By now everyone's heard that Debbie Lafave, ex-middle school teacher, plead guilty to two counts of lewd and lascivious battery will serve three years of house arrest and seven years probation and must register as a sex offender.
I'm sure by now everyone's familiar with Lafave's lawyer's declaration "To place Debbie into a state women's penitentiary, to place an attractive young woman in that kind of hellhole, is like putting a piece of raw meat in with the lions. I'm not sure Debbie would survive," during pre-trial, right?
Last night, I just happened to watch The Situation with Tucker Carlson for the first and last time (what an obnoxious prick; and the bow tie? are you kidding me?) and he had the following discussion about Lafave:
CARLSON: Speaking of law and order, Debra Lafave. Twenty-five years old. Had sexual relations with a boy 14 in her class. They met on a school trip to Sea World in Orlando.
She has just been sentenced. Three years of house arrest, seven years of probation.
MADDOW: Yes.
CARLSON: Pretty tough sentence. She's—have to register as a sexual predator. There she is on the screen. Here's my question, very simple, who exactly is harmed by this? To the extent that it justifies her registration as a, quote, “sexual predator,” and three years of house arrest? I know people are saying, “Oh, she's gotten off easy.” I don't think so at all. I want to know exactly who she's hurt to deserve this.
MADDOW: If it was a male teacher and a 14-year-old girl, would you feel differently?
CARLSON: Of course I would. I would be rooting for a lifetime behind bars, along with every other American. But it wasn't.
MADDOW: The age of consent should be different for boys than for girls?
CARLSON: I think in real life, it is much more harmful to a 14-year-old girl to have sexual relations with an adult teacher than it is for a 14-year-old boy.
MADDOW: Now we're talking about a legal case where we've got an adult who had sex with 14-year-old, and we have to decide what the legal standard's going to be. Are we really going to argue about the legal standard for age of consent, that it should be legal to have sex with a 14-year-old boy, no matter what age you are, but if you have sex with a 14-year-old girl, life in prison? That's a pretty hard thing to argue.
CARLSON: No, no. I think—I think, however, you ought to—it is a hard legal argument to make. You're right. But I think you ought to have to show harm before you sentence someone, you pull someone out of society, and sentence him either, in this case, her to prison or home confinement and brand them for the rest of their lives.
I was a bit shocked to hear him suggest that she had not committed a crime and further imply that male and female sexual predators should be treated differently in the court system. Personally, I think his assertion is ludicrous. As much as I understand the fantasy that every young man has of having sex with an older, attractive, experiened, seductive woman (I had plenty myself) the fact remains that in reality it's illegal to engage in sexual relations with minors who haven't reached the age of consent. I believe the aoc is 17 yrs age in most states. I'd like to know your thoughts on the subject. I pose the question to you: Do you think male sexual molesters should be thrown under the jail while female offenders are slapped on the wrist?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I think sexual predators, male or female, should be treated the same way. That would be as harshly as possible. Have you noticed that the more attractive these women are, the lighter the sentence they get?
I think judges actually think if the woman is pretty, then the boy should be given a medal, and the woman should be given a thank you. The hypocrisy is amazing.
sabledawn - I didn't know attractive women were getting lighter sentences. I don't keep up with these kinds cases that often.
It strikes me as odd that a defense attorney would feel comfortable arguing for a lighter sentence on the sole basis of beauty. That's just plain ridiculous.
What's really sad is that the judge must have been swayed the attorney's beauty argument considering he didn't give her a day of jail time.
Re: giving medals. Judges, Tucker Carlson and the like all feel that way. It's just plain silly. A criminal is a criminal not matter how attractive she may be.
That's just pitiful. Apparently the lawyer knew the judge would give a light sentence with a defense like that. Idiots... a sexual predator is that whether man or woman, cute or ugly;.
Gotta agree whole heartedly. Working in the high schools, I'm surprised there isn't more 'fraternizing' between teachers and students with how kids act and dress now and how schools are so much more lax in student/teacher relationships. Classrooms are casual, teachers are encouraged to dress casual (and hey, I take full advantage, wearing jeans 90% of the time). Most times it's hard to tell who is employed and who is attending. But, how can we teach responsibilty if we don't practice it? Wait, what was the topic? Oh yeah, was death penalty on the table?
I'm just saying I can see how tempting it might be, but so is that car sitting in my neighbors drive. Male, female...doesn't matter. And Tucker Carlson? Shawn, where the hell is your remote?? Change the damn channel darlin!!
rose - I agree. it's upsetting the judge was swayed by her looks
kathi - I won't ever watch Tucker again.
I have a 15-year old son and I don't even want to go into what I would do if a teacher molested him.
This is a crime. This woman was in a position of authority. Society placed their trust in her and she betrayed their trust and endangered this young man. I don't care how many times he was patted on the back or elbowed in the ribs. This was a horrible crime and a shameful sentence.
Not to diminish her punishment, but the fact is that prisons are already so overcrowded as it is.
Post a Comment