Page 1 of 1
Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:08 pm
by clem21
So I'm writing a piece for the newspaper about student-teacher relationships and in my research I've come to a recent ruling by Washington state that a relationship between any teacher and any student over 18 is legal.
There was a very strong reaction to this and my attempts to look into it further have become murky so my question is:
Is it illegal in other states for a teacher to have a consensual relationship with an above-18 student and what are the laws regarding sexual advances made(Not Unwanted) between those parties?
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:09 pm
by sunflower
I don't know anything about the laws in any states...but I would think that most schools would have policies banning those types of relationships.
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:13 pm
by clem21
sunflower wrote:I don't know anything about the laws in any states...but I would think that most schools would have policies banning those types of relationships.
Surprisingly not. Most colleges "discourage" them but very few actually prohibit if it's consensual.
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:22 pm
by sunflower
clem21 wrote:sunflower wrote:I don't know anything about the laws in any states...but I would think that most schools would have policies banning those types of relationships.
Surprisingly not. Most colleges "discourage" them but very few actually prohibit if it's consensual.
Oh colleges...I was thinking high school, with kids who turn 18 while they're still there. Oh, I had lots of friends who dated professors in college. And in some cases I use the term "dated" very, very loosely.
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:25 pm
by SportsFan68
From an HR point of view --
Is it illegal in other states for a teacher to have a consensual relationship with an above-18 student and what are the laws regarding sexual advances made(Not Unwanted) between those parties?
It is not illegal in Colorado.
The laws regarding unwanted sexual advances are covered by established sexual harassment guidelines or in extreme cases by criminal law regarding stalking or even rape.
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:30 pm
by christie1111
Getting a little demanding there, aren't we?
Maybe please would help.
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:35 pm
by Appa23
I would guess that nearly every other state has this same loophole whereupon a teacher is not breaking the letter of the law by engaging in a voluntary carnal relationship with an 18 year-old student.
The issue is what is the age for a "minor".
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:44 pm
by VAdame
Newt Gingrich's first wife was his former high school geometry teacher. He was 19 and she was 26 when they married.
This is the wife he served with divorce papers while she was in the hospital being treated for breast cancer.
One of Leah's friends (age 22) dated one of their former middle school teachers recently! He's in his mid-30s now -- 10 years ago he was the brand-new handsome young guy teacher all the girls had crushes on. 10 years ago he was also married, but he has since divorced.
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:46 pm
by TheCalvinator24
Texas law doesn't provide an exception for 18 year olds (or 17 year olds, which is the age of consent in Texas).
However, according to
this article, Prosecutors have found it difficult to prevail in cases when the "victim" is 17 or 18 years old.
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:01 pm
by clem21
christie1111 wrote:Getting a little demanding there, aren't we?
Maybe please would help.
But assemble is so much more fun!
Also, since I'm such an inherently sweet and polite young person the politeness is a given.
And if you made Caress Evenly Gorgeous For Men I'd get it....So long as it's not as ridculously expensive as Axe.
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:04 pm
by Appa23
TheCalvinator24 wrote:Texas law doesn't provide an exception for 18 year olds (or 17 year olds, which is the age of consent in Texas).
However, according to
this article, Prosecutors have found it difficult to prevail in cases when the "victim" is 17 or 18 years old.
Thanks for the info. I had not thought about there being a law specific to the teacher-student relationship, regardless of age.
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:09 pm
by clem21
TheCalvinator24 wrote:Texas law doesn't provide an exception for 18 year olds (or 17 year olds, which is the age of consent in Texas).
However, according to
this article, Prosecutors have found it difficult to prevail in cases when the "victim" is 17 or 18 years old.
This is very interesting and pertinent as many college freshman (including myself) can be 18 upon entrance to college. Any way I can find out if there is a similar law in New York State? Please.
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:11 pm
by TheCalvinator24
clem21 wrote:TheCalvinator24 wrote:Texas law doesn't provide an exception for 18 year olds (or 17 year olds, which is the age of consent in Texas).
However, according to
this article, Prosecutors have found it difficult to prevail in cases when the "victim" is 17 or 18 years old.
This is very interesting and pertinent as many college freshman (including myself) can be 18 upon entrance to college. Any way I can find out if there is a similar law in New York State? Please.
The Texas law only applies to Teachers in Elementary and Secondary schools. It does not apply to colleges.
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:18 pm
by clem21
TheCalvinator24 wrote:clem21 wrote:TheCalvinator24 wrote:Texas law doesn't provide an exception for 18 year olds (or 17 year olds, which is the age of consent in Texas).
However, according to
this article, Prosecutors have found it difficult to prevail in cases when the "victim" is 17 or 18 years old.
This is very interesting and pertinent as many college freshman (including myself) can be 18 upon entrance to college. Any way I can find out if there is a similar law in New York State? Please.
The Texas law only applies to Teachers in Elementary and Secondary schools. It does not apply to colleges.
Oh. I wonder why there's a difference there if the age is the same. Okay, interesting information nonetheless, so thanks.
