Posted on 11/22/2005 11:59:01 AM PST by Nachum
TAMPA - Before she could plead not guilty by reason of insanity to charges she committed lewd or lascivious battery on a teenager, Debra Lafave pleaded guilty.
But, she will not go to prison.
The former Greco Middle School teacher, accused of having sex with a 14-year-old boy, came to a plea agreement with prosecutors Tuesday.
As part of the agreement, Lafave, 25, will serve three years community control (house arrest), and seven years probation.
The judge said Lafave could have been sentenced to decades in state prison.
"I accept full responsibility for my actions," Lafave told the court.
Prosecutor Mike Sinacore said the victim's family wanted the case to come to a rapid resolution because of intense attention in the news media.
Although Debra Lafave's plea agreement is generous, her life will change dramatically.
She will be classified as a sexual offender, and must register in the state's law enforcement database. The Florida Department of Education Department will revoke her teaching certificate.
According to police records, Lafave performed oral sex on the unnamed boy June 3, 2004. Eleven days later Lafave had sexual intercourse with the boy in a portable classroom at Greco Middle School, police reports said.
School district spokeswoman Linda Cobbe said Lafave was not teaching summer school and does not know why she was on campus the day of the incident.
Lafave was arrested June 21, 2004.
Her trial was scheduled to begin Dec. 5.
Lafave's attorney, John Fitzgibbons, had suggested his client would plead not guilty by reason of insanity.
Previously, Fitzgibbons told news reporters Debra Lafave was, essentially, too pretty for prison.
"Most people confuse the definition of equality all the time, which is what you are adressing"
Some people confuse rhetorical questions with actual political/ethical/moral beliefs,positions and convictions, especially when it appears to re-inforce an argument, which is what you are referencing. I understand the definition of equality. No need to explain, thanks..
It didn't really. I think your emphasis is consistently misplaced in that it comes across as you seeking some equality of punishment, when there is a consensus (which you may or may not share) that there isn't a full equality of the dynamics of the two different situations.
Why should the punishment be equal (or comperable) when the violation is of a different nature? That's the question for me, and the answer is (to me, and to most) that it shouldn't be equal.
It's not rhetorical, it's exactly on point.
If you understand it, why can't you see that the situations are different and therefore different responses can be fair?
It's not rhetorical, it's exactly on point.
If you understand it, why can't you see that the situations are different and therefore different responses can be fair?
"I am considering running for office in Nevada! ;-)"
I knew it!!! Best of luck to you.
I am part of the dominant culture, believe me. We are simply arguing differences of opinion regarding some details.
It does if your reason for why female sexuality must be protected is that females can become pregnant.
BTW, I happen to agree that females should be protected in this way, it's just that pregnancy has little to do with it.
"Why should the punishment be equal (or comperable) when the violation is of a different nature?"
Exactly. So logically I would assume you believe in the counter argument, that if the violation is of the same nature, then the punishment should be the same? Here we are talking about a violation that is the same. A man does it, he gets jail, a woman does it she gets a pass..
This is the only difference. (we'll proffer that on a case by case basis details may vary, of course, but you get the point)
The violation is clearly not the same. THAT's the point.
Well, I hate to sound like a supreme court nominee, but male/female trysts vs female/male trysts, I would look at on a case by case basis and not generalize that all males end up in jail because of some generally accepted concept. Generally, yes, I agree that there is and should be (cultural) differences, however there is much more to it simply than the sex of the offender.
she was charged (and pleaded to?) lewd or lascivious battery on a teenager. (does that not seem serious to you? it does to 'most of us')
Now come on. Let's take the "she" out of that sentence. How would you then decide punishment? Well, you would have to look at the specifics of the case. And, we decide to lock the perp up for 5 years, BUT then we find out the offender was a 'she' and instantly she gets a pass.
Doesn't wash with me, sorry. Good debating with you.
All the best...
Of course there is more to it than that, i didn't mean to suggest otherwise. That doesn't keep us from arriving at the general principle though that an adult male's sexual adventure with a young girl is worse than an adult female's sexual adventure with a young male.
That there can be numerous exceptions is obvious and should be handled case by case, but that don't undermine that general policy concern at all.
I can't continue this now, sorry: galpal is flying through Las Vegas on her way to PA and decided to stay here overnight, so I have to go pick her up at the airport and have fun with her this afternoon/eve. I'll pick it up tomorrow morning after I get her on her plane, if you like! Nice chatting!
I was merely pointing out that the only reason you specified is not a particularly logical one. What are the others?
'Lewd or lavicious battery on a teenager' isn't as serious a crime as rape, I hate to tell you.
If you replace the 'she' with a 'he,' then yes, I think depending on the facts it is a more serious offense, and I think most people agree.
I don't think she is getting a pass, either. It's just that her crime isn't as severe as if she was a male sexually violating a young female. And again, I think that's the general consensus to most of us.
If it wasn't, there would be more outcry, and there isn't. Most people clearly recognize this for what it is - something bad but not horrific, and not comperable to an adult male engaging in a sexual tryst with a young female.
As I said in another post I don't have time to get into this now but will return to it wednesday.
The protection of female sexuality is more important that the proetction of female sexuality, at least that's the general consensus. If you dont' share that sentiment, that's fine but has nothing much to do with the
Abortions and contraception were available 100 years ago, and farther back. That being said, their existence has nothing to do with the importance of protecting female sexuality. It's illogical on your part to think they would.
I'll come back with other reasons tomorrow. Adios.
*cough* or now...for that matter...
Hmmmm, what is the law if a lesbo raped another lesbo?
Can it be concidered rape?
Or, would anyone care?
Nah, even then I knew that blonds were trouble. I wouldn't trust a blond chick if it was the Mother Mary...
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.