Court OKs sex between teachers, 18-year-olds, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 14-1-2009 @ 11:51 AM by imd12c4funn

Court OKs sex between teachers, 18-year-olds


www.msnbc.msn.com
SEATTLE - Washington state law does not bar teachers from having consensual sex with 18-year-old students, an appeals court ruled Tuesday in dismissing a case against a former high school choir teacher
(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 12:16 PM by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by fatdad


I always figured it was more of a policy issue than a legal one. It's inappropriate for educators to mess with their students just as it's inappropriate for employers to mess with employees.

Though, High School seniors even at 18 are not honestly considered adults by the schools administration. The 18 year olds themselves are probably the only ones who think they are adults. The parents dont, the teachers dont, the administration doesnt.


reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 12:18 PM by HugmyRek
Yeah well Washington State can bite me. This is really an ethics issue. A teacher at an elementary school down the road had two children by a student before any body noticed. It was all over the news-but I can't even find a link. That's another thing about washington. Media and news just suddenly *disappears*. Now 5 years later I have to wonder if it was my town, or just occurring at the same time as something similar in my town/region. grrr. Ah...here it is. Teacher and student have baby WA

I suspect someone in IT.
This place is under cover pervert central. There is some good folks here too.

I am not surprised at all that a judge here would take this angle on the law. It may be the correct angle, and yet, this is an institution and an institutionary installment that children are bound to preschool to adulthood. There should be some sense of continuity.

Not to get off topic. I found this page here: Teacher Crimes dot Net

[edit on 14-1-2009 by HugmyRek]

[edit on 14-1-2009 by HugmyRek]


reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 12:50 PM by HugmyRek
reply to post by SaviorComplex

they threw out the charge..

Ok, I'm clear. It makes sense to throw out a badly chosen charge. Will new or more appropriately labelled charges follow, I wonder.

For instance, my recently turned adult child is still deemed viable for social services due to his ongoing enrollment in mandatory education. It is a gray area. A gray area that is used all the time-by the government to ensure that late bloomers get their education before being thrust into the work force. They are still recieving social services. Why wouldn't they still recieve protection from teacher advances?

I'd love to find the legislation/law about why this is so. The parents or prosecutor (or whoever is 'bringing it' could still have a case under a different header.

Social security still goes to 18 year olds-in school.
Medical care still goes to 18 year olds in school

I imagine it is because of the parent's neccesary and continued role. Did the student live under a guardian's roof and was enrolled in school?

These things are based on a lingering childhood. Why would not sex with teachers while in the gray area apply much the same? I mean.... it is our structure that provides the gray area of the lingering childhood with federally funded services-indicating the 18 year old as still a child underwinged under the care of the administration. It is an 'assumption of minor status' But not here?

What if it was a consenting disabled student aged 23?


[edit on 14-1-2009 by HugmyRek]
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 6 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 7 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 18 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 6 days ago with 49 member flags