Teen Who Ran Away with his Teacher can’t go Home (Updated)
[Guest post by DRJ]
Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon to read reports of teachers and students involved in relationships but this Nebraska case looks like it will have an unlikely ending:
“The 13-year-old who fled from Nebraska with a middle school teacher told The Associated Press their friendship led to sex and a rambling journey to nowhere that now has them both facing fates they never wanted.
The boy, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, might not ever be able to return to the U.S., the country he considers home. The 25-year-old teacher, Kelsey Peterson, is in a California jail on charges of crossing state lines with the intention of having sex with a minor.”
No matter how willing he may have been, the student is a minor so I think the only way to view this incident is as an abduction case across international lines. It’s hard to believe there isn’t a humanitarian exception that would allow him to be returned to his Nebraska family.
Having said that, however, now that the family has been identified I think those family members who are here illegally should face immigration proceedings and be deported if appropriate.
Update: More on this story here.
— DRJ
My 5th grade teacher was HOT, so I feel for this kid. Do you think this would have played out differently in the media had the student been a girl and the teacher a man?
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 1:55 pmAh yes, the “I’d destroy my life and the life of at least two children all over again if I had the chance” disclaimer.
I suppose I should be more sympathetic. But sexual predators (sic) should think of their own child before attempting to statutorily rape and basically kidnap another. She loves her 8 year old, I’m sure, but her judgment to raise said child is now seriously in question.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 11/7/2007 @ 1:56 pmThe Mexican kid was only doing the teachers no American kids would do. n/t Doug McIntyre
I feel no pity for the teen. This is akin to getting caught doing something wrong and being sent to live with other relatives. The true victim in this case is the teacher’s 8 year old daughter.
dave (c44c9b) — 11/7/2007 @ 1:57 pmThis is what I don’t understand — that other teacher who went to prison twice because she was boinking her 12 year old student. The kid looked like a kid. A little toad kid at that. What on earth would make a woman obsess about him, go to prison, and destroy her family and the lives of her own children?
dave (c44c9b) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:02 pm“Only The Shadow knows.”
Seriously, what makes a President see a chubby intern snap a thong and go on to risk his marriage and whole professional life? What makes a man see a scantily dressed prostitute on the street and pursue her at great personal risk (disease risk and marriage/family risk)?
*shakes head in utter disbelief*
You humans. Your sexual desires and their consequences are a mystery to us.
Asexual Martian (1ebbb1) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:10 pmWhat on earth would make a woman obsess about him, go to prison, and destroy her family and the lives of her own children?
1. Utter selfishness
2. Total lack of regard for own child(ren)
3. pure evil
Take your pick of any or all of the above. It would be horrible and unforgivable enough to statutorily rape the 13 year old. To ignore even the possibility of the consequences of all this on her own child is unconscionable.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:17 pm… now that the family has been identified I think those family members who are here illegally should face immigration proceedings and be deported if appropriate.
And here’s the hard part for the most ardent border-enforcement advocate. I’d hesitate to deport parents whose status came to light because their thirteen-year old was kidnapped by a sicko. The implications for illegals who are afraid to report a crime and for criminals who think they can prey on them with impunity are troubling.
nk (580aa7) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:33 pmThe Clintons have a political partnership, not a marriage. These leaves both to seek sexual satisfaction in the arms of other women.
Banjo (b5278d) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:34 pmThe punishment shows how much we really care about “the children”
We take away an 8-year-old’s mom to punish the mom for having consensual sex with a 13-year-old.
So let me decipher our true priorities in this country regarding children: Let them starve for affection, no big deal. (Which is of course what caused this student/teacher relationship in the first place). Just don’t let them have sex!
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:36 pmI don’t mean to pick on you, nk, but your post struck a chord with me.
Let’s say, just for argument that a reporter doing a background story on the kid’s parents dug up the fact that they were running a brothel from their home. (I picked this crime rather than illegally dumping toxic waste in an attempt to match the severity of illegal immigration.) Would you hesitate to prosecute the parents because their operation was discovered because of their son’s predicament?
If so, why? If not, what makes this different from the real case of the parents being illegal aliens?
Steverino (e00589) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:43 pmNK,
I know, it’s a tough question. I’m willing to provide a humanitarian exception that lets an abducted child come home but I’m not willing to give the family a walk just because their names came to light as a result of a criminal proceeding in which they were the victims. Many illegal immigrants are victims of crime but you can’t exempt them from the immigration laws as a result.
Nor do I think we should design immigration policies around the possibility that some people will intentionally break the law (such as by abducting illegal immigrant’s children) solely to make sure they are deported. Even if I accept that might happen, I think the possibility is too attenuated to justify making it a basis for government policy. The remedy for that is prosecuting criminals and making an example of them.
This may not be the best analogy but it would be like saying we should never let people protest at abortion clinics because there might be another Eric Rudolph out there. Whether you are for or against abortion, the answer isn’t to curtail rights (or immunize people from deportation) in order to protect against isolated criminal acts unless those acts become so widespread that it’s the only answer.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:47 pmPhil – Our legal system does not recognize the ability of 13 year olds to consent to anything, much less consensual sex.
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:50 pm13 years old is below the Age of Consent, making this Statutory Rape. And she knew it.
The teacher is a sexual predator and needs to be locked up to keep her away from kids.
Given her behavior I question her fitness to raise her own kid.
So don’t even try to play on my heartstrings, Phil. I’m not buying it, no matter how pitiful a picture you paint.
