Missing Megan - A moral Dilemma *Bird back in Blighty*

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

StayDead wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

Dr. ogue Tomato wrote:So at the age of 16 everyone automatically gets the ability to reason then?

According to the law.

Well yes, the law says that, but could you honestly say at 15 years old you didn't know a) what you were doing and b) the difference between right and wrong?

The law doesn't give a gooseberry fool. There's no flexibility there. That's why it's a law.

I believe the judge has a certain amount of leeway in terms of punishment.

Simply put, he will be charged under the law as it stands. She was beneath the age of consent and that's that. A jury has to find him innocent or guilty of breaking the law, not if they think what he did was right or wrong.

The main debate this raises is if there is room for flexibility in the law. The law is, in theory, plain black and white. Either something is or isn't a crime. But should it be like that? Should cases like this have room for flexibility? Should her ability to make decisions be judged on her personal ability after a professional assessment? As has been said, turning 16 does not flip a switch that turns on your ability to make informed decisions, it varies from person to person when that level of maturity develops, if at all.

Personally, I still believe that the guy did, in some way, influence her decision by abusing his position of trust. But I highly doubt she would say that if it were true. She will almost certainly say whatever she thinks is going to help him, or what he has told her to say.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if she turns around and says it was all her idea and she made him take her.

Lagamorph wrote:The main debate this raises is if there is room for flexibility in the law.

There is no 'debate' here. Never has been. Never will be. You want to debate with the average parent whether or not a child of fifteen can give his or her consent for sexual intercourse? Good luck with that.

Lagamorph wrote:The law is, in theory, plain black and white.

No, the law is black and white. Some might also call it a blunt instrument.

Lagamorph wrote:Should cases like this have room for flexibility? Should her ability to make decisions be judged on her personal ability after a professional assessment? As has been said, turning 16 does not flip a switch that turns on your ability to make informed decisions, it varies from person to person when that level of maturity develops, if at all.

But the law doesn't care. At fifteen, she's a child and that's an end to it.

Lagamorph wrote:She will almost certainly say whatever she thinks is going to help him...

Won't make any difference. The guy's going down.

The last 2 or so pages all I've gotten out of this thread is.

Anyone want to count how many times the phrase "the law" has been used in this thread?

She's got a great rack hasn't she?
/lightens mood

The law is rigid. Judges and people, aren't.

Dark Ritual wrote:The law is rigid. Judges and people, aren't.

I bet the teacher was pretty rigid when they were alone.

KingK wrote:She's got a great rack hasn't she?
/lightens mood

in 12 months I will agree with you

Lagamorph wrote:

Dark Ritual wrote:The law is rigid. Judges and people, aren't.

I bet the teacher was pretty rigid when they were alone.

The teacher has now been arrested on suspiscion of Child Abduction.

I do not personally understand the media furore that has surrounded this story. The relationship was clearly mutual, not kidnapping, and the girl was never in any real peril. This is less a case of a child being preyed upon and more of a case of a teenager being really strawberry floating stupid.

IMO, I think the press have capitalised on titillation and scandal with this story to inflate a minor case into something of national importance. To put things into perspective, my aunt ran away from home at 16 and only got back in touch when she was around twenty. No one in the press so much as batted an eyelid at the time, in fact I would wager that such instances or quite common amongst teenage rebels.

Fifteen year olds don't run off to France with their teachers every day, Meep. Not to mention that the school seems to have something of a history of this happening.

Lagamorph wrote:The teacher has now been arrested on suspiscion of Child Abduction.

See that sounds like he kidnapped her but it was voluntary , sometimes I think this country and media act like a complete bunch of pompous idiots . The other annoying factor is that this has probably wasted a lot of government money with setting up tv slots and searches and investigations. This has had way to much media coverage when there are actual crimes going on around the country that could perhaps have a bit more focus on .

She's fifteen. She could be 15 and 364 days but she is still 15. 24 hours later (and this technically could be broken down into minutes), she's 16. Everything changes.

