Teacher to Marry former student

[Brize]

This is the problem with child sex abuse - many children consent - only much later do they realise they didn't. Thats for the various legal/social systems to decide.

Now we're just going round in circles...

When I replied that 'How do we know either way?' it was in answer to your statement that 'there's no public evidence to indicate that what transpired should be construed as sexual abuse'. You cannot make the argument that she didn't commit sexual abuse on the basis of evidence that you don't have. So we cannot know, but again that's the job of the courts/jury. Based on evidence that we don't have, the system decided she was guilty. We have already agreed that some children may be mature enough but we have also agreed that the law should not be suddenly changed but will evolve over time.

Okay, let's recap. The impetus for this discussion was your assertion that "she sexually abused a child." Not that she may have sexually abused a child, but that she did. I considered this to be a baseless assertion, so called you on it, by saying that this was only the case if you see everything in black and white, i.e. if you're not prepared to critically engage with the issue. I challenged you to consider whether it was conceivable for a minor to enjoy a healthy sexual relationship with an adult, in order to demonstrate that your reaction to the article was knee-jerk and ill considered.

I have never stated that "she didn't commit sexual abuse." Instead, I have qualified my opinions by saying that there was probably nothing amiss; that I guessed the boy to be mature; that there was no indication that the boy had been sexually abused; that state intervention seems to have done more harm than good, and that there is a grey area. You, on the other hand, made a definitive statement presented as fact, and that remains the difference between our respective arguments.

Again, if we don't know either way, are you now prepared to retract your statement that "she sexually abused a child"?

 

[Chappers]

Now we're just going round in circles...

Okay, let's recap. The impetus for this discussion was your assertion that "she sexually abused a child." Not that she may have sexually abused a child, but that she did. I considered this to be a baseless assertion, so called you on it, by saying that this was only the case if you see everything in black and white, i.e. if you're not prepared to critically engage with the issue. I challenged you to consider whether it was conceivable for a minor to enjoy a healthy sexual relationship with an adult, in order to demonstrate that your reaction to the article was knee-jerk and ill considered.

I did consider this and agreed with you. My reaction was knee jerk because of an inconsistency in the law regarding different treatments of males and females in sex crimes.

I have never stated that "she didn't commit sexual abuse." Instead, I have qualified my opinions by saying that there was probably nothing amiss; that I guessed the boy to be mature; that there was no indication that the boy had been sexually abused; that state intervention seems to have done more harm than good, and that there is a grey area. You, on the other hand, made a definitive statement presented as fact, and that remains the difference between our respective arguments.

Again, if we don't know either way, are you now prepared to retract your statement that "she sexually abused a child"?

Now we are going round in circles. My argument has always been that she was convicted of this crime by people who had the evidence to hand - thats the reason why I said 'we don't know'. You may never of directly said 'she didn't commit sexual abuse' but 'there's no public evidence to indicate that what transpired should be construed as sexual abuse' - a politicians answer if ever I saw one. As for you qualified your arguments with 'I guessed', 'probably' and 'seems' that's speculation. These speculations are not the facts.
So when I said she abused a child sexually it was because she was convicted of that and I felt it was inconsistent with how a man would be treated, and you said you couldn't argue with me on that one. Was that an agreement.

Do you know how this has affected this young man? Maybe you could speculate again.

 

[Brize]

So when I said she abused a child sexually it was because she was convicted of that.

No, she wasn't convicted of sexually abusing a child. From what I've read, she was convicted of "rape of a child in the second degree". The issue of consent is null and void in such cases, because, as we've already discussed, a minor is not capable of consent in the eyes of the law. The court's duty in this case was simply to establish that sexual intercourse had occurred. Further, Vili Fualaau did not testify at the original 1997 trial, and it would therefore have been impossible for the court to decide whether he had been sexually abused.

Princeton University defines sexual abuse as follows:

"a statutory offense that provides that it is a crime to knowingly cause another person to engage in an unwanted sexual act by force or threat." (emphasis mine)​

Now consider the following extracts from sections of The Washington State Legislature. In particular, note that the law governing rape of a child in the second degree makes no mention of force or unwanted sexual activity. To secure a conviction for this crime, there is no requirement that the defendant be guilty of sexual abuse; just that he or she had engaged in sexual intercourse with a minor. In contrast, rape in the second degree, for example, is predicated on "forcible compulsion" and would therefore be considered as sexual abuse.

RCW 9A.44.076
Rape of a child in the second degree.

(1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the second degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is at least twelve years old but less than fourteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least thirty-six months older than the victim.​

RCW 9A.44.050
Rape in the second degree.

(1) A person is guilty of rape in the second degree when, under circumstances not constituting rape in the first degree, the person engages in sexual intercourse with another person:

(a) By forcible compulsion​

…a politicians answer if ever I saw one.

That's absolutely priceless coming from someone who consistently dodges a direct question!

I'll ask you again: if we don't know either way, are you now prepared to retract your statement that "she sexually abused a child"?

 

[Chappers]

The Federal definition of child maltreatment is included in the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. Sexual abuse and exploitation is a subcategory of child abuse and neglect. The statute does not apply the maximum age of 18 for other types of maltreatment, but rather indicates that the age limit in the State law shall apply. Sexual abuse is further defined to include:

* "(A) the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of any child to engage in, or assist any other person to engage in, any sexually explicit conduct or simulation of such conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct; or
* (B) the rape, molestation, prostitution, or other form of sexual exploitation of children, or incest with children;..."15

This is also quoted

Power differential. The existence of a power differential implies that one party (the offender) controls the other (the victim) and that the sexual encounter is not mutually conceived and undertaken. Power can derive from the role relationship between offender and victim. For example, if the offender is the victim's father, the victim will usually feel obligated to do as the offender says. Similarly, persons in authority positions, such as a teacher, minister, or Boy Scout leader, are in roles that connote power. Thus, sexual activities between these individuals and their charges are abusive.

So do I think she sexually abused him ? - yes

I suspect that a long battle over what is and is not sexual abuse awaits us in this discussion.
May I just say that I have enjoyed this argument on what is a complex and difficult matter.

 

[Brize]

You've perhaps failed to realise that the provenance of your source is not a criminal statute, but a training manual entitled Child Sexual Abuse: Intervention and Treatment Issues. This manual is aimed at health and social services professionals, and serves as a guide to intervention strategies and reporting procedures for child abuse and neglect. The legislation from which it derives – the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act – forms part of the US Code. As I understand it, Letourneau was convicted under the Revised Code of Washington, not the US Code.

The manual makes an explicit distinction between "Criminal Definitions" and those which you have provided, classified under "Child Protection Definitions" and "Clinical Definitions" respectively. These definitions are provided as a guide for practitioners to establish whether intervention is required. If we are to veer away from criminal definitions and into clinical definitions, we might also consider these pertinent excerpts from the same document:

Although clinical definitions of sexual abuse are related to statutes, the guiding principle is whether the encounter has a traumatic impact on the child. Not all sexual encounters experienced by children do.​

It is important for professionals, particularly if they dedicate a substantial part of their careers to intervening in sexual abuse situations, to distance themselves from their visceral reactions of disgust and outrage and rationally consider why sex between children and adults is so objectionable.​

I've looked through the RCW, and the laws governing sexual offences seem to be somewhat vague. Specifically, there is nothing to distinguish between statutory rape and rape proper (unless I'm missing something). The two appear to have been conflated in the case of minors, and there is no requirement for the state to establish abuse. In contrast, The Florida Statutes, for example, make provision for a clear differentiation between the two, as exemplified below. Statutory rape falls under Lewd or Lascivious Battery, and rape proper falls under Sexual Battery. Interestingly, both statutes acknowledge the consent of a person between 12 and 16, but one prohibits the same as a defence. Of course, I have no idea how this works in practice, but I can only assume that a charge of Sexual Battery would be reduced to Lewd and Lascivious Battery if the court is able to establish consent on the part of the minor.

800.04 Lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age.—

(4) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS BATTERY.—A person who:

(a) Engages in sexual activity with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age

commits lewd or lascivious battery, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Qualified by:

(1) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section:

(2) PROHIBITED DEFENSES.—Neither the victim's lack of chastity nor the victim's consent is a defense to the crimes proscribed by this section.

---------------------------------

794.011 Sexual battery.—

(3) A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older, without that person's consent, and in the process thereof uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon or uses actual physical force likely to cause serious personal injury commits a life felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115.

(4) A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older without that person's consent, under any of the following circumstances, commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115:

(a) When the victim is physically helpless to resist.

(b) When the offender coerces the victim to submit by threatening to use force or violence likely to cause serious personal injury on the victim, and the victim reasonably believes that the offender has the present ability to execute the threat.

(5) A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older, without that person's consent, and in the process thereof does not use physical force and violence likely to cause serious personal injury commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115.​

So do I think she sexually abused him ? - yes

That's your prerogative, and not something that I'm going to take issue with. My concern, as stated previously, was your definitive statement.

May I just say that I have enjoyed this argument on what is a complex and difficult matter.

Likewise. The fact we're unlikely to reach a consensus doesn't detract from what has been a profitable discussion.

 

[Chappers]

You've perhaps failed to realise that the provenance of your source is not a criminal statute, but a training manual entitled Child Sexual Abuse: Intervention and Treatment Issues.

Don't worry I understood. But it does appear to be quoting statutes.

That's your prerogative, and not something that I'm going to take issue with. My concern, as stated previously, was your definitive statement.

Thanks. As you have said previously there are grey areas here but studies show this young man (as he is now) will have problems later because of what happened to him (which could be worse because of media attention). That is the sad part.
To equal up the situation, because you agreed with me over society/legal gender bias in these cases, I will now withdraw my comment that she sexually abused a child. You showed me that she raped a child (2nd degree), I do prefer to be accurate.

Likewise. The fact we're unlikely to reach a consensus doesn't detract from what has been a profitable discussion.

Maybe we could enjoy a beer together sometime.

 

[Chappers]

Truce ? (see pm)

 

[jefhatfield]

This is child sex abuse and yet she gets an interview on TV. I wonder if the few views already aired here would be different if the teacher was a man making babies with a 13 year old girl.

the other way around angers people way more

i remember a story where a 13 year old mormon girl was marrying an adult male who already had several wives in utah...the press crucified the man and the girl's parents...the way most people saw it, the man was a child molester since this wasn't his first underage wife

in the case with letournou, she doesn't collect a whole bunch of underage husbands and now the boy is a man and he's 21 so there is nothing the law can do to stop the marriage even with the moral outrage that this story has caused

 

[Brize]

As you have said previously there are grey areas here…

Indeed, and given the emotive nature of the issue, this isn’t likely to change. As you say, this is a complex and difficult matter. In terms of guiding our moral judgements however, the law could do much to narrow this grey area. I find it fascinating and worrying that there are significant inconsistencies within the framework of US criminal law. Making a firm legal distinction between statutory rape and rape proper – as the Florida statutes seem to – would perhaps encourage a similar moral distinction.

Having been convicted of rape, Letourneau appears to have been subjected to the degree of loathing and hatred that is usually reserved for those who forcibly engage children in sexual activity. You perhaps consider this to be a fair reflection of her conduct, whereas I would advocate moderation in such circumstances. As an aside, I should mention here that the 'in the second degree' suffix to 'rape of a child' refers not to the severity of the offence, but to the age of the 'victim' (as I understand it). Thus, had Fualaau been 14 when the sexual relationship was initiated, the charge would have been reduced to 'rape of a child in the third degree' and the crime would have represented a Class C felony, rather than a Class A felony.

…but studies show this young man (as he is now) will have problems later because of what happened to him

Another definitive statement, but I'm reticent to spark another fourteen day discussion. Suffice it to say that researchers within the social sciences do not produce findings that establish a definitive casual relation between two variables. Rather, they report only on the statistical probability of their stated hypotheses. In this case, the experimental hypothesis might be 'that there will be a significant difference in the psychological welfare of a) those men who experienced sexual activity with an older woman whilst under the age of consent, and b) those men who did not experience sexual activity with an older woman whilst under the age of consent.' Thus, a relationship with an older woman whilst under the age of consent would be our independent variable, and psychological welfare would be our dependent variable.

However, the inherent problem with such experimental designs is that we are unable to manipulate the independent variable within the experiment. The only way to get around this would be for the experimenter to randomly assign 13- and 14-year old male participants to two groups (experimental and control); have an older woman sleep with the experimental group; control the conditions of both groups for x amount of years, and then assess the psychological welfare of each group. Obviously, this would be illegal, impractical and unethical, but without such controls, the attribution of causality is flawed because we can’t account for extraneous variables. In short, it's impossible to establish a causal relationship because we have no way of knowing whether both of our variables were caused by something else entirely.

By the way, your comment reminds me of a psychology lecturer in first year undergrad who told the class that a stock response to anyone who uses the phrase "studies have shown that…" should be to ask "which studies?"

Maybe we could enjoy a beer together sometime.

Sounds like a plan. Having browsed through your other posts, I imagine that we'd see eye-to-eye on more issues than this thread would indicate. Just about to send you a PM.

 

[Brize]

Truce ? (see pm)

Oh bugger. Have been writing my reply intermittently over the past few hours, so haven't been paying attention to the thread. Feel free to dive in with a closing statement before we wrap this up. By the way, I haven't received your PM yet. Could you re-send?

 

[Brize]

the other way around angers people way more

I think this was Chappers' point. He was referring to those of us who have expressed liberal and moderate views on this matter, and pointing out that we perhaps wouldn't feel the same way had this been a young girl, rather than a young boy. It's a fair observation.

 

[Chappers]

Brize

I found countless studies - well about 20, but you are right about the control.
It is a controlless +} situation. I don't think thats going to find its way into the dictionary any time soon..... or maybe now that I've mentioned it.

Take care out there - will pm you when I have time.