LarryD (feb78b) — 11/7/2007 @ 2:51 pmI’m sure her daugher appreciates your concern.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:00 pmI’m sure her daughter would have preferred a mother who chose to stay home instead of running off with a 13-year old boy, but unfortunately she didn’t have that kind of mother. That’s the real problem here.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:04 pmPhil – That is laughable. It is not society’s fault that the parent broke the law. What other laws should we ignore if a parents breaks them?
If you think a 13 year old should be able to consent to sex with an adult in general, or their teacher in particular, make your case.
I am fed up to here with these arguments based on nothing but emotion.
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:05 pmPhil writes: “So let me decipher our true priorities in this country regarding children: Let them starve for affection, no big deal. … Just don’t let them have sex! ”
This is a troubling sentence.
Phil, I’m confident you have no intention of fronting for NAMBLA’s message here, but others are going to believe that you are implying that. You might want to correct that.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:08 pmDRJ, that’s one of the problems here, I don’t disagree. Her mom’s a flake.
However, supporting this state of affairs does, I think, demonstrate that you think having consensual sex with a teenager is more offensive than taking an 8-year-old’s mom away. You are willing to forgive the latter in order to punush the former.
My suggested remedy? Ban her from teaching, make her pay for counseling for the boy, and put her on probation. Why tramatize two kids instead of just one?
But god forbid we don’t approve of the harshest punishment possible for this woman. What she’s done has to be “unforgivable, horrific” rather than just stupid and flaky and dangerous.
I think that the way people freak out about teen statutory rape is a way of compensating for the fact that we really can’t protect kids from other kids at that age. Because they are so damn cruel to each other — and you can’t stop them.
So whenever an adult does something even mildly inappropriate to a minor we freak out — “how DARE you traumatize our teen — you’ve gotta let his/her PEERS do that!”
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:18 pmAs to the teacher, she is not exactly mother of the year if she will chose screwing some 13 year old boy over her daughter and go on the lamm with him. Time she should have spent with her daughter, she spent with him. Money she should have spent on her daughter she spent on gifts for her little boytoy.
dave (c44c9b) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:21 pmSPQR, you’re doing a good job of exemplifying what I’m talking about — this determination to punish these offenses as harshly as possible.
Unless I say “jail’s too good for her — we should have shot her on the spot,” you’re gonna say I’m condoning repeal of the age-of-consent laws, and think that kids and adults should be having sex.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:21 pmI have no problems with deporting the parents. They were here illegally for X number of years and benefited by obtaining employment, free eduction for their kid(s), and free healthcare.
As to the teacher, she is not exactly mother of the year if she will chose screwing some 13 year old boy over her daughter and go on the lamm with him. Time she should have spent with her daughter, she spent with him. Money she should have spent on her daughter she spent on gifts for her little boytoy.
dave (c44c9b) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:22 pmThis is a sad case where “boytoy” is definitely the right word.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:24 pmPhil, you’re a loony. I’m supposed to let this sicko get away with kidnapping my thirteen-year old just so her eight-year old won’t be deprived the affection of a pedophile? What planet are you from? Sheesh!!!!
nk (580aa7) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:25 pmPhil, since I’ve not commented on the matter at all, your bizarre attempt at mind-reading is offensive and just stupid.
By the way, you might consider a stronger disclaimer for the possible implication in the quoted statement. That one was pretty much unconvincing. Unless that was your point.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:27 pmI assume Phil is sincere when he says that enforcing laws against sex with minors is not as important as preserving family relationships. It illustrates one of the more awkward drawbacks of libertarian philosophy. Of course, there are difficult consequences with any philosophy but this is an example of why I try to keep my libertarian impulses in check.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:32 pmDRJ and Steverino,
Let’s leave them for last, at least. We have about 20 million other illegals here who also need to be deported. To paraphrase Patterico, deport the criminals not the victims first.
nk (580aa7) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:33 pmSPQR, your bullcrap NAMBLA comment threw the gates wide open for mind-reading. You don’t get to close it now.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:33 pmAnd here I gave you the benefit of the doubt, Phil…
SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:35 pmNK,
Absolutely.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:36 pmDRJ,
If an adult having sex with a thirteen-year old comports with libertarian philosophy then I want a constitutional amendment to make adherence to libertarian philosophy punishable by death.
nk (580aa7) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:38 pmI assume Phil is sincere when he says that enforcing laws against sex with minors is not as important as preserving family relationships.
DRJ, I assume you are saying that preserving family relationships is not as important as enforcing laws against sex with minors?
I bet that as family relationships grow stronger, the sex with minors laws start to take care of themselves, as kids have less of a need to seek affection elsewhere.
However, enforcing the sex with minors laws more harshly is pretty unrelated to preserving family relationships. In fact, it might just make parents think their kids are perfectly safe — nobody would dare touch them — and tend to ignore them.
So yeah, I think my priorities are straight, and those who choose the opposite are losing the forest for the trees.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:39 pmSo, Phil, which other laws should parents be able to get away with, because to punish them would also punish their children?
Since 13 year olds should be able to consent to sex with their teacher, where do you think we should draw that line?
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:45 pmPhil #31,
You’re a loony tune. Kids need to be protected from predatory monsters, period. “Family relationships”, whatever the hell you think that means, do not trump keeping a child from being raped and kidnapped. Take your medicine, please.
nk (580aa7) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:47 pmJD, before I answer that question, tell me where
I said she should “get away with” breaking the law.
