Former Middleboro teacher avoids jail time for rape



I'm too livid to comment on this right now.. So I will just present my debate question.

Question for debate:

1. Should a Federal Law similar to Megans law in Florida be put into place to have a mandatory jail sentence for convicted child rapists?

Before we go off on this fellow, I agree his sentence was a bit light and he should have received more jail time, but lets be clear that the crime here was STATUTORY Rape, which is very different from actual rape. Of course it is still a crime, and still needs to be punished, but I though it was important to have our facts straight.

Thats sick, i hate the way the law is extreme at one point and so lose the next...

Yes it is absolutely important to note this. Especially since as a society America is (ahem) injecting sexuality into pre teens. So a 26 year old teacher, who should likely know better - but clearly doesn't, has sex with a teen, who is let's say 15 since we do not know the age (but do know the student was under 16.)

While a 15 year may (or may not) be fully equipped to make a decision regarding sex mentally - they cannot LEGALLY. I suspect this was consensual on a moral level and so the suspended sentence.

I am not clear on the question. You write "should a federal law similar to Megan's law in Florida"...what are the particular's of Megan's law in Florida? Megan's law started in NJ and requires a sex offender to notify the community he/she lives in of his/her history. Are there mandatory jail senteces tacked on to Florida's version of Megan's law?

I think that people would not have been so repulsed by this situation if it involved a 15 year old girl and 26 year old male AND i don't think that a community would demand a two year sentence. It is hard to say if this man should be considered a danger to society as I deem sex offenders that hurt children AND if there is a mandatory sentence in place for sex offenders I don't know if the situation in this case would be applicable since this is a situation of consent and, therefore, statutory rape.

That said, in this situation the teacher is certainly at fault and should have used better judgement and he definitely deserves a good deal of punishment for what he has done.

HUH???
If you had children, and they were having sex with 20-something men in school when they were 14 or 15... how would you portray "statuatory" rape?

This is like the Judge Cashman case in Vermont...
Sickening rape case

I believe as long as there are judges appointed to the bench that aren't held accountable for their deplorable decisions... who knows what will happen.

As our buddy Bill O'Reilly has stated, I'd be very interested to see what the verdict would've been had it been in a more conservative area like... say, Jackson Mississippi.

God I loathe arguments like this.

Yes, of course if my child of 15 were sleeping with a 23 year old teacher, I would want him strung up by the scrotum. THAT, of course, is why we do not let angry parents act as judge and jury in law, instead we have this pesky legal system where judgements can be rendered on fact instead of the emotions of the nearest and dearest.


Look, let us be clear here, the defendent in this case was condemned for statutory rape because he had sex with a 15 year old in a state where the age of consent is 16. He received a 2.5 year suspended sentence and 5 years probation, and will never teach again. I agree the sentence is low, but not outragiously so, nor is it a travesty of the lagal system. For all we know, the reason the judge gave a suspended sentence because the youth was 5 days shy of their 16th birthday, and the official age of consent.

Considering the travesties of justice that DO exist on a frequent basis, going off on a slightly low sentence for a case in which if we knew all the facts the sentence MIGHT be entirely justified, seems a bit silly.



Are you insane? This is NOTHING like the Vermont Case. Nothing at all. I cannot believe that even you really cannot see the difference between having consentual sex with a minor a handful of months short of the age of consent, and brutally and violently raping a 7-year old child repeatedly over a 4-year period.

In the Vermont case the Judge was out of his mind, and should have been sanctioned. In this case, from what we know, I can't see anything wrong with it though I would have preferred a slightly stiffer sentence...

Here comes the pounding.

Should a Federal Law similar to Megans law in Florida be put into place to have a mandatory jail sentence for convicted child rapists?
If you mean wo/men who have to register with the sherrif’s office as sex offenders should have a minimal mandatory sentence I disagree. Though in this case the judge should’ve granted the prosecution’s 2 1/2 years request. This guy is gonna be a long-term problem based on the evidence they found in the defendant’s house.


No, this isn’t like the Vermont case, where a pre-pubescent girl was forced to have sex against her will for years. I realize statutory rape laws exist, but as with the minimum age for drinking, I don’t agree with them. My hypothetical teenage daughter turning 16 doesn’t suddenly make it okay to have sex with a 26 year-old, nor does it mean she’s suddenly capable of handling the emotional/mental aspect of sex.

There are cases that may warrant statutory rape laws but IMO, they’re mostly legal therapy for parents that can’t cope with the idea that their "little girl" is giving it up (regardless of how young/old the guy is) and it’s a slap in the face to compare that situation with the teenagers/women whose consent never entered the equation.

