He's a teacher..he knows in entering that profession he is under a set of legal rules more stringent than others due to his duty of care for young people.
He breached them. End of discussion as far as any absolution due to "romance". 47 to 14 is just not on for a teacher - it's predatory even tho understandable as some 14 year olds are totally luscious and totally open about showing off their juicy new bods to appreciative eyes. They should be able to flirt without risk as they are in try out mode for adult relationships and often have self esteem issues about their bodies that makes them particularly vulnerable.
I think it's a difficult time as they crave affection but often at that age do not want parental affection any more and some parents are uncomfortable too ..dad cuddling pubescent girl is a eyebrow lifter even tho the girl may just need some affection and reassurance. So she or he seeks it elsewhere and sometimes with risk ....that's where society can provide some protection against predators.....even those with without predatory intentions who simply "fall" for a young person. I notice there have been a few female teachers recently prosecuted for breach of care in getting into a relationship with a young boy.
Age of consent is diffult as kids fuck around earlier and earlier which is why I support gap laws that seek to prevent more sexually mature individuals preying on the immature.
The headache is a 16 year old can prey on a 13 year old but the 16 year old should not be held to the standard nor endure the penalty a 25 year old or especially a person in position of trust should risk. But there is a huge divide maturity and physically between 16 and 13.
In my view the age of consent should be 16 with sexual activities between those younger subject to mandatory counseling unless violence is used and then assault laws come into play.
Between 16 and 18 I think a gap law should still exist as studies have shown it takes til early twenties for people to mature in their judgement. ( the insurance companies understand this only too well )
So something like a 5 year or 7 year gap law would keep the 16 and 17 year olds from the worst of the predation and make it easier for police to prosecute in quasi-prostitution cases.
This would also curb the nastiness some of the Mormon sects dish out on their young girls.
Girls mature faster than boys and at 19 girls are both fully sexually mature and desirable
while boys are still growing up in the judgement realm which is why some curbs on wooing the newly blossomed adults in the 17-18 category is a good hedge.I think kids under 15 should be both free to play sexually but also be provided with education and birth control availability without moral condemnation.
16 - 18 is apprentice adult in society's eyes....some privileges not all and some remaining protections from much older sexual partners.
19 plus....fully participating member of society with the rights and responsibilities.
Oddly insurance is driving this sort of gradation in terms of both driving and in particular motorcycle use with graduated controls covering both age and time and type of vehicle.
But some libbies need to accept that society and individuals are in an every changing partnership with a body of law created over time and by the efforts of individuals and institutions covering the engagement between individual and the state.
In my view sexual transactions under 18 should not be dealt with by the criminal system and neither should familial matters like divorce etc be dealt with by the adversial legal system.
Community justice, mediation and counselling bodies should be the norm to deal with these matters. not the exception as it is now and mediation should be mandatory in family matters. Slightly off topic but not entirely as I think sexual digressions for those under 18 should be dealt with in the same system.
Corporations have a body of corporate law ( as flawed as that might be ) to protect things like minority shareholders rights etc.
Family law should have a similar system to protect minors without resorting to the brutal adversarial crap dished out by the legal vultures.
This guy will pay a societal penalty very high .....without burdening the state with useless incarceration...
He also bears the weighty guilt of his sex partner's suicide which his action's surely contributed to.
I thnk that Cairn's situation laid out the issues and I think the judge made a decent ruling on a very difficult and complex case.
This shows the gradation I think is needed both in the body of law and in the treatment of different ages..
over twenty five - he is now on a knife edge for serious jailOne of the adult rapists, Raymond Frederick Woolla, 26, is on the Australian National Child Offence Register following a conviction on March 29 last year for unlawful carnal knowledge of a female child - an offence committed after he was charged with the rape of the 10-year-old girl.
Judge Bradley said Woolla was the oldest and should have known a lot better.
"You cannot have sex with anyone under 16," she said.
"However, as I said before, I am not treating anyone any differently in terms of being a ringleader, and in your case, again, I will impose a sentence of imprisonment but it will be wholly suspended so you do not go to jail today.
"But if you get into more trouble in the next year, you could end up in jail." Woolla had been arrested on August 7, 2006, and the judge said the 14 days he spent in custody awaiting his sentence was to count as "imprisonment already served".
The only thing that is missing here is a community justice ruling as opposed to the full legal system but the judge did a good job in my view of filling that role and hopefully the community involved will see to it her intentions are carried through to curb the predation on young girls.When sentencing the juveniles, Justice Bradley said: "All of you have pleaded guilty to having sex with a 10-year-old girl and (one of the juveniles) has pleaded guilty to having sex with another young girl as well.
"All of you have to understand that you cannot have sex with a girl under 16.
"If you do, you are breaking the law, and if you are found out, then you will be brought to court and could end up in jail.
"I accept that the girl involved, with respect to all of these matters, was not forced, and that she probably agreed to have sex with all of you.
"But you were taking advantage of a 10-year-old girl and she needs to be protected, and the girls generally in this community need to be protected.
"This is a very serious matter.
"It is a very shameful matter and I hope that all of you realise that you must not have sex with young girls.
"Anyone under 16 is too young.
"Some of you are still children yourselves.
"Others of you are adults but I am treating you all equally in terms of the behaviour.
"I am not treating any of you as the ringleader or anything likethat."
She asked each prisoner to stand up and said she hoped they would realise it was wrong to have sex with young girls.
Justice Bradley then offered them probation and when each agreed to accept that, she said she would not record a conviction.
To one of the juveniles, she said: "You are still a child. You have pleaded guilty to one offence of rape.
"You have been in a lot of trouble in the past, though, and you still have some community service to do.
"You have not been doing that well. I am prepared to offer you probation but you have got to stick with the rules of probation."
The juvenile agreed and was then placed on 12 months' probation, with no conviction recorded.
10 tho.....
....urk......good case for touring sex workers.
