Excessive punishment for teacher-student sex

Juniemoon said:
She may be being held without bail because she's considered a flight risk. I read (don't remember where unfortunately) that she had some sort of traumatic brain injury to her frontal lobe, which was treated by having a shunt surgicaly implanted in her brain. Frontal lobe injuries have been known to cause uncontrollable sexual desire and irrational acting out.

Not sure if I buy this argument by her attorney. If this is a known result/risk of this type of treatment, seems she should still be out on disability, not back in the classroom.
But there it is.

Isn't this comment about the CHS teacher, Dufault (who IS out on bail, I believe) ... vs the catholic school teacher mentioned in the OP?

Funny. A flight risk. Your life is a train wreck. You probably have next to no money and your support networks are in tatters. And you are considered a flight risk? Actually, unless the person in custody is a real danger to society, who cares if they attempt to flee. How many people are being held with no hope of bail for this reason - people who might genuinely want to get their lives back on track somehow. Isn't this kind of like debtor's prison at some point?

The purpose of bail is to insure the person will appear for trial. Bail may not be "excessive" under the 8th Amendment.

A person charged with a crime may "want to get their life back on track", but they have to be tried for the crime they are accused of first.

LOST said:
The purpose of bail is to insure the person will appear for trial. Bail may not be "excessive" under the 8th Amendment.
A person charged with a crime may "want to get their life back on track", but they have to be tried for the crime they are accused of first.

I understand that, but the fact is that a person with money can post bail and their life is much less disrupted than is the case for a person without money while they await trial. I am guilty of thread drift hear, but I have in mind something I heard about poor people who get busted for something stupid, can't post bail, can't go to work and then lose whatever job they might have had and it becomes a downward spiral.

She's being held without bail.

RobB said:
She's being held without bail.

I really don't understand that. She isn't charged with murder.

I was just pointing out that it doesn't matter if she's rich or poor, no amount of money can spring her (though if she could afford a better lawyer, she'd probably be out on bail as we speak).

sac: You're right. Bad assumption on my part!

(Sometimes it's hard to tell the accused sex offenders without a scorecard....)

"Never mind" .... (Just call me Roseanne Rosannadanna!)

sac said:

Juniemoon said:
She may be being held without bail because she's considered a flight risk. I read (don't remember where unfortunately) that she had some sort of traumatic brain injury to her frontal lobe, which was treated by having a shunt surgicaly implanted in her brain. Frontal lobe injuries have been known to cause uncontrollable sexual desire and irrational acting out.

Not sure if I buy this argument by her attorney. If this is a known result/risk of this type of treatment, seems she should still be out on disability, not back in the classroom.
But there it is.

Isn't this comment about the CHS teacher, Dufault (who IS out on bail, I believe) ... vs the catholic school teacher mentioned in the OP?

The woman is a criminal. She violated children who were entrusted to her. She deserves to be in jail.

This thread has a lot of posters who don't seem to get who the injured party is in these types of crimes. I worry more about the students, to tell you the truth. Next on the list would be the learning community.

With regard to the teacher mentioned in the OP, would the judge deciding on bail/no bail take into account factors other than risk of flight? Such as risk of re-offending? I don't know. Thinking of that Mary Kay LeTourneau case. She targeted a child of immigrants. He was decades younger than her, and her student. He never did break free of her.

Not defending her or her actions but Mary Kay LeTourneau married the kid, has several kids with him, and is STILL married to him.

You think that makes it better? Had he not been interfered with as a 13-year-old, had he not found himself twice a father by the age of 15, there was a better chance that he would not, as an adult, have opted to marry a mentally ill child molester. I don't know what his life might have been like, if he had been left alone, but I do know that Mary Kay LeTourneau deformed the life that that he is having.

I'm guessing that the parents of the student involved in the incident in the OP, are hoping he will go to college, and get a credential that helps him make a living. I hope the student puts koo-koo teacher behind him and resumes his 17 year old life with minimal emotional fall out. It didn't work that way for LeTourneau's victim.

The teacher mentioned in the OP was released on bail two days after she was arrested.

http://sub.gmnews.com/news/2015-07-16/Front_Page/High_school_teacher_charged_in_sexual_assault_rele.html

breal said:
I'm guessing that the parents of the student involved in the incident in the OP, are hoping he will go to college, and get a credential that helps him make a living. I hope the student puts koo-koo teacher behind him and resumes his 17 year old life with minimal emotional fall out. It didn't work that way for LeTourneau's victim.

The law is the law, particularly in regard to adults in positions of authority over minors, but I would not automatically assume that this 17 year-old will have any regrets.

The LeTourneau case was rather different. Maybe it is just me, but 23 (this teacher at McCarrick) and 17 seems rather less strange than 35 w/husband and kids and 12 or 13.

Believe me, tjohn, I hope it costs him nothing.

There's always a cost, unfortunately.

Made me think of this thread:

In an extraordinary admission of wrongdoing, a priest sought by authorities in New Jersey has acknowledged engaging in a sexual encounter with a 15-year-old boy, but he deflected blame for the incident by saying the teen "wanted" it and had "evil in his mind."

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/08/exclusive_priest_who_fled_country_admits_sex_with.html

RobB said:
Made me think of this thread:
In an extraordinary admission of wrongdoing, a priest sought by authorities in New Jersey has acknowledged engaging in a sexual encounter with a 15-year-old boy, but he deflected blame for the incident by saying the teen "wanted" it and had "evil in his mind."
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/08/exclusive_priest_who_fled_country_admits_sex_with.html

A good demonstration of why you cannot allow an examination of intent of the victim in cases of abuse of authority / statutory rape cases. The victims would be routinely bombarded with crap like this.

And then there's this scumbag:

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/08/19/malvern-prep-emily-feeney-harvard-sexting/

The boy told investigators that Feeney’s advances were unwelcome but that he played along because she had offered to help him get into Harvard, and he didn’t want to hurt his chances.

This one is basically a word for word perfect example of why students cannot consent to sex with a teacher and why losing your job isn't punishment enough.

"Hey look! Someone I have complete control over! They literally cannot leave the room without being disciplined by the school! Wowee I lucked out with this career choice."