My apologies for the 'insane' comment, I was referring to the point, not to the poster, but it was still a bit unecessary.

I knew the statutory rape argument would come up, claiming it's not as bad as actual rape. While I agree when a 19 year old has sex with a 16 year old and is accused of rape this is ridiculous.

But we send our children to learn... not to be seduced by a teacher who is supposed to be teaching them.

But we KNOW NOTHING about this case. We have no idea who did the seducing, for all we know these two will be married in 6 years. Things don't fit into neat little boxes.

If you'd like to discuss the legitimacy of Statutory Rape laws that's fine. However, it would appear that those laws were taken into account in this case. Yet, we will likely never know the "real" story.

In the US the majority of states have Consent laws that are set at 16
So where is the "rape" really?



Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Alabama: 16



The age of consent in the United States averages at 16 years of age.
Hell New Mexico has one set at 14 if the partner is only 4 years older. Missouri also has the same.
Iowa bans you for life from living in one of their cities if you break their consent laws--you have to live out in the rural areas

So I would guess that it would depend on just how far she was from 16 before i got outraged that she was having sex--even if the guy was 26. It's twisted to be sure--But really it wasn't all that long ago in this country that young girls were married off to much older men.


This is what I find outrageous. He definetely shouldn't be allowed to teach any longer.

To my way of thinking, a person in a position of authority -- such as a teacher, a clergyperson, a therapist, etc. -- is guilty of rape even if the other party was doing the seducing, and even if that other party is of legal age to consent. It is a manipulation of power on the part of the professional.

So a sitting President getting a edited to remove vulgar term by an intern, by your way of thinking, should be charged with statutory rape?

If the person was under the legal age of consent in that jurisdiction. If not, he should be charged with rape according to the non-statutory definition.

EDITED TO ADD: I make this statement with the assumption that an intern is under the jurisdiction of a sitting President, and that said President could have influence over whether said intern kept her job. I should have added "employer" to my list above of persons in a position of authority.

BTW, if you're just using me to bash Bill Clinton, Baph, I hate to disappoint you, but I didn't vote for him. LOL

Can we not agree that there's often an emotional difference between a 19 year old college intern is different from a 15 year old sophomore in Highschool?

Unfortunately, we cannot judge the merits of the "consent" in that the laws exist to protect the vulnerable nature of young boys and girls. The irony in the case is that the man had a history of "out of line" behavior.

While there may be 15 year old girls (surely not boys if I remember those days correctly...) capable of handling the emotional nature of sexual encounters, they are surely the exception as opposed to the rule. The laws keep predatory men/women from exploiting this notion.

*edited to remove vular term* wow... should have read what I was gonna write jamie.

In any event I think your hardline on this completely unreasonable. Arbitrary lines drawn in an arbitrary sandbox serve no useful purpose.

Lest anyone think I am proponent of pedophila - I'm not.

This is my point exactly. The responsibility for this situation belongs to the offender. There are always going to be people who attempt to manipulate or exploit those in their charge or under their jurisdiction or in their employ or whatever. Such people, without exception, should be punished for misusing their positions of authority.

Uhh, besides the rape of the child, there is also the charge[s] relating to the possession of child pornography. In Hawaii, possession of child porn is a class C felony. If the distribution of harmful material is the same as our promoting child abuse in the second degree ["A person commits the offense of promoting child abuse in the second degree if, knowing or having reason to know its character and content, the person: (a) disseminates child pornography...."], then he's guilty of a class B felony as well.

And going back to Judge Cashman, I wonder if Vermont has the equivalent of HRS [Hawaii Revised Statutes] 707-733.5, with the same providing, in pertinent part:

"(1) Any person who:
(a) Either resides in the same home with a minor under the age of fourteen years or has recurring access to the minor; and
( Engages in three or more acts of sexual penetration or sexual contact with the minor over a period of time, but while the minor is under the age of fourteen years, is guilty of the offense of continuous sexual assault of a minor under the age of fourteen years."
***
(4) Continuous sexual assault of a minor under the age of fourteen years is a class A felony."

For someone here who ran afoul of that statute:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...5836sdo&invol=1

Sorry, found the Mass. statute at issue. Apparently, the statute covers the same conduct as does the noted Hawaii statute on "promoting child abuse in the second degree." See:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-28.htm

And compare Pathiakis' sentence with that here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ma/presspage/Oct...-sentencing.htm

And though I didn't vote for him, I'll give a kudo to Kerry for this one:

http://www.mspcc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=...Page&pageID=500