Didn’t I say she should be banned from teaching permanently, forced to pay for counseling for the kid, and put on supervised probation?
Stop for just a minute, put aside your outrage, and read what I’m really saying, please?
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:47 pmThat is getting away with it, since it is currently statutory rape, no?
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:49 pmI would think that if Phil went out and buggered one of his female students, after taking her across State and international borders, that being banned from teaching and being put on probation was one hell of a break for Phil.
Phil. What age should we allow students to be able to consent to sex with their teachers?
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:51 pm“Family relationships”, whatever the hell you think that means, do not trump keeping a child from being raped and kidnapped.
Did I say ‘trumped’? No. I said she should be punished, in several ways. The law stands, it is not “trumped.” I’m saying look at the consequenses of how we enforce the law.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:52 pmPhil. What age should we allow students to be able to consent to sex with their teachers?
I’m fine with the ages being what they are. I don’t think I’ve indicated otherwise.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:56 pmThere is no reason for us to look at the consequences of enforcing a law against kidnapping and having sex with an underage student of yours. None. The criminal might have considered the consequences of their actions, but we as a society, have decided that some things are against the law, like fucking your 13 year old student and kidnapping them. If you do not like the consequences, work to change the laws.
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:56 pmLord. As a libertarian, I agree!
Phil, a 13 year old is not capable of the higher reasoning to form concent. It is impossible to have consentual sex with a 13 year old. Period, Full stop.
If your 13 year old daughter got caught getting banged by her math teacher, and she told you she was just fine with it, she concented, would YOU be ok with it?
Enforcing “sex with a minor” laws has no affect on families. If you are a libertarian, you would accept that this woman made a willing choice to screw a 13 year old (calling him a teenager, while technically correct, would suggest to the more casual that he might have been older, so why not use his age eh?). That choice has a consequence, and that is jailtime, and labling as a sexual predator.
It is inconceivable that she did not know what would happen if she were caught. She made the choice anyways.
The Libertarian view is “make your own choices”, but it also includes the disclaimer “but be ready to deal with the consequences of your choices”.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:57 pmYes, Phil, you did. You stated that the boy had consensual sex with his teacher. He most certainly did not, as the laws do not recognize the ability of 13 year olds to form the requisite consent in our society.
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:57 pmThat is getting away with it, since it is currently statutory rape, no?
I dunno, why don’t I put you on probation, ban you from your current career, and make you pay for counselling for me? God knows I need it after arguing with the commenters on this board, who always brilliantly read exactly what I’m not saying into my posts.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/7/2007 @ 3:58 pmPhil, that’s amusing given what you wrote above.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/7/2007 @ 4:01 pmOh, sorry JD, I didn’t realize you were referring to the post way up there with the word “consensual.”
I wasn’t referring to “consent” in a legal sense. I was talking about common-sense consent. You know, the kind where we’d know that (even though legally he can’t ‘consent’) that this would be a very different crime if she’d tied him up and forced herself on him, while dragging him to Mexico against his will.
(note for all the misreaders out there — I’m still saying both acts are ‘crimes’, just that one is inherently more revolting)
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/7/2007 @ 4:01 pmIf I had raped and kidnapped someone, Phil, then yes, I would consider that punishment getting away with it.
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 4:01 pmPhil,
You are suggesting that we as a society should ignore this woman’s willful acts, acts commited with full knowledge of the law, in order to protect her family.
That duty was her mother’s. Her mother’s inability to “keep it outta her pants” does not mean I have to step up and look after the well-being of her kids.
Lack of good judgement on the woman’s part does not create an emergency for me.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/7/2007 @ 4:02 pmPhil, you don’t like others “brilliantly” reading what you are not writing. But happily do it to others.
I love the smell of hypocrisy, its smells like victory.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/7/2007 @ 4:02 pmYeah, unfortunately taking a criminal away from their kids isn’t a crime, and you seem to think it is a worse crime than screwing a 13 year old.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/7/2007 @ 4:04 pmScott Jacobs You are suggesting that we as a society should ignore this woman’s willful acts, acts commited with full knowledge of the law, in order to protect her family.
I’m not suggesting ignoring her willful acts. You are saying that I’m suggesting that. Welcome to the party, you can misread my posts with everyone else.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/7/2007 @ 4:04 pmSo how does not locking this woman in jail and branding her a sexual predator NOT equal “ignoring his wrongful acts”???
Explain that one to me.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/7/2007 @ 4:05 pmScott – Phil stated that being banned from teaching, put on probation, and having to pay for counseling is punishment enough for raping and kidnapping a minor.
If anyone ever feels like going on a multi-state crime spree, you better hope Phil is the Judge.
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 4:09 pmSo how does not locking this woman in jail and branding her a sexual predator NOT equal “ignoring his wrongful acts”???
I can’t argue with your astounding logic. All I can do is suggest you buy a dictionary and learn what the word “ignoring” means.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/7/2007 @ 4:18 pmPhil stated that being banned from teaching, put on probation, and having to pay for counseling is punishment enough for raping and kidnapping a minor.
OK, if this just like any other act of ‘raping and kidnapping,’ fine.
I’m done, we just disagree. You see black-and-white, I see shades of gray . . . we can’t talk.
