advantage of an underling. Your employer has far more power over you than any single teacher does: your entire livelihood depends on your boss, who usually has the power to fire you. A teacher has only the power only to give you one grade, in one class, in one year. That's not much power. (I've felt the need to kowtow to every boss I ever had, at least to some extent, but never to a teacher.) Yet while bosses occasionally get fired for such transgressions, there is no law against it.

The statutory rape law as it exists seems too arbitrary. There is a world of difference between an eighteen-year-old boy who has sex with his sixteen year old girlfriend, and a thirty five-year-old man who molests a prepubescent child. No self-respecting prosecutor will go after the former, while the latter will always be prosecuted. And this is as it should be. Yet the law doesn't distinguish between the two.

How does the law deal with, say, a twenty-four year old man who had sex with a willing fifteen year old girl who looked eighteen and lied about her age? There are many such cases colored in shades of gray, and a good judge will weigh the circumstances. But not all judges are good, and there is still far too much leeway for uneven enforcement.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

No disrespect intended to any victims/families suffering in the aftermath of a violent sexual offence, but there is a great tragedy resulting from the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act and other recent child protection legislation.

The comment, “No self-respecting prosecutor will go after the former…” is tragically not correct as a growing number of articles across our nation report that otherwise innocent and non-violent boys/teens are facing a life of ruin in the aftermath as registered sex offender “for life” as young as 14. One such case of note is the Commonwealth vs. Bernardo B. where a 14 year old boy is being prosecuted for consensual sexual activity during a game of truth-or-dare where three similar age girls who were his friends willingly performed the sexual acts on him. In this case the 14 year old boy was charged with multiple counts of “felony” statutory rape and will be forced to register as a sex offender “for life!” at 14 year old for consensual underage sexual exploration. Even more insane is that the girls could also end up being charged as felony sex offenders and forced to register as sex offenders for life since under the law in Massachusetts the age of consent is 16, so the boy could not legally consent to the consensual sexual activity.

What is most disturbing in this and many other similar consensual sex cases as a parent and concerned citizen is that prosecutors and judges are not weighing the circumstances, including cases where an underage girl lies about her age and are convicting more and more kids/teens/young adults and forcing them into a life of complete ruin as registered sex offenders.

To make matters worse, prosecutors are able to uphold their insane actions under broad “prosecutorial discretion” case law and prevent public outrage to this tragedy under juvenile court confidentiality restrictions.

Parents warn your teens, the current laws are insane and persecutors have become relentless!

John Craig said...

Anonymous -- Wow. I hadn't heard of that case. It was my impression that there had been a few isolated abuses of those laws, but I hadn't realized it had become that widespread. All the more reason to change the laws. Thank you for your comment.

Anonymous said...

"The statutory rape law as it exists seems too arbitrary. There is a world of difference between an eighteen-year-old boy who has sex with his sixteen year old girlfriend, and a thirty five-year-old man who molests a prepubescent child. No self-respecting prosecutor will go after the former, while the latter will always be prosecuted. And this is as it should be. Yet the law doesn't distinguish between the two."

Actually, many jurisdictions have a 'Romeo and Juliet' clause where the 18 year old boy would only receive a very light sentence compared to the 35 year old man.

John Craig said...

Gethin --
Is that true in the USA as well as in the UK? I hope so.

Anonymous said...

I read ages ago that it was true at least in some US states, but I'm not sure which ones. Here the cut off age for the Romeo & Juliet clause is 23. If the man is any older than that, then he'll be prosecuted as a full adult. I think it makes sense to have this clause, as an underage girl is more likely to consent to sex with a guy (even if she's not legally deemed old enough to) if he's in his early twenties or younger.

Gethin

John Craig said...

Gethin --
I agree. And I think even more important than that, the laws ought to distinguish between girls who are 16 and 14, girls who are 14 and 12, and 12 and even younger than that, with the penalties going up exponentially for the youngest ages. Doing a 16-year-old girl who is not a virgin is wrong, but somehow it doesn't seem THAT wrong, especially compared to molesting a 12-year-old girl.

Anonymous said...

Agreed. There is a huge difference between doing a girl who is 15-16 and a girl who is 12-13. At least the former will have gone through puberty.