The sordid tale is an increasingly familiar one. A female teacher was convicted of having sex with her 17year-old, male teacher's aide. While this is not an oddity, really, the story is noteworthy because the teacher was sentenced to 12 years in prison as a result of her crimes. This easily fell on the upward range of Tennessee's mandatory sentencing laws.
[Link]
I would guess that 12 years in prison for having sex with a 17 year-old male student might also strike some others as high. But the question is why? This point was raised by Volokh in his analysis of the case. He concludes the matter as follows:
Partly this is because I suspect that sex between an adult woman and a 17-year-old boy is much less likely to be emotionally or physically damaging than sex between an adult man and a 17-year-old girl.
[Link]
Naturally, the conclusion sparked a bit of hissback on Mr. Volokh's blog.
My inclination is to agree with Volokh. Being a male and having been 17 once, I am not certain that the young man in question would have sustained much in the way of 'emotional' or physical harm at all.
But a part of me wonders what role our society's gender norms play in prompting such a conclusion. Do we make assumptions about teenage males that we ought not to make? Or is such an inference, in fact, just common sense?
Regardless, I cannot help but conclude that sending an adult woman to prison for 12 years on a conviction for having sex with a 17 year-old male is a bit much. Even in the worst light the male was only months away from the age of consent. Assuming the the dalliance was consensual, the lines are morally gray at best.
Any reactions? What if the young man, or teacher in question were a relative? Are our statutory rape laws intended to protect 'vulnerable' 17 year-old guys? If so, should they be?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
The Conservative Blog Network
0 comments:
Post a Comment