Or does it? Nothing has changed with her attitude, her body, her desires. It's just the law says its okay. I've had 20 year olds who weren't as mature as some, er, younger girls. Only the individual knows (or thinks they know) what they want. The teacher has made a huge mistake which he will have regrets over. Will it all be worth it? Probably not. Child abduction and possibly statutory rape added to his newfound pariah status and sex offenders register occupant for life. It's a hard break if he was genuinely in love with her.


But the law is the law. Simple as that.

KKLEIN wrote:Unless it's the other way around and the teacher looks like this...

Eva.

What the strawberry float are you retards going on about what the law is? Doesn't sound like you guys even understand it.

The age 16 is set, because that's a cut-off point to safely say that it is reasonable to assume by 16 everyone is at a certain level of maturity to decide things for themselves. It's also reasonable to expect that people at 16 and below are most definitely going to be inexperienced, so even if you're strawberry floating with a 15 years and 364 day aged little girl, you're a prick. The only time this law is a problem is when a 16 (or maybe slightly older, one that is reasonably close to 16) year old boy gets a statutory rape conviction, not when a thirty year old man gets it.

degoose wrote:See that sounds like he kidnapped her but it was voluntary , sometimes I think this country and media act like a complete bunch of pompous idiots.

I'm afraid the law says it was child abduction, regardless. She was 15 = the law says she was not capable of giving her consent (even if she did). Ergo, she was abducted. I know, it seems ridiculous, but there you are.

degoose wrote:The other annoying factor is that this has probably wasted a lot of government money with setting up tv slots and searches and investigations. This has had way to much media coverage when there are actual crimes going on around the country that could perhaps have a bit more focus on .

This is exactly the kind of titillating story the gutter press live for. Anything involving kids and they're all over it like a rash. I agree this kind of thing brings out the most ludicrous displays of disingenuous pomposity and faux moral hectoring - which is why I always take a hugely cynical view of it. In short, the tabloids act little better than a leering mob. It's disgusting.

Meep wrote:I do not personally understand the media furore that has surrounded this story. The relationship was clearly mutual, not kidnapping, and the girl was never in any real peril. This is less a case of a child being preyed upon and more of a case of a teenager being really strawberry floating stupid.

Depends what you consider predatory. It would be trivially easy for a mature adult to emotionally manipulate a teenager from a position of power - to convince that teenager that everything they were doing was entirely their choice and consensual, even while continuing to manipulate them.

This is why we have laws against people in positions of power strawberry floating minors who are in their care.

If there was genuine love involved, the onus was on him to hold off until she was old enough to consent, and he wasn't in a position of power over her. A good friend of mine did actually go out with one of her high school teachers for several years - but he refused to let anything happen until after she graduated. That's the legal, responsible thing to do.

$ilva $hadow wrote:What the strawberry float are you retards going on about what the law is? Doesn't sound like you guys even understand it.

The age 16 is set, because that's a cut-off point to safely say that it is reasonable to assume by 16 everyone is at a certain level of maturity to decide things for themselves. It's also reasonable to expect that people at 16 and below are most definitely going to be inexperienced, so even if you're strawberry floating with a 15 years and 364 day aged little girl, you're a prick. The only time this law is a problem is when a 16 (or maybe slightly older, one that is reasonably close to 16) year old boy gets a statutory rape conviction, not when a thirty year old man gets it.

It is only statutory rape if they are 12 or under.

Moggy wrote:

$ilva $hadow wrote:What the strawberry float are you retards going on about what the law is? Doesn't sound like you guys even understand it.

The age 16 is set, because that's a cut-off point to safely say that it is reasonable to assume by 16 everyone is at a certain level of maturity to decide things for themselves. It's also reasonable to expect that people at 16 and below are most definitely going to be inexperienced, so even if you're strawberry floating with a 15 years and 364 day aged little girl, you're a prick. The only time this law is a problem is when a 16 (or maybe slightly older, one that is reasonably close to 16) year old boy gets a statutory rape conviction, not when a thirty year old man gets it.

It is only statutory rape if they are 12 or under.

It's sexual activity with someone under the age of consent.