I will certainly never hire you to do any sort of nuanced craftmanship, however, as you clearly only know how to use a hammer.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 11/7/2007 @ 4:25 pmNuance to a thirteen-year old deprived of his childhood, of his family and of his home. Have I said “loony” often enough?
nk (580aa7) — 11/7/2007 @ 4:41 pmLast? I can’t agree with that. Sure, deport the criminals first, but I don’t think the parents deserve any special indulgence from deportation beyond that.
Steverino (e00589) — 11/7/2007 @ 4:45 pmWhat does nuance have to do with this? I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, Phil. But you do not want this lady punished, in any meaningful was, and you contend that it was not rape or kidnapping in some traditional sense of the word. Hell, if the genders were reversed, the teacher would be some sick perverted sexual predator, but since it is a girl and a mother, we should consider the effects on her children, the ones that she so blatantly ignored when she ran away with one of her underage students? Where, where pray tell, is the nuance? What is a shade of grey?
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 4:53 pmTo follow up on something from way back: NK #30, I didn’t mean to imply that libertarians are okay with child abusers. However, it seems to me that Phil’s philosophy is based on libertarian principles gone amok.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/7/2007 @ 5:01 pmThe implications for illegals who are afraid to report a crime and for criminals who think they can prey on them with impunity are troubling.
Well, I’m all for catching crimes of any sort, including those committed against illegal aliens.
However.
If illegal aliens knew before coming to our country that there was a danger that 1) other criminals might feel freer to prey on them or 2) they might be deported if unfortunate enough to be the victim of a crime they needed to report, well….they might decide not to come here illegally in the first place. Or if here, they might decide to leave of their own accord. Hopefully for their sake, it will be before they are the victim of another criminal.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 11/7/2007 @ 5:03 pmDRJ #57,
And I did not mean to imply, in any way, that you were ok with that. I would also say that what Phil is espousing is not libertarian but libertine philosophy. That is, I would if I had not concluded that Phil is a loony.
nk (580aa7) — 11/7/2007 @ 5:14 pmYou may be right. I guess I’m more comfortable believing people have a philosophy that occasionally goes off the tracks as opposed to intentionally choosing a trackless philosophy.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/7/2007 @ 5:17 pm“I was talking about common-sense consent.”
Surely the one thing everyone can agree upon is that 13 year old boys have absolutely zero common sense.
“but be ready to deal with the consequences of your choices”.
But no one in this case wants to assume those consequences of their choices:
The parents don’t want to be deported although they freely chose to break the law and thus jeopardizing everyone in their family.
The boy doesn’t want to stay in Mexico and wants to go home but can’t because his parents broke the law (jeopardizing everyone in their family).
The teacher doesn’t want to be prosecuted for her choice to be a sexual predator of children.
The teacher doesn’t want to lose her own child as a result of her choice to sexually prey upon a minor and kidnap him.
God help us.
Dana (53a6a3) — 11/7/2007 @ 5:24 pmI agree with you, DRJ, that this would be a good case for a humanitarian exemption and the child should be given permanent resident status. Also, he should testify in her trial, perhaps as a condition of his immigration treatment, as a condition of him maintaining this status.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/7/2007 @ 5:26 pmNK:
I hope it didn’t take you too long to figure that out.
Xrlq (6c2116) — 11/7/2007 @ 5:33 pmDRJ @ 60 – Remember you’re talking about Phil. Occasionally?
daleyrocks (906622) — 11/7/2007 @ 5:34 pmDana – It doesn’t make a big difference to your point, which is a good one, but I think the 13-year-old boy lived with his mother and her boyfriend in Nebraska. His father lives in Penjamo, Mexico and he will go live with his father as soon as his mother sends him airfare.
daleyrocks – No piling on (Phil or me)!
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/7/2007 @ 6:00 pmCertain commenters on this blog are nothing if not predictable. I’m “loony” for caring about an 8-year-old-kid losing her mom. Why? Because I’m not trying to “punish” the mom as much as possible. without regard to her kid, like you revenge-happy people.
Sorry if I’m not salivating to avenge and punish as much as you neocons. You all seem to have pretty much one policy — you’re working to force total agreement with you, no compromise, no recognition of other interests or concerns.
This mentality is a mirror image of the islamic extremism. Mercy doesn’t enter into the playbook. If left to their own devices, people with this philosophy will be cutting off hands and feet of thieves, and executing adulterers, just like the Taliban.
phil (aa9cba) — 11/7/2007 @ 7:49 pmGood Allah, Phil. Why stop there? The only thing you left out was calling us Nazis.
Why does this pedophile deserve a different level of punishment just because she is a mother?
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:10 pm/target phil
/ignore
/target DRJ
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:12 pm/pile-on
Why does this pedophile deserve a different level of punishment just because she is a mother?
Good question, JD. Why would we possibly want to treat a mother differently for the sake of her kids? What kind of a person would do that?
A merciful person, of course. Which you are not.
phil (aa9cba) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:15 pmPhil- the 8 year old is not “losing” her mom, her mother LEFT HER.
You seem to have the cause and effect messed up.
Rule of Law should be the same law for everyone–for that matter, sexual predators tend to act serially. Are we sure that this woman is not a threat to her own daughter?
If left to their own devices, people with this philosophy will be cutting off hands and feet of thieves, and executing adulterers, just like the Taliban.
Oh, golly, yes, because heaven knows that actually enforcing laws against rapists is EXACTLY like slaughtering a woman for being raped, right?
You are disgusting.
