This seems to be a light punishment considering what she did. If
prosecutors/judges could come down harder on people who take advantage of other
younger people like this lady did, then I think you would see a decrease in this
sort of crime.
Give me a break, had this been a male teacher it would never have been reduced
to the point that one wouldn't be required to be Sex Register Site. Sex with a minor is sex with a minor, regardless of gender.
I don't understand this plea deal. Utah's age of consent is 18 but a
17 year old is allowed to consent to sexual relations with an adult up to 27
years of age. Applying the Watkins reasoning, there was no authority
issue, so the 23 year old teacher can legally have sexual relations with the 17
year old. Secondly, Utah's sodomy laws are prima facia
unconstitutional per Lawrence v Texas. As much as we don't like
teachers looking for sexual partners in school, there appears to be no law
broken and the defensive lawyer has convinced the client to plea scared.
What a joke.Male Lone Peak Seminary teacher? 15 years.Make
Provo High Science teacher? Min of 5 years, punishment is still pending.This woman? Tap on the wrist.What a double standard. Men
have their lives utterly ruined while women receive taps on the wrist. What ever
happened to equality? They want equal pay but not equal punishments?
@LovelyDeseret: I strongly disapprove of any employee/minor relationship in a
school. If nothing else, it's poisonous to morale, possibly worse so than
workplace romances, plus it affects the whole community. That said, though, you
have an interesting point. At first reading, the letter of the law does seem to
permit such relationships. I'm not even sure that section 76-5-402.2 of
the Utah Code is affected by Lawrence, since the initial phrase contains the
words "without the victim's consent." But perhaps the
words don't mean what they mean in plain English? The age of consent in
Utah is 18. Just because the age-difference rule permits the relationship in
one section of the Code, perhaps it's not permissive in this section?It does make one wonder, though, if the outcome would have been
different with another lawyer. I wish the DN had interviewed some more legal
experts. The story now seems incomplete.
My sole comment. Had Courtney been a guy and involved in a same sex
relationship with a student at the school where he taught would he get the same
"misdemeanor charges that doesn't require her to register as a sex
offender"Give me a break, So typical of Utah justice system.
Nice, blonde women are always given special treatment. Men are punished twice as
much. And how in the world could she not be a sex offender? She was
charged with 'object rape'. Doesn't take much of an imagination
to work out what that's about.
This reeks of double standard,miscarriage of justice and virtually no punishment
because of gender. This teacher had sex with a minor student and had a very soft
sentence. It is ludicrous to say they were in love,the victim fell prey to an
au;thority figure who took advantage of her position to engage in sexual
relations. This is a horrible precedent and opens the door to similar cases
where the punishment is a slap on the wrist.
As was pointed out elsewhere, the ages of the two were close enough that they
could legally engage in a sexual relationship as long as one wasn't in a
position of authority over the other. The younger of the two has stated that it
was a mutual relationship with no one being forced to do anything. That being
the case, where is the actual crime? Is the prosecutor pushing this one because
of the "ick" factor since both participants are female or because one
was a teacher and thus needs to be made an example? If she were a college
student involved with a high school student, ages remaining the same as they are
in this case, would anyone be charged with anything? And for
"AllBlack", "Object rape" simply means they used sex toys, such
as a vibrator, during their intimacies. It doesn't mean force was used or
that the other person didn't want it; it's just a legal term when used
in court. In this case, it meant that the prosecutor thought he could prove the
other person wasn't old enough to have given consent.
No big surprise here. If questioned, I think that you find most young people
are lured intosame sex relationship where propositioned by someone older
who had found them venerable and needy. Thus the need to make it
'legal and OK' by sanctioning it with 'marriage'.
It figures that a female teacher would get a light punishment verses a male.
Total double standard.There's another such case pending in
Utah. I'll be watching to see that outcome as well.Voters need
to remember these rulings when they vote support on judges.