[Catwoman]

Originally Posted by Radar

Pregnancy can happen both ways and in neither case is the child responsible enough to make such decisions.

With that I agree. I am assuming she used protection. If she didn't, and was willing to risk pregnancy and his premature fatherhood, she deserves no sympathy.

Originally Posted by 99 44/100% pure

I guess you don't have a 14 year old boy. I have one, and I can assure you, while he may fantasize about having sex with an adult woman, but he is not emotionally ready, and I expect the incident would be a net negative for him in the long run. If this deranged woman had touched so much as a hair on my son's head, not only would we be pushing to prosecute to the fullest extent allowable by law, but we would also probably seek some more personal forms of 'justice.' (snip) In addition, while not explicitly spelled out in statute, the community has less tolerance for those who hold positions of authority in childrens' lives, and abuse that authority or proximity. (snip) Just remind me not to live in YOUR community, if your beliefs and behavior are reflected in your local laws.

Abuse of authority is a separate issue. He may have thought he was obliged to bone her because she was a teacher. Arguably that is wrong, as it constitutes manipulation, misrepresentation, deception, etc. It may also have given him a misguided sense of authority, leading him to bone future bosses, superiors, etc. Emotionally he may now have formed the opinion that all women are domineering, conniving and out for what they can get. What better introduction to the real world? Most people never face up to this reality, believing their whole lives in a fairytale existence of white weddings and perfect love. I may not have a 14 year old son but I know enough about life to know it is nothing like the storybooks you get in school or the ubiquitous pink-filtered romantic comedies. Thanks to her he has been given a true picture of sexuality that is not all about love, respect or reciprocity, but is founded on power struggles, inequality and perversion. Sorry if that doesn't fit the view of the world you wish you could give your children, but hey, that's life. The sooner they learn, the better. Then maybe they can do something about it.

Originally Posted by 99 44/100% pure

Originally posted by Catwoman:
How then can you apply a 'one size fits all' mentality to law?
That's the whole point of an effective justice system. EVERYONE is subject to the laws, and should be charged if they break them. If the accused's peers determine that there is enough evidence to support the charge(s), the defendant is guilty. All the subjective/motivation/extenuating/mitigating/aggravating/whining excuses stuff comes into play during the SENTENCING phase. That's when the bimbo can explain that the 14 year old was unusually mature and able to give consent, etc, etc. Living within the law IS and SHOULD BE a "one size fits all" game; that's where the "equal protection under law" part of the constitution comes into play.

So everyone should be subject to the same rules, regardless of motivation, mental capacity, environment? Don't do the crime if you don't want the time? The law is a secular set of commandments and if you break one you receive your 'just' punishment? I assume you agree with all this.

If an action could be viewed in isolation from circumstance, I would concur.

But realistically, it can't. To answer lookout's question, if we were both driving at 25 over the speed limit, but you had just robbed a bank and I was rushing my contracting sister to hospital, should we both receive the same punishment? Should I be punished at all? On the surface, our actions look the same. Our motivations, however, are vastly different. Isn't this what should be 'punished'? Isn't this what the law should exist for? You might argue that taken to its natural conclusion this constitutes 'thought police' and is largely immeasurable. Maybe. But surely this is preferable to a backward, limited and often completely WRONG legal system that offers nothing in the way of prevention (other than deterrent, which of course is ineffective else why all the crime?). Painting every person and every crime with the same colour is equally if not more dangerous than exonerating individuals because of irrelevant differences (the what they had for breakfast bit, radar). No one seems willing to take the time to understand the root of crime (and I don't mean the part-time pot-smoking criminology students) in order to eliminate it once and for all. So, sorry if that's idealistic. Sorry if it means you might have to think.

said with no hostility, just want to make a point