Foxfier (94990a) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:15 pmReally, Phil. Why the exception for people that have children and families? Isn’t that discriminating against those that do not have families? What about non-custodial mothers? Would they get leniency too? Could they abduct a child, take the child out of the country, have sex with the child, and escape the real life consequences of her actions because she is a mother?
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:15 pmWe discriminate in favor of parents all the time. Why do you think there are tax breaks for them?
But if you’ve got a chance to punish someone, you wouldn’t want to give that up just for the sake of some silly kid.
phil (aa9cba) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:17 pmPhil, I really do want to understand this. Why is it society’s fault that 2 children are being torm from their family? Why does that blame not fall squarely on the shoulders of the adult who made a knowing and conscious decision to commit multiple felonies in pursuit of her prediliction? Give me a better reason than because she is a mother. That one ain’t doin’ it for me. She quit being a responsible mother when she chose to fuck a child that was one of her students, and go on an international joyride with him. We are just going to need a bit more than “she is a mother”.
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:20 pmSo, child molestors should get a sentencing break because they are parents? Good Allah, that is some strange thinking. There is just no good reason to take a child away from a parent that is have sex with underage children, huh?
This isn’t about us punishing her. This is about the real life consequences of her choices. If you do not like the laws, go lobby the Legislature.
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:22 pmFoxfier, calling this woman a “sexual predator” make the term meaningless. She’s a flake, and an idiot, but a sexual predator has to be, well, predatory. In other words, a calculating hunter. She’s to stupid to be a predator. Nothing she did was “predatory.” Look up the term in the dictionary.
Predators are calculating, hide their behavior, and don’t care about their prey. She didn’t “prey” on him, she threw herself at him, and ran away with him. Thereby ensuring she would never “prey” on another student.
phil (aa9cba) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:24 pmShe is going to be signing up for her state’s sex offender registry no doubt, Phil. Isn’t it kind of calculating to use one’s position of power and influence as a teacher to lure a student into a sexual liaison?
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:27 pmWhy does that blame not fall squarely on the shoulders of the adult who made a knowing and conscious decision to commit multiple felonies in pursuit of her prediliction?
She is responsible, to the extent she is capable of so being. But she’s an idiot. The question is, how do you treat the idiot once she’s stopped being responsible. Apparently, your answer is to say say “well, it’s the idiot’s fault — now we get to punish her any way we want! And we want to punish her as harshly as possible, regardless of how it affects her child.”
To me, it’s almost like you see idiotic, irrational behavior as a chance to jump in and start dolling out arbitrary, harsh punishments.
My suggestion, on the other hand — put her on probation (observe her, because she’s still an idiot) ban her from teaching (she’s an idiot) and make her pay for counseling for the boy (fix some of the damage she caused by being an idiot) is all addressed at her problem, while not being sadistic, and not making the situation worse by keeping her away from her daughter.
In other words, my response to her bad behavior is proportionate. The punitive approach (throw her in jail, forget about her kid, it’s too late for the kid) is disproportionate, and makes things worse. It seems more about satisfying a thirst for revenge than about actually remedying the situation.
phil (aa9cba) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:32 pmShe is going to be signing up for her state’s sex offender registry no doubt, Phil. Isn’t it kind of calculating to use one’s position of power and influence as a teacher to lure a student into a sexual liaison?
Hmm . . . I don’t see much “calculated” use of power in this situation. Maybe I don’t know the whole story, but I wasn’t aware that she’d seduced this boy with her “power” as a teacher.
That said, I do agree she should be listed as a sex offender. The sex offender registry is also useful to list idiots who have, through past misconduct, shown they can’t control their sexual impulses. Doesn’t mean they’re “predators” necessarily.
phil (aa9cba) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:36 pmAre you dating a minor phil?
daleyrocks (906622) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:36 pmDaley, I suspect you are a minor.
phil (aa9cba) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:38 pmphil – You’re so passionate and irrational about this it’s almost like you’re constructing an argument for leniency for yourself, that’s why I ask.
daleyrocks (906622) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:41 pmPhil, SHE RAPED A LITTLE BOY. What part of this is not getting through?
A THIRTEEN YEAR OLD to whom she was in loco parentis.
If that is not a sex predator, I shudder to imagine what you would count as a sex predator.
She took a child, screwed him and took him to another country. She left her own child, stole a child to use and abuse physically and left the country. Does she have to actually murder a kid before you’ll accept that punishment is a good idea?
now we get to punish her any way we want
Apparently, your grasp of the law is as strong as your grasp of reason.
There is no “get to” and it surely isn’t “any way we want.”
There are a set range of punishments for each crime, and there is not a person here who does not wish she’d never touched the child.
Laws exist because there are actions which society must prevent from happening, for society to function properly.
The basis of our law is that all people are equal before it– it doesn’t always work perfectly, but trying to tear down the equal standing of people in law is simply wrong.
It is not “making things worse” to remove a sexual predator from their child– it is disgusting to imply that someone having a child should mean they can victimize other children and get off lightly. And yes, your suggestions are VERY light.
Foxfier (94990a) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:42 pmPhil – doesn’t it concern you at all that in your scenario that you are arguing that a pedophile should be kept out of jail so that she can remain at home with another child?
If your problem is with the punishment, take it up with the Legislature. In my estimation, since she broke several State and Federal laws, including statutory rape and kidnapping, the punishment does not seem disproportionate, especially since we do not know what the punishment is going to be yet. I do know this, were I to commit the exact same crimes, your proposed “punishment” would in no way measure up to the harm caused to everybody involved. Not even close.
