Comments:Former Wisconsin teacher's aide faces sex charges

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Now there's a reason NOT to be a teacher. A minor makes one allegation and her name is published worldwide as a sex offender. Her life is over; guilty or not. Shane.Bell 08:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You may have a point, although the way I read the article it is a crazy parent making the problems. This is a female teaching assistant and a 16 year old. In the UK that wouldn't be illegal, just inappropriate. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

True it wouldn't be illegal for an adult woman to have sex with a 16 year old in the UK. However, in Wisconsin the age of consent is 18 so if guilty she is SOL. In some states the Age of Consent can be as low as 14 so she's unlucky.

Personally I think 'Age of Consent' is a terrible piece of blanket legislation which doesn't work and needs to be addressed on other grounds on a case by case basis. But I won't go in to that.

It also might not be technically accurate to say she wouldn't be breaking the law in the UK either. In the UK we have laws which classify sex (irregardless of age) as Statutory Rape between certain people.

For example: a psychiatrist who has sexual relations with a patient (even if the patient was never sanctioned or declared mentally ill; EVEN after the patient is cured and no longer being treated) may be convicted of statutory rape due to abusing his position of authority over that person.

It's not a joke, it's a serious dilema; a patient becoming infatuated with their psychiatrist is very common. The law may or may not be the same for teachers. I'm guessing it probably is. Shane.Bell 11:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with you, a situation like this is never totally black and white. The law is what divides it up into such. The way I read the story there's no serious psychological damage here, the student is "technically" sexually mature, not someone pre-pubescent or just raging with hormones - well, actually I remember when I was sixteen. If my English teacher had propositioned me I would've said yes, so perhaps raging with hormones. She was cute, and I found her brand of intelligence attractive. :) --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that these things are never black or white. I think some people are mature enough to make these decisions on their own well before they're legally allowed to. I also think that some people are well over the Age of Consent and still aren't mature enough to engage in a meaningful relationship. To me, Age of Consent is a blunt compromise catering for the right wing sensibilities of parents whilst making as many of the resulting court cases in to open and closed affairs. Its irresponsible and damaging and I've always though that it is one of the areas in many countries legal systems that needs urgent attention.

I didn't imply with my example that there's any sort of psychological damage in the Wisconsin case (if that's how you took it; I'm not sure). The reason there are such rules for psychiatrists has nothing to do with the patient being unfit to decide. It's because the psychiatrist has to put himself in an artificial position of power and authority for his job. The patient has to be able to trust the psychiatrist to do this responsibly and professionally. For many people; power and authority are very attractive qualities which could easily be used for seduction in some cases. In that way I think it's the same for teaching.

As for the Wisconsin case; I agree with you that there probably is no victim. If it is true that the boy contacted her numerous times and that they both travelled multiple times to meet up then I think it's unlikely that this was anything but a consensual act between two effective 'adults'. As to what will happen now; that has to be decided by the legal system. She knew what she was doing and I suppose she must be dealt with logical consistency by the systems in place. Hopefully one day things like this won't happen and people will realise that sometimes the offence is in the law; not the criminal. Shane.Bell 16:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is idiocy. Nobody was raped, if a student makes a choice to have sex nobody should be punished, teacher's aide or not. American laws punish people for making human choices. US fights against terrorism and communism, yet it is a police state. Freedom? Yeah, right.

It's probably worth ading the teacher aid's age. A "teacher's aid" is normally a university student studying to be a teacher. So she's likely between 19 and 22, i.e. not much older than the student. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.90.52.172 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 19 November 2007

Please sign your comments. They often are... this one was not. According to the first cited source she was 39. I added this to the article. Shane.Bell 11:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Information should no longer be added to this article. --SVTCobra 12:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

SVTCobra, without wanting to be argumentative... why not? The article is less than a week old, still on the front page and the unsigned contributor makes a good point that the all important age of the offender is not included.Shane.Bell 12:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If the fact is in one of the existing sources, I'd say it can go in, but not if it needs a new source for that detail. Very few people will read an article that far down the page, and most will have read it without that detail. It depends if you define this as a substantial change or not, and you need to know a bit more about archiving policy. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

From WN:NOT Wikinews articles are not works in progress. Once written and published they are historical documents; they should not continue to be updated or changed. - Obviously we allow changes after they published, but after 24 hours, there really ought not be further updates. --SVTCobra 12:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the appropriate bit is from WN:ARCHIVE, Articles which have been published for more than 36 hours should not undergo significant edits. Is this a significant edit? BTW, this discussion should really be on the collaboration page, not the opinions. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if that teacher was a licensed aid but she might have been a licensed rapist! --50cent541 21:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)