Posted on 12/06/2007 11:37:49 AM PST by PercivalWalks
I've little sympathy for Debra Lafave (pictured above), who at 23 statutorily raped a 14-year-old boy. She got the female sentencing discount and did not go to jail because she's a woman. A five-year study conducted by a Kansas State University professor found that male teachers are likely to get 15 to 20 years in prison for sexual relations with students, whereas female teachers usually are placed on probation or go to prison for one to three years. Paul Logli, president of the National District Attorneys Association, says:
"There is no question it's more likely that as a case winds its way through the court, in more cases the woman is going to get probation, whereas the man, under the same circumstances, is going to get prison."
To learn more, see my blog post Extreme Gender Bias: Woman Who Statutorily Raped Boy Avoids Jail, While Boy's Older Brother Goes to Prison for Exact Same Crime.
However one feels about Lafave's crimes, the recent media furor over her seems rather petty. In screaming headlines the New York Post reports in EX-TEACHER DEBRA LAFAVE BUSTED AGAIN (12/4/07) that Lafave had "illegal contact with a teenager." Sounds sinister, right? Turns out that all Lafave apparently did was have a private conversation with a 17-year-old girl she works with. It does violate her probation, but it hardly merits such sensationalism.
I also think some of this statutory rape stuff is overdone. A 23-year-old with a 14-year-old goes too far, but I think it's ridiculous that we have 21 year-old men going to jail for having sex with 17-year-old girls, or 19-year-old boys going to jail for having sex with 16-year-old girls.
In fact, a friend's grandparents recently celebrated their 75th wedding anniversary, and it was publicized in local papers, as it should be, since it's such an achievement. But looking at the story and doing a little math made me realize that if the two of them had gotten together today, he would go to jail--he was 21 and she was 17 when they got married in 1922. Then it was perfectly normal--now it's a crime. Why?
[Late note: the Kansas University study is discussed in Child-sex cases raise questions of gender bias (Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News, 3/11/06). The Logli quote is from Backup of Female Sex Offenders Drawing Increased Scrutiny (Los Angeles Times, 1/13/06).]
Glenn Sacks, www.GlennSacks.com
Just how long are we going to have to wait for Debra Lafave to begin her porn career?
I say “innocent”.
I HAVE SPOKEN!
That’s pretty much what the prosecutor and the judge thought, too...
Well they stone rape victims and let the rapists off in some countries. I’ll settle for our disparity in sentancing. And any 14 year old boy how rats out a babe like that needs to be spanked.
As in a lot of these other cases, its seems its the friend that “ain’t gettin’ none” that blew the whistle.
Another one up in MA was from my home town. She was really hot. Any 14 year old would have given both his legs for this woman.
All my teachers were battle axes.
This matter is resolved: INNOCENT!
.
Especially when the woman in question is a "babe" in the eyes of many.
Fat, ugly, deformed women, wouldn't get the same "sympathy."
Most importantly, she is drop dead gorgeous and most fellas would love to be taken advantage of by her.
The one who should be punished is the boy who ratted her out.
a lighter sentence makes some sense.
A point that I have brought up many times on these threads on FR. If anyone has the guts, take a quick look at your family tree and do some rudimentary math, at some point everyone has what is now called a sex offender as a direct ancestor, except 10 years ago you called them Grandma and Grandpa or Great Grandma and Great Grandpa and it was perfectly acceptable. For some sensational MSM reason, we now feel the need to criminalize behavior that in past generations was the norm. 19 & 20 year old guys got married to their 17 year old sweethearts all the time, today that guy is going to prison and it's stupid. Welcome to the wake party of common sense.
Explain.
There are boys who become the fathers of kids to these older women. No income. No education. And they are the “breadwinners”? Or are they supposed to become “stay at home fathers”?
The case could be made than an older man is more able to provide for a family with a young bride than a guy who is her same age (or at least pay for her abortion).
At the most extreme position, Michael Medved says that of the 4 pairings (Older Male/Younger Female, Older Female/Younger Male, Older Female/Younger Female, and Older Male/Younger Male), the older male/younger female is the “most life changing” or “dangerous” pairing. I disagree with him, 2 of the pairings result in feelings of self-guilt, betrayal, and sexual experimentation. There is more to life that becoming pregnant.
Are you suggesting that the age of consent was 18 everywhere up until the 1960s?
My point was pretty clear, are you attempting to be obtuse??
BUMP!
17 is quite legal in this day and age as it was in the day and age of your grandparents.
In very few jurisdictions.
Tase him, bro.
Give her a good tongue-lashing and let her go!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.