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:44 pmFoxfier, from what I can tell, she’s a confused nutjob who thought she was in love. She’s an idiot, a nut, not a dangerous person. Comparing her to a murderer is insane — they both were happy thought this craze trip (deluded as that obviously is). She didn’t want to hurt him, and he didn’t think he was being hurt.
I don’t see why you want her actions to be “evil” instead of simply nuts, unless you just get off on punishing people because you’re some sort of sadist.
This is the game that comes up over and over with you guys — you’re looking for an excuse to find “evil” people so you can fight/punish them. So you manage to find them everywhere, because you see everything that’s harmful as “evil.”
phil (aa9cba) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:52 pm“…Why would we possibly want to treat a mother differently for the sake of her kids? What kind of a person would do that?
A merciful person, of course….”
Funny. Removing a child from a parent that has behaved so egregiously, impulsively, irrationally and without self-restraint and without the least bit of concern for her own child, may very well be mercy at its deepest and greatest moment.
“…and not making the situation worse by keeping her away from her daughter. ”
But that’s the point – you don’t know that the situation would be worse from the separation, you’re assuming it would. It could be the best thing to happen to the child – you don’t know what life behind closed doors has been. It could be the best thing for such a screwed up selfish parent to have the jolt of the life and lose what was once (hopefully) the most precious gift in their life.
There are far greater things at stake here.
Dana (53a6a3) — 11/7/2007 @ 8:53 pmDana,
Who knows . . . I wouldn’t put it nearly as dramatically as you have (“mercy at it’s deepest and greatest moment” gag) but I certainly wouldn’t rule out the possibility that this kid doesn’t have the best relationship with her mom.
That said, again, putting mommy in jail is treating the problem with a big ‘ol hammer. The same damn hammer we use for every other problem. At a certain point you gotta ask “gee . . . maybe we should try something other than the hammer over and over again.”
But hey . . . jails are now de facto mental institutions, immigration controls, drug rehabs . . . might as well make them the place for bad moms, too, right?
Neoconservatism . . . because a hammer is really the only tool you need.
phil (aa9cba) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:08 pmSo, Phil, you do not consider statutory rape and kidnapping serious crimes?
That is all she is to you. A bad mom. Sad, you are.
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:11 pmIf someone could show me that something happened to this kid against his will, then I would be much more concerned. Otherwise, it’s a story of a stupid teenager and a basically insane twenty-something woman, both obviously completely deluded, doing some really stupid stuff. “Kidnapping” and “rape” in name only.
If I saw facts that indicated this was forced, rather than simply an age-of-consent violation, then I’d consider it a much more serious crime.
phil (aa9cba) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:21 pmA teenager, or a 13 year old, depending on how you look at it. Calling him a teenager makes him sound older than he is. In reaity, Phil, he is 2 years away from being able to take Drivers Education classes. Last year, he was 12. This is a kid.
13 year olds are not able to give “consent”, Phil. This is not some age of consent violation. If this was a male teacher, everyone would be calling the teacher a pedophile, and rightly so. This is not some 18 year old sleeping with someone a couple days shy of their 18th birthday. Hell, Kentucky has an age of consent at 16, and he was 3 fucking years short of that.
Your attempts to minimize and excuse this behavior is quite odd. Strange, even.
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:27 pmGee, phil, so sorry to make you gag but did it ever occur to you that stories like these have perhaps a different, or maybe even more profound effect on someone who is also a parent? Could it be that perhaps the perspective is from a different angle that parenthood provides? It doesn’t lessen anyone else’s take on the matter, but it is different.
Dana (53a6a3) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:29 pmPhil
You know several times each day the courthouse I work at sentences people to jail or prison for a myriad of reasons. Many of those people have kids.
Are we being cruel because we don’t take into consideration the children of these people?
and about “mercy” I’d remind you that
Darleen (187edc) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:29 pmYou can call it minimizing or excusing. I call it accurately describing it, without hysterics.
What if this teenager had murdered someone? Many neocons would be clamoring to have him tried as an adult — “he knew what he was doing!”
Again, I think it’s all about slanting things so you can “punish” someone.
phil (aa9cba) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:33 pmDarleen, if you think this woman was “cruel” then again we disagree. I think she was nuts and thought she was in love. If I thought she was being cruel, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
As for jail sentences, yes, many of them ARE cruel. I’ve seen judges be cruel, they don’t get a free pass. America is great at being cruel with jail. We’re right up there as a nation in terms of being jail-happy. That’s my whole point here.
phil (aa9cba) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:37 pmphil, actually you have been defined hysterics throughout this thread tonight. But be that as it may, perhaps that too is perspective.
Heh.
Dana (53a6a3) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:37 pmYou may “think” that, but it does not make it so.
By the way, what do you mean by neo-con?
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:46 pmPhil
This woman wasn’t some loony neighbor who ran off with the gardner’s son, she was a teacher…a person in a very special position of trust and power. And in abandoning her own child she was/is, indeed, “cruel”.
You seem to believe more in “blood” then in “love”. You belive somehow just because the 8 year old is genetically connected to her then it is wrong to separate them regardless of her competency as a parent.
I’ll merely point out to you that a lot of horribly abused children still exhibit loyality to their abuser.
We’re right up there as a nation in terms of being jail-happy
Lordy, phil, don’t tell me you’re of one of the fringy fringiest leftists with the bumpersticker “homes not jail” on your backpack.
