Student-Teacher Relationships
-
@remus said:
Putting someone on the sex offenders list can severely restrict your choice of job, and i think thats disproportionate to the 'offence' that has been committed.
p.s. Im refering to relationships between otherwise legal people, not the abuse of under age children.
Just because a teacher can be liable to be put on the Sex Offenders Register for a relationship with a student, it doesn't mean that they all will. IMO it's just a measure so that a serious offender who has had sexual relationships with many pupils will be put on the register, but a teacher who has a loving relationship with a student probably won't.
Put it this way, if a teacher is found guilty of using his position to coerce his pupils into relationships with many pupils, the relationships have all caused negative influences in the lives of the pupils and the teacher has also forced pupils into relationships with the threat of harming their education if they don't comply, isn't that worthy of being placed on the Sex Offenders Register?
-
@alan fraser said:
The CRB checks, while basically a good idea have simply turned into a free lunch for jobsworthy civil servants to justify their existence.
Personally I'd no longer get involved in ANYTHING that required CRB checks. Like anything else put in place by the government the outcome is far too likely to be a bu**ers muddle, with me in the sh1t.
-
The crazy thing is that after all the details you have to enter on the form they still get people mixed up. Teachers and others needing CRBs have been sacked because they got the worng details
-
Remus, I'm not too clear on your initial post. Are you saying that if a teacher/professor has consentual "relations" with a student over 18 yo then they go on a sex offenders list?
-
@daniel said:
Remus, I'm not too clear on your initial post. Are you saying that if a teacher/professor has consentual "relations" with a student over 18 yo then they go on a sex offenders list?
The offence is for students between the ages of 16 and 18.
-
Johns got it pretty much spot on, except the offense is for students younger than 18, not just16-18.
-
Well, that makes sense - I thought you meant ANY student, regardless of age.
Your Sexual Offenses Act 2003 is pretty clear - any adult in a "position of trust" who has sex with a child (younger than 18) is guilty of a sexual offense. This makes sense; although a minor might be over the age of consent, that doesn't mean they have the maturity to make the correct decision.
The term age of consent is often misunderstood, and is rarely actually used in laws - one has to read through the various laws to determine it. Many people think the age of consent is when they can legally have sex. Basically, the age of consent is when a person can consent to sex, but that doesn't mean it is legal to have sex with them. The difference is the charge and punishmet for any adult having sex with a minor; if the child is under the age of consent, it is sexual battery or rape (is there a difference?) and carries a stiffer penalty; if the child is of the age of consent, then it is a lesser crime (such as sexual missconduct) and carries a lesser penalty. Furthermore, some places are specific as to the age and sex of the "perpetrator" having sex with a minor who has reached the age of consent.
-
@daniel said:
...that doesn't mean they have the maturity to make the correct decision.
Thats the bit i dont get. As although they are deemed mature enough to decide whether to have sex with anyone else they suddenly lose this ability when it comes to teachers (and anyone else in a position of trust, according to the law.)
-
Remus,
Do it detect a underlying reason for this question?
PM me if you want to talk about it.
-
@remus said:
@daniel said:
...that doesn't mean they have the maturity to make the correct decision.
Thats the bit i dont get. As although they are deemed mature enough to decide whether to have sex with anyone else they suddenly lose this ability when it comes to teachers (and anyone else in a position of trust, according to the law.)
But the point is that most people aren't mature enough at the age of 16 to deal with the whole issue of sex and relationships. Nearly everyone gets burned at that age. The whole point is that what is already a difficult and stressful time shouldn't be made many times worse by being taken advantage of by someone in authority over them.
-
@tobobo said:
Remus,
Do it detect a underlying reason for this question?
PM me if you want to talk about it.
Nope, there really isnt any underlying reason. I promise.
-
Ok mate, I believe you.
It can be grey subject sometimes.
-
authority reflects the Law and the Justice
and somehow, a teacher, a person who has studied and has Culture need to be more accurately investigated than a person who has not studied.
That looks reasonably enough.
no ? -
@johnsenior1973 said:
But the point is that most people aren't mature enough at the age of 16 to deal with the whole issue of sex and relationships. Nearly everyone gets burned at that age. The whole point is that what is already a difficult and stressful time shouldn't be made many times worse by being taken advantage of by someone in authority over them.
Then why is the age of consent 16? (sorry for forgetting your little bit about 'age of consent' daniel
<-non offensive)Just a quick though, do you think the issue is different for boys and girls? i might be looking at this form an overly male perspective.
-
@remus said:
@daniel said:
...that doesn't mean they have the maturity to make the correct decision.
Thats the bit i dont get. As although they are deemed mature enough to decide whether to have sex with anyone else they suddenly lose this ability when it comes to teachers (and anyone else in a position of trust, according to the law.)
A teenager may know about sex, may have already had sex, and might even initiate and consent to sex, but that doesn't mean they have the wisdom to know if they should or shouldn't. Teenagers supposedly know right from wrong, yet they repeatedly make mistakes because they lack wisdom. We expect an adult to have a better sense of judgement.
As to your later post, why the age of consent is 16: I would guess in your country, from reading the Sexual Offenses Act, that the age of consent is 13, but it is legal to have sex with a minor age 16 or up as long as you aren't in a position of authority (the act still refers to anyone under 18 as a child, regardless). Anytime you have sexual relations between an authority figure and someone "under" them (no pun intended), your getting into difficult areas dealing with abuse of power, exploitation, and victims rights. It would be too easy for an authority figure to take advantage of a minors naivety, and its hard to expect a minor (even at 16 or 17...or 18 or 19 for that matter) to have the maturity and wisdom to handle such a situation.
-
Yes, the situation is often handled differently with boys and girls. We've had a few cases here of female teachers having sex with male students; and the teachers got probabtion. If it had been a male teacher with a female student, I doubt they would have gotten off so easily. I don't think it is fair....they should all be treated the same, regardless of gender.
-
There seems to be a similar situation with most sex crimes, such as rape. Women are just as capable of commiting rape and sexual abuse as men but they do not get punished as much.
-
When I went to architecture school, the 50-something married dean of the school was having an affair with one of the first-year students in my class. Even though she was probably in her early twenties I can tell you their affair had a very negative impact on other students - almost all the other students thought it was wrong. It was considered wrong because of the age, because he was married, but mostly because he was an authority figure. The whole thing ended badly. She suddenly left school and there were reports that she had become pregnant.
I tend to think teachers should not have 'relationships' with students regardless of age. Same with bosses and their employees and doctors and their patients. I also think Woody Allen shouldn't have had a relationship with his adult stepdaughter either. It is more a question of ethics than legality.
Regards, Ross
-
I also believe it is a matter of ethics, and that is why i dont think that the law is correct in this case.
-
There are different levels of "norms" in society - law being only one of them; although it is the ultimate one (even within law criminal law being the "most ultimate" if you can say something like that).
Ethics ("morals" - after the Latin "mos" which had serious impact on their lives) or even courtesy are also relevant norms in our societies and they can differ even more than law systems can (what's more, often they are even more powerful!)
Not everthing should be governed by law (and especially by criminal law) hence there are "Ethic Codes" for a lot of professions for instance and yes, these ethic codes should also have impacts before the "outsiders" (lawyers) interfere.
It is very hard to (literally; "legally") judge two people's emotional relationship. If a professor (doctor, boss, Ross etc.) is abusing his (her!) authority then yes, indeed, there should be legal consequences but if the relationship is true (like Alan said things like that somewhere above), other means should prevail.
Indeed, it is a very slippery field...
(Sorry for the bad pun, Ross - I could't resist
)
Advertisement