Last week two young teachers get arrested

[_The CCC]

More whataboutism. That is your standard response. Joseph Smith for whatever his sins and/or crimes is not here to defend himself. These teachers very much are. by the way In the 1830's marrying a 14 year old wasn't a crime.

[_Themis]

More whataboutism. That is your standard response. Joseph Smith for whatever his sins and/or crimes is not here to defend himself. These teachers very much are. by the way In the 1830's marrying a 14 year old wasn't a crime.

It is if you are already married, and it was looked down on for a man in his 30's to date or marry a 14 year old girl. This is why Joseph went to great lengths to hide his actions even from most of the church. I understand the problem of being a believing member of the LDS church and wanting to criticize some people for doing the same kind of things Joseph himself was guilty of. These two women are guilty of using their position of being teachers to manipulate 17 year old students into a sexual relationships. Joseph did the same with his position to manipulate young girls into sexual relationships. Both broke the law. For these women it was not the boys age alone, but their position as teachers. If they had not been their teachers they would have been fine. For Joseph it was not that it was illegal to marry a 14 year old. It was illegal to marry other women. Also many actions that are legal are not morally right.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

More whataboutism. That is your standard response. Joseph Smith for whatever his sins and/or crimes is not here to defend himself. These teachers very much are. by the way In the 1830's marrying a 14 year old wasn't a crime.

So, you're cool with Joseph Smith, an already married man, marrying a 14-year-old behind his wife's back because it wasn't illegal?

That doesn't make any sense. Bigamy was illegal.

Help me make sense of your position because it's actually worse than what these teachers did.

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

When parents turn their children over to teachers, an expression part of the understanding is that the teacher won’t ____ the children. The punishment is severe in part because of the breach of trust.

As a human do you feel that being fired is not enough? So if a teachers makes a racist comment during class she gets fired, but if she has sex with a 17 year old boy (one year above the legal age of consent) she goes to prison and is added on the sex offender for life. Why can't the breach of trust apply to racist comments?

Yes, as a human I feel that teachers who “F” students deserve more than being fired.

Because there are multiple considerations at play in these cases. Breach of trust is one of them. The constitutional freedom of speech is another. Criminalizing racist speech almost certainly is prohibited under the Constitution.

Something else that impacts the discussion is boundary cases. Criminal laws draw a line that separates legal conduct from conduct that can get you thrown in jail or fined. Constitutionally, these lines have to be clear so that people can know, in advance, whether they are breaking the law. But a clear line means that cases just on either side of the line are going to look unfair. Like going to prison for having sex that would have been legal in another couple of weeks. But if we make the clear line fuzzy to allow for those kind of exceptions, people can't clearly tell which conduct is legal and which is illegal. So, we kind of muddle through by shifting the lines around, or drawing different kinds of lines. In this case, with teachers, I think there was clear line drawn: no sex with students. Age of consent, in that case, isn't taken into consideration.

[_Res Ipsa]

Had the young man been 18 do you feel it would have made a difference? What is the evidence that sex caused him mental damage? Do you have medical reports? So even if true, why wouldn't the same thing apply to 18 year olds? Just a reminder the guy I was talking about is 17, I honestly can't see much difference.

I'm not clear. What was the law that the teacher violated. Was it a flat prohibition on sex with students? Or was it aged based?

All lines that divide legal from illegal conduct are likely to appear unfair when you contrast conduct that falls just on one side of the line with conduct just on the other side. It's the nature of lines.

The punishment is severe in part because of the breach of trust.

I understand, but it is also part of the war on sex. The belief the sex is an abomination does contribute, as it is well documented in the book https://www.dukeupress.edu/Assets/PubMa ... -5_601.pdf

It looks like an interesting collection of essays. I'll have to give it a read. I don't think that one has to believe that sex is an abomination to conclude that teachers who “F” students should do some prison time.

As a human being do you feel the teachers need to go many years to prison and be homeless for the rest of their lives?

I think they need to go to prison. We could endlessly debate for how long. In part, it's the serious breach of trust. In part, it's to deter other teachers from engaging in the same conduct. I don't think anyone should be homeless for the rest of his life.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Because there are multiple considerations at play in these cases. Breach of trust is one of them. The constitutional freedom of speech is another. Criminalizing racist speech almost certainly is prohibited under the Constitution.

I think uou are missing the point. So if a teacher psychologically harms a student by insulting him how would that not be a breach of trust? Is a breach of trust only when it involves sex? Even thought 17 years old is above the legal age.

It looks like an interesting collection of essays. I'll have to give it a read. I don't think that one has to believe that sex is an abomination to conclude that teachers who ____ students should do some prison time.

I wonder if other countries arrest teachers who have sex with students that are old enough to legally consent. Please read the book, you will find it very interesting.

I don't think anyone should be homeless for the rest of his life.

Many sex offenders end up homeless. The teachers will likely be added to sex offenders.

[_cafe crema]

What happens if the teacher transmits a STD to a student?

Transmitting STDs is separate charge. A lot of parents let their teenagers drive without a drivers licence, but no one condemns them with "what if they get in a traffic accident". Would you condemn parents for allowing their 15 year old son to drive?

See TYT video, to me they are making a lot of sense here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsfvmNbECIg

Did anyone watch this video? It doesn't make sense to me nor do I consider a 36 year old woman a young teacher, right next door to 40 and banging a 16 year old isn't a youthful mistake.

[_EAllusion]

Helen Mar Kimball was an 8th-grade aged girl who was raised by devout parents in a religious cult who was told by who she thought God's representative on Earth that marrying him would ensure her family's place in Heaven. With encouragement from her father, she believed him, but thought it would be a dynastic marriage. She was given a day to decide to decide. When she learned that this would very much be an ordinary marriage, albeit a polygamous one, with all that entails, she initially disliked the concept. It appears she fell ill shortly after, interpreted that as God punishing her for rejecting polygamy, and later grew to accept it more fully.

This is worse than what Roy Moore did, and what Roy Moore did was already quite bad. "Technically legal" is no defense of this and, while not even true, can only serve as a criticism of the state of the law in the period in which it happened. If this happened in any religion in which CCC was not a part, he'd probably have no trouble recognizing how disturbing it is. To wit, if it came to light that this is what Roy Moore was doing and he knew nothing of Smith's history, I'm 99.99999% sure he'd be appalled.

Regarding what this thread is about, it looks like the women might be facing sentences that are too harsh, but them being attractive has nothing to do with it nor are they "girls." I think DT highlights these points in an effort to point out that the high schoolers they had relationships with probably wanted it, but given the student/teacher relationship it's definitely dubious. I would agree that the age gap doesn't make this as serious it would be if there were younger victims, but there probably some be some level of sanction for it.

[_subgenius]

This is worse than what Roy Moore did, and what Roy Moore did was already quite bad.

"Technically" there is a significant difference between being convicted by allegations and being convicted by evidence and due processs. Primarily this difference is the former is the habit for hair-on-fire tards and the latter is the habit for adults with basic social and thinking skills.

[_Xenophon]

This is worse than what Roy Moore did, and what Roy Moore did was already quite bad.

"Technically" there is a significant difference between being convicted by allegations and being convicted by evidence and due processs. Primarily this difference is the former is the habit for hair-on-fire tards and the latter is the habit for adults with basic social and thinking skills.

Are you sure you understand what the "this" in EA's post is referencing? Unless you're suggesting that JSjr was convicted in a court of law over Kimball...

Thinking skills indeed.