Darleen (187edc) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:51 pmYou may “think” that, but it does not make it so.
Of course it doesn’t, JD. I’d love to be proven wrong on that point. Because right now you just look like a sadist to me, and I’d prefer to discover a rational basis for your position (noticed I said “look like”)
The fact that I’m open minded enough to say you could prove me wrong doesn’t, by itself, prove me wrong.
phil (aa9cba) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:52 pmFolks, I think Phil is a troll.
Thus far he has accused those who do NOT want to send a child rapist home to be with a child of being the same as Muslim extremists, of being “cruel”, hysterical and sadists.
If he is not a troll, I’m starting to think that the fellow a ways back that thought Phil was trying to justify his own actions may be on to something, because otherwise he’s just some nut without much sense.
Foxfier (94990a) — 11/7/2007 @ 9:56 pmI look like a sadist because society has established rules that fucking forbid that adults, especially adults in positions of power, have sex with minors? I look like a sadist because society has established laws against taking a child across state and international boundaries without the requisite permission of the guardians of the child? I look like a sadist because a woman, in the course of committing multiple state and federal crimes, abandoned her own child, and left her own child to fend for herself? That makes me a sadist.
There is a perfectly rational basis for my position. We have laws. The laws that exist explicity forbid the acts of statutory rape and kidnapping. What she did falls clearly within the definition of those crimes, and she will be tried for same, and if convicated, punished according to the standards set forth in the law.
I do not believe it is rational to look the other way, just because a child molestor has a child at home. I do not believe it is rational to excuse a crime for some people because of the potential effects on their offspring. I do not believe it is rational to defend the actions of someone that used a position of authority to secure a sexual liaison with a kid. And, I do not think it is rational to think that a 13 year old could form the requisite consent. In all of these matters, my rational position is backed by the law.
Your positions, not so much.
JD (49efd3) — 11/7/2007 @ 10:02 pmphil – I would have thought you might want to throw the teacher in the slammer just for taking the kid on that long dangerous car ride across the border without parental permission. You know how you feel about cars and accidents. Just think about what might have happened. Forget about your desires to lower the age of consent and focus on rhe dangers of the car ride, OMG!
daleyrocks (906622) — 11/7/2007 @ 10:35 pmphil – You’re so passionate and irrational about this it’s almost like you’re constructing an argument for leniency for yourself, that’s why I ask.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/7/2007 @ 8:41 pm
I was actually thinking the opposite – that Phil may have had personal experience with someone removing a parent or significant adult from him when he was young. Or he loves a child who had this experience.
I don’t know this, of course. But that would explain his extreme reaction, and his concern for one child and lack of concern for the other.
Whatever the reason for Phil’s strange lack of concern for everything else but the effects of this situation on the 8-year-old, I find it weird that the fact that the mom LEFT HER CHILD to pursue this has the same effect, yet Phil all through this thread has said nothing about that.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 11/8/2007 @ 4:53 ameztreme = forgetting about the 13 year old
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 11/8/2007 @ 4:57 amI’m not sure what the mother planned for her daughter. Did she think she would be able to sneak back into the country and remove her at a later date? Did she think she, her 13 year old boyfriend, and 8 year old daughter would live happily ever after in Mexico? Did she think the 13 year old would be able to support the three? Or, did she think Mexico is like the US and anyone can enter illegally, get a job, free healthcare and education? Or, did she just plan on abandoning her daughter?
In the mother’s mind, those were the options and those are the reasons the daughter needs to be removed from her mother’s care.
dave (c44c9b) — 11/8/2007 @ 5:25 amThe mother can probably be charged with neglect. I think she will get a pass on any sexual misconduct. Does anyone really think that the kid’s family after being deported will let him go back to testify? No witness no case.
Comparing women to men in the pedophile cases is apples and oranges. Most of the cases involving women are a matter of a woman in a singular relationship. With the cases involving men, there are often dozens of victims.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 11/8/2007 @ 6:59 amBoth are crimes but for the women they have a better case to make for emotional/mental defenses than in the men’s cases.
The punishment is never going to be identical.
That teacher is only reliving her youth. Most likely she got herself knocked up at 16. What are the odds that the father of her (now) 8 year old was over 18 when they hooked up? What do you want to bet the tax payers are left with her college bills too (assuming she was a real teacher)?
The daughter is better off without her “mother” in her life.
quasimodo (edc74e) — 11/8/2007 @ 7:17 amWhy should she get a pass on the sexual molestation of a minor, VOR? Just because she is a girl does not seem like much of a defense to me, and that whole gender aspect is much like the drivel that Phil was spewing yesterday in excusing her actions.
JD (49efd3) — 11/8/2007 @ 7:40 amJD,
Drivel, cursing and name calling are your standard tools. You are too shallow to understand complex issues so why waste time engaging in any sort of dialog?
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 11/8/2007 @ 7:54 amClear enough for you? Good, now STFU.
I think you’re all overlooking the real culprit: Illegal Immigration.
We can’t have mustachioed Mexican 13-year olds sneaking across the border in the dead of night, hell-bent on seducing, screwing, and kidnapping our sainted education professionals. It’s outrageous! It’s intolerable!
Patterico: I demand (in light of this little pervert’s flagrant deflowering of the helpless teacher) that you file this post under “Deport the Criminals First”. Today, a Nebraska school teacher. Tomorrow… WHO KNOWS?