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:51 pm
by Appa23
clem21 wrote:TheCalvinator24 wrote:Texas law doesn't provide an exception for 18 year olds (or 17 year olds, which is the age of consent in Texas).
However, according to
this article, Prosecutors have found it difficult to prevail in cases when the "victim" is 17 or 18 years old.
This is very interesting and pertinent as many college freshman (including myself) can be 18 upon entrance to college. Any way I can find out if there is a similar law in New York State? Please.
I will give you a jump start on your computer research.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0710.htm
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:59 pm
by clem21
Appa23 wrote:clem21 wrote:TheCalvinator24 wrote:Texas law doesn't provide an exception for 18 year olds (or 17 year olds, which is the age of consent in Texas).
However, according to
this article, Prosecutors have found it difficult to prevail in cases when the "victim" is 17 or 18 years old.
This is very interesting and pertinent as many college freshman (including myself) can be 18 upon entrance to college. Any way I can find out if there is a similar law in New York State? Please.
I will give you a jump start on your computer research.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0710.htm
This is awesome man, thank you so much!
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:52 am
by minimetoo26
Now I'm wondering if clem is being harrassed or if he's thinking about asking out one of his professors...
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:55 am
by Charlie Brown's Teacher
clem21 wrote:So I'm writing a piece for the newspaper about student-teacher relationships and in my research I've come to a recent ruling by Washington state that a relationship between any teacher and any student over 18 is legal.
There was a very strong reaction to this and my attempts to look into it further have become murky so my question is:
Is it illegal in other states for a teacher to have a consensual relationship with an above-18 student and what are the laws regarding sexual advances made(Not Unwanted) between those parties?
Wah wah wah wah, wah wah-wah waaaaaah!
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:12 am
by andrewjackson
Here is the section of the Texas Penal Code:
Sec. 21.12. IMPROPER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDUCATOR AND STUDENT. (a) An employee of a public or private primary or secondary school commits an offense if the employee engages in:
(1) sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse with a person who is enrolled in a public or private primary or secondary school at which the employee works and who is not the employee's spouse; or
(2) conduct described by Section 33.021, with a person described by Subdivision (1), regardless of the age of that person.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.
(c) If conduct constituting an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under another section of this code, the actor may be prosecuted under either section or both sections.
(d) The name of a person who is enrolled in a public or private primary or secondary school and involved in an improper relationship with an educator as provided by Subsection (a) may not be released to the public and is not public information under Chapter 552, Government Code.
That 33.021 bit is ONLINE SOLICITATION OF A MINOR. It defines a minor as someone under the age of 17 but this clause removes that age restriction if the person fits subsection 1 of this section. So a school employee can't solicit sex from a student at their own school no matter the age of the student.
Unless the employee is married to the student.
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:49 pm
by Ritterskoop
I turned 17 two weeks before I started college. The subject did come up. Not in a genuinely legal way, but in an "I can't even talk to you about that" legal way.
From the teacher's perspective, I know now that the way to avoid such things is to say that school policy forbids it, and then you don't have to worry about the age of the student (laws vary from state to state, which I realize is the original question but I dunno the law here). When I was hired to teach, I asked the person who hired me what were the rules, and she said, "Wear clothes, and don't date the students."
Since then I've read the manual, and it is not forbidden to date or marry a student with whom you will never have a teaching relationship. Which is good, because if I ever meet anybody to end up with, it seems likely to be someone on campus that would fit the best.
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:53 pm
by wintergreen48
andrewjackson wrote:Here is the section of the Texas Penal Code:
I that that most sex crimes involve a Penal code.
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:33 pm
by TheConfessor
andrewjackson wrote:(1) sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse with a person who is enrolled in a public or private primary or secondary school at which the employee works and who is not the employee's spouse; or.
Is this redundant, or is there some way to have sexual intercourse without having sexual contact?
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:37 pm
by TheCalvinator24
TheConfessor wrote:andrewjackson wrote:(1) sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse with a person who is enrolled in a public or private primary or secondary school at which the employee works and who is not the employee's spouse; or.
Is this redundant, or is there some way to have sexual intercourse without having sexual contact?
The terms are specifically defined in the penal code.
sexual intercourse is exclusively penile/vaginal penetration
sexual contact is "any touching of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of another person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person."
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:41 pm
by andrewjackson
TheCalvinator24 wrote:TheConfessor wrote:andrewjackson wrote:(1) sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse with a person who is enrolled in a public or private primary or secondary school at which the employee works and who is not the employee's spouse; or.
Is this redundant, or is there some way to have sexual intercourse without having sexual contact?
The terms are specifically defined in the penal code.
sexual intercourse is exclusively penile/vaginal penetration
sexual contact is "any touching of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of another person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person."
I think the Confessor's point was that all you have to outlaw is sexual contact. That would, by definition, include intercourse.
Re: Alright you law practicing attorney people. Assemble.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:43 pm
by TheCalvinator24
"sexual contact" requires the element of intent to arouse or satisfy sexual desire.
We've been told for years that "rape" is not about sex, but power, so the definition of "sexual intercourse" does not require the State to prove that the perpetrator was attempting to arouse of gratify anybody.