Job Discussion Forums

[darkhorse]

[marblez]

[GambateBingBangBOOM]

[cujobytes]

Youngeorge said:

[Aramas]

Witchburners are strange cattle. Society prevents them from vilifying and victimising the general populace, so they have to resort to what the herd considers 'fair game', on whom they unleash their vitriolic, self-righteous bile ad nauseum.

Of course, if they were free of society's constraints, they would treat everyone that way. Judge, jury and executioner, every one of them. There may be lesser forms of human life, but if so, I've yet to meet one. Unless it's smarmy, middle-class social-worker types - oh, wait. That's the same people!

If someone is not breaking the law, then it's none of your business.

[thelmadatter]

From a both intellectual and emotional perspective, I cannot understand the idea of "let bygones be bygones" in this kind of situation or how those of us who feel something should be done about this 52-yr-old teacher can be simply branded as "witch-hunters."

No bank or financial institution would hire someone who has embezzled funds. A nurse/doctor who has committed a mercy killing or gross negligence would permanently lose his/her license to work. Does anyone believe that institutions that refuse to hire or license such people are somehow immoral? And these are the kinds of crimes where there may not be ANY kind of psychological impulse, so recidivism is not the issue it could be in this case.

The problem is not the age of the girl. Focusing on the girl (as so often happens in cases like this) detracts from the real issue and makes the situation worse. I see two major problems. 1) the age difference between a 52-yr-old and a 15-yr-old. There is an inherent power imbalance here. Yes, it is statutory rape if the adult is 18 or 52, but in the case of a 18-yr-old with a 17-yr-old (as mentioned in an earlier post), there probably is an certain equality. These cases of statutory rape are often not prosecuted for this very reason. Once the adult is over 25, it seems to be a lot more onerous. 2) The adult here was a teacher! If the age difference wasn't enough of a problem, the fact that this guy took advantage of the trust offered by his position is what makes this very wrong. Teachers have power over students, both in their social status (society and students think of teachers differently and hopefully with more trust than most other adults) and the fact that they control grades (whether or not this is ever explicitly mentioned by the teacher matters little - the student always knows.)
With all the cases of teacher-student "affairs" I know of, including those cases of female teachers with adolescent male students, the teachers have chosen students with family and/or peer problems. That is not by accident.

I had a related experience when I was 15. I was in Rainbow Girls (a Masonic organization for girls). There was a 40-something guy who was one of the counselors for my group. OK ... I was an adolescent, so I had hormones. I do remember thinking he was cute and being attracted to him. I did flirt with him. However, I NEVER thought he would actually do anything, so I thought it was safe to have these feelings and actions.

I was hiding in a stairwell during some event, upset about something. (I wasnt' exactly Miss Popularity as a kid.) He found me and let me talk. He touched my hand. OK, maybe he was just consoling me. Yes, I liked it. It made me feel special. Then he leaned over and kissed me full on the mouth. My back was against the railing so I couldnt move back. I was mortified! Fortunately, the stairwell wasn't private enough, so nothing else happened. In one of my more lucid moment of adolescence. I got out of there and quit Rainbow Girls the next day. But I never told my mom. Why? Because I would be blamed to making that happen. THAT is why it is statutory rape. A 15-year-old has impulses and is mature enough physically for sex, but is 99% of the time NOT ready psychologically or emotionally for this.

He breached a trust. He should have been mature enough to know that what he was doing was wrong because whatever sexual behavior I was exploring (flirting), was not an invitation for sexual contact. Not all flirting done by adults is permission for sexual contact either.... But at the time, I was naive ... to some extent I did know that flirting has consequences. That is why I chose to do it with someone who would "obviously" not do anything ... but then realized not everyone is moral.

[Aramas]

Well okay, just who exactly is going to enforce the moralising of the wowsers, and by what authority?

We have a wannabe criminologist declaring himself fit to judge someone he's never met, and who has not committed any crime. Wouldn't that make him a moralologist?

