Cops urge charge for teacher (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5132817,00.html)

Sex assault suspect is wife of principal at Brighton Charter
By Chris Barge, Rocky Mountain News
November 10, 2006

Police recommended felony charges Thursday against a female teacher at Brighton Charter High School who they say had sexual contact with a boy while chaperoning a school camping trip.
It's the second time in less than a year that an adult connected to the school has been investigated for having a sexual encounter with a student.

The teacher, Carrie McCandless, 29, is the wife of school Principal Chris McCandless.

She took a group of students to Estes Park the last weekend in October and allegedly wound up in a room alone with a 17-year-old boy at the YMCA of the Rockies.

[More... (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5132817,00.html)]

i dont think hes very confused

Damn...she's fine, he's a stud.

But you know...what's good for the Gander is sure the **** good for the Goose.

Facing a felony conviction and up to 12 years in prison is absurdly out of proportion for the "crime" she committed.

Not getting a picture in the article :/ And I am confused as to how it is a crime since the boy is 17. It's wrong since she is his teacher, but isn't he of legal age?

Not getting a picture in the article :/ And I am confused as to how it is a crime since the boy is 17. It's wrong since she is his teacher, but isn't he of legal age?
I'm not sure on the specifics but I believe the fact that the teacher is in "position of trust or authority" over the "victim" is a factor.

but isn't he of legal age?No, the puritanical religious zealots here in the United States typically set the age for sex at 18.

Of course this non-crime is ridiculous, a deprivation of liberty, not to mention a waste of taxpayer dollars. The only reason it stays on the books is the Middle Ages notion that a (virgin) daughter is the property of the father, and any guy having sex with the daughter diminishes her value, and therefore should be punished.

No, the puritanical religious zealots here in the United States typically set the age for sex at 18.
In Colorado the AOC is 17. However, the relationship and ages of the people involved can shift it. There is some decent info on AOC law here. (http://wiki.lawguru.com/index.php/Age_of_consent)

In Colorado the AOC is 17. However, the relationship and ages of the people involved can shift it. There is some decent info on AOC law here. (http://wiki.lawguru.com/index.php/Age_of_consent)It seems California is in the minority with 18, I stand corrected. Anyway, they're all stupid; it should be the age of sexual maturity, or 13, if you must pick an age. All of the justifications for higher ages are just puritanical bull****.

it should be the age of sexual maturity, or 13, if you must pick an age.

Wow. Just wow.

Tudamorf is 100% right about this issue.

Tudamorf is 100% right about this issue.
No he's not.

It goes back further than the Middle Ages.

Everyone knows that.

No he's not.
It goes back further than the Middle Ages.
Everyone knows that.Please, spare us another of Fyyr's unproven, 100% speculation, ethnocentric, I-think-about-sex-this-way-and-therefore-the-entire-human-race-instinctually-does theories.

Statutory rape is an extension of the Middle Ages notion of the daughter as the father's property. This is not a universal, cross-cultural idea, but a very European one.

In the old days, as a complete defense to the "crime" of statutory rape, the male could marry the female, thus compensating the father for his sullied goods. And of course, you could marry at or even before the point of sexual maturity (~12-13), because if you marry, the goods are delivered, and the condition no longer becomes relevant.

These archaic ideas carried over to Europe-derived countries to the present day. You can still marry in some states as young as age 14, even though the so-called "age of consent" is as high as 18. That's because the "consent" at issue is not the consent of the girl, but the consent of the girl's father.

That's why cases like this, where it's applied to a female and a young male, look ridiculous, because the historical rationale doesn't apply. (The value of males in European cultures isn't a function of their virginity.) The only reason we're applying it to the female here is that we don't want to admit we're legislating with a Twelfth Century mindset. Sheer stupidity.

Ok, maybe my joke flopped because everyone does not know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_price
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginity