Miles wrote:cnorman18 wrote:"Affirmative defense" means that that defense may be used at trial; it does not mean that the person is not to be charged.
And I recognize that, yet if there is an exception to the law that is applicable in court, why shouldn't that exception apply at the point of possible arrest?
Just because something is considered a defense does not mean that you get off scot free for invoking it. as Cnorman said, it means you can use that as a defense and try to argue your case. with this law, I, and probably most people, will read it as clearly relating to private relationships, and so not applicable.
I do think that a charge of public indecency would be more appropriate, but I have no problem with this one.
One regarded as a felony? That's a far cry from the charge of public indecency, which I believe would be treated as a misdemeanor, although I could be mistaken.
This isn't behavior that ought to be shrugged off or rewarded with a lecture or a slap on the wrist.
I agree
It's evidence of a deeply disturbed and possibly dangerous personality, and has no place in any classroom - or anywhere but a private booth in an adults-only peep show, for the matter of that.
Disturbed? Perhaps.
Deeply disturbed? That would be a matter for someone more competent than I to determine.
Possibly dangerous? In what way?
I'll argue for deeply disturbed and possibly dangerous. You have to consider why he did this and what it means. He obviously gets a sexual gratification from exposing multitudes of minors to his own sex acts, and to do it so blatantly indicates a complete disregard for a) social rules, and b) laws.
and simply the fact that he doesn't care that all those peers of his know that he did this, and actually saw him doing it, is also indicative of a problem.
There is also the fact that sexual deviants tend to evolve into further deviance, because, once they try a given thing for sexual gratification, they will search out something more extreme, to get the same level of gratification. Basically, if he gets off on kids watching him, it is not at all inconceivable that he would move on to wanting to try getting off on kids touching him, and now we have a real big problem.
I have no problem with sex - it's perfectly normal and natural, but when someone goes wildly outside the norm - whatever that norm is at the time - for gratification, that's an indication that something is up - something probably not good.
"Bringing the law into the incident" was absolutely appropriate and in fact essential. This was not an ordinary school-discipline issue.
And just what law has he broken? According to the law they have charged him under, the "affirmative defense to prosecution" would appear to be the exculpatory provision that would make the law inapplicable.
Obviously he's broken public indecency, and he's broken the indecency with a child law as well. Just becasue something is an allowed defense, doesn't mean you don't go to trial for it. someone can claim insanity in a murder case, and that's a valid defense, but you still have to go to trial to show that it applies.
Speaking as a teacher, I would not allow that student to sit in my class again under any circumstances. I would resign first.
Really. Hmmm. I don't think I would.
You could never appropriately allow that student back into the same classroom. if nothing else, every other student there knows he did that. is that a healthy learning environment? They might get over it and see him as mostly like another student - eventually - if they weren't traumatized at all, but it would take long enough that, for the rest of the year, all the student will look at him and think about what he did. But just the fact that another student said what he did was 'scary' means he does not belong back there, because it is not a proper learning environment at all if he is in it. if I was teaching that class, and administration tried to put him back in the same class, I probably wouldn't resign - I would make a huge deal out of it and make sure the parents of the other student's knew this was happening - because in any case, he is now a sex offender. even if the charge of indecency with a child doesn't stick, that was obviously public indecency. There is no way you could get him back into that classroom once he's a sex offender, becasue the parents would lynch you - and its probably illegal anyway.
unless it could be shown that he has serious psychological problems, I would pull out all the stops if I had to to protect my students from him. With evidence of psychological problems(say, sexual abuse at home or something), I'd have some sympathy for him - but he still wouldn't belong back in that classroom.
We do not hate others because of the flaws in their souls, we hate them because of the flaws in our own.