The purpose of the ironically named 'justice' system is to isolate people who have committed a crime under the relevent laws of the land. It's not for destroying people's lives based on the self-righteous moralising of a few tosspots, over what's nothing more than suspicion, hearsay and innuendo. Over the ages millions of people have suffered persecution, vilification and ridicule, and have fought and died to establish the basic human rights we have today. We all have a pact with society to abide by its laws, and in return we are protected from people who have broken the law. There is no obligation, implied or otherwise, to conform to anyone else's morality, opinion, dogma or prejudice - in fact, there are laws to protect us from people who try to inflict those things on us. If you don't like it then it's your right to support changing the laws. Otherwise, it's none of your business. By all means pine for the good old days when you could hang a black man for looking at you 'disrespectfully', but you just have to accept that those days are gone, and casting around for politically correct alternative victims is fooling no one.

In most developed countries it is necessary to pass a police check before being permitted to work with minors - it's a one strike and you're out system, which is harsh but the alternative is worse. The fellow in question would probably not be permitted to work with minors in his home country, but if the country he is currently working in has no such law, then by all means advocate changing the law, but don't victimise someone who has broken no law. Unless he breaks the law in that country then your speculation is nothing more than slanderous gossip.

Sorry, but you're not in charge - and with good reason, it seems.

[ls650]

[Justin Trullinger]

It is true, as has been mentioned, that most paedophiles re-offend. Most criminologists, and student criminologists, and psychologists and psychiatrists agree: this is a hard one to "cure."

That said, and at risk of making this thread go in circles, is a man who has a sexual attraction to a 15 year old a paedophile? We've done this one to death.

Maybe to put the discussion back into a theoretical, academic realm, we could ask "Would you hire this guy?"

I'm not sure how I feel saying this, but I probably wouldn't. I don't doubt that his crime was a slip in self control, but personally, I value self control in a teacher. And at the end of the day, I wouldn't risk my own or my organisation's rep on someone who has abused teacher/student trust and power in the past. This may not be fair to him, if he`s truly reformed, but I wouldn`t take the chance.

It really has nothing to do with sex. It's about abuse of power.

Justin

[matttheboy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1476526,00.html

Spain's high court sees nothing wrong with a teacher having sex with a 14 year old girl. I do but i guess it's up to the courts to decide. The question i'd like to know the answer to is: If that 14 year old Spanish girl went to England and had sex with someone the man would be classed a 'pervert' and put on the sex offenders' list. Why does society and the law see things so differently in england than in another country in the EU?

[GambateBingBangBOOM]

[marblez]

[moonraven]

Darkhorse: the spanking occured in the privacy of the women's bathroom. Downstairs.

Too much time on your hands these days?

[Aramas]

Lol Marblez - even your dissembling is pompous

You really need to be less thin-skinned. The extent of my 'personal insults' toward you involves pointing out that 'you don't know jack'( in the context that no one does), and referring to you as a 'wannabe criminologist' (I take it you prefer 'aspiring'?). I call that being accurate, not insulting.

Prattling on about nothing in a pseudo-erudite fashion impresses no one. Dissembling when you're caught out doesn't change the fact that you took your position based on popularist dogma rather than on the 'evidence' given in the OP. The OP gives no indication that the 'offender' is a paedophile (the girl was 15), or that there was sex involved (the charge was "attempted sexual assault"). There was no time served, so it can't have been serious, and it's quite likely that he's not even on the sex offender's register in his home country. The parents sued both him and the school, which seems to indicate that their motive was the smell of money rather than the pursuit of justice. Indeed, the only reason the sewing circle even knows about it is from the publicity surrounding the civil suit.

In Australia, taking a pee in a park, or by the side of a highway carries the charge "indecent exposure" - the same as that for waving one's todger at a gaggle of schoolgirls. I suspect that the chap in the OP was caught out doing something as innocuous as skinnydipping on a hike, and "attempted sexual assault" was the best that the cops could come up with. However, on the basis of almost nothing, you took the opportunity to advocate the life-long victimisation of the fellow. That disgusts me, and does not bode well for your future professionalism. I suggest that you research the case and talk it over with your tutor. That way you might actually know what you're talking about. No one here does, since we weren't given any evidence to speak of - not that witchburners need any, of course.

[darkhorse]

post deleted