For the love of God… what will it take to alert the masses to this mini-Mexican Molestation Menace? Nancy Reagan, carted off to Tijuana by a roving band of tween daylaborers, subjected to who knows what sort of degrading behavior?
The End is Near.
Leviticus (35fbde) — 11/8/2007 @ 8:06 amVOR – Chill there, bro. Just because I am a racist doesn’t mean you have to get all hostile and everything.
Why should she get a lighter sentence for the sexual molestation of a minor, which she held a position of authority over, just because she is a woman?
JD (49efd3) — 11/8/2007 @ 8:14 amVOT – The kid served a purpose, right, screwing a fat American teacher Americans wouldn’t screw. Isn’t that similar to the logic amnesty proponents use?
daleyrocks (906622) — 11/8/2007 @ 8:24 amFolks, I think VoR might actually have a point…
…
Sweet God, did I just say that?
Anyways, he makes a point about how female sex-offenders are often “one shot” offenders. It’s a valid enough point, I think. I could possible be persuaded to accept that as a reality (assuming a trustworthy study has been done).
So I would actually support her not being labled a sexual predator.
But she’s still going the hell to jail, and losing her kid. She did abandon the girl, after all.
Scott Jacobs (91f7ff) — 11/8/2007 @ 9:11 amGoing to jail for the full “statutory rape/kidnapping/whatever else is on the docket”, I should say.
Scott Jacobs (91f7ff) — 11/8/2007 @ 9:12 amDaley Rocks,
I’m sure you are god’s gift to women and all. /sarc
As for your amnesty comment consider reading Mort Kondracke’s column at realclearpolitics.com that posted today. Good advice for the GOP to remember.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 11/8/2007 @ 9:37 am70% of Americans want tougher enforcement but 58%support some process for illegals to become citizens.
So I would actually support her not being labled a sexual predator.
Sooo…how do we know this won’t be done by her to another boy in the future?
female sex-offenders are often “one shot” offenders.
The operative word here is “often,” not all, and even if it WERE “all [up till now] the principle is: if you are irresponsible/dangerous/foolish/nutty/evil (pick whatever adjective you like) to do that even ONCE to a child, the “threat of you” is serious enough that we will warn others against you. The principle is not, statistically we’ll guess you’ll never do it again. Am sure it’s true that women commit the crime again statistically less often. But I’m just looking at the severity of the crime and saying, let’s not take any chances that this could happen again, shall we?
no one you know (1f5ddb) — 11/8/2007 @ 9:39 amVOR – I do what I can.
I didn’t know Mort had a column. I’ll check it out. Thanks for the h/t.
daleyrocks (906622) — 11/8/2007 @ 9:48 amHey, I do too…
That process being, of cource, they going back to whatever country they came from, and then entering legally.
Scott Jacobs (91f7ff) — 11/8/2007 @ 10:07 amVOR #103,
The kid is not needed to testify for the kidnapping. His parents will do as well. There are other ways to prove the Mann Act and molestation charges, as well. What if she had killed the kid? No witness, no crime? This is just mechanics and prosecutors deal with them every day.
Your implication that the kid is acceptable losses because statistically it doesn’t happen that often so the pervert should not be punished for it bothers me a hell of a lot. There are not all that many interracial marriages so why should a county clerk be punished for refusing to issue a marriage license to two people of different races?
nk (597e8b) — 11/8/2007 @ 11:04 amActually, the kid has said to reporters that if called, he’ll testify and cooperate fully…
Scott Jacobs (91f7ff) — 11/8/2007 @ 11:13 am#115
Scott,
I don’t doubt you do but from the coverage of the issue it is a fact that gets overlooked and one that can bite the GOP more than the Dems depending on how the GOP frames the debate.
And whether the kid wants to testify or not it may be his parent’s call, particularly if they are back in Mexico where parental authority may trump. Do you really think the Mexican government is going to force him to go?
#116
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 11/8/2007 @ 11:31 amNK,
My implication about “acceptable losses” is a bad read on your part. My point is that comparing male pedophiles to women pedophiles has some real flaws and if the prosecutor tried to do that the rebuttal psychiatrists would have a field day with it.
I’m willing to bet his parents have a vested interest in seeing the woman who molested their son goes to jail for a long as possible…
Scott Jacobs (91f7ff) — 11/8/2007 @ 12:00 pmVoR- Male serial killers are also much, much more common than women serial killers.
That doesn’t mean that women should get off lightly because they’re less likely to do it again.
Folks should be charged on what they, themselves did, not on what class of people they can be put into.
Foxfier (94990a) — 11/8/2007 @ 12:10 pmNice red herring. It’s not an issue that would come up in proving guilt in this case. As to sentencing, by law she is looking at prison and mandatory registration. The kidnapping is an extremely serious charge.
dave (c44c9b) — 11/8/2007 @ 12:15 pmFoxfier – Just an FYI. I’m not sure you can call phil a troll. When he comments he usually has a unique crazy position that defies logic or classification. Patterico has engaged him in the past to the point where phil was embarrassed enough he refused to answer any additional questions. Just plain loony is all.
daleyrocks (906622) — 11/8/2007 @ 12:55 pmNah, it’s not personal, it’s just Phil being Phil, right down to the detail of calling everyone who isn’t a loony a neocon. When was the last time he weighed in on any subject without being equally passionate and irrational?
Xrlq (6c2116) — 11/8/2007 @ 4:27 pm