OK Capitán, I'll give you this one as a victimless crime.

Quote :

FORT WORTH, Texas -- Brittni Colleps, the Kennedale teacher accused of having improper sexual relationships with several of her students, has been found guilty on all counts of five indictments against her.

Colleps was sentenced to five years in prison Friday afternoon.

Colleps showed no emotion as the guilty verdicts were read on all 16 counts of the indictments. Her husband, on the other hand, was emotional and crying as his wife, with her bail now revoked, was led from the courtroom in the custody of the state.

Colleps was indicted on five charges of having an inappropriate relationship between a teacher and student after school officials learned of the allegations and took the matter to the Arlington police.

The trial began earlier this week with graphic testimony including text messages and a cell phone video that showed one of the alleged sexual incidents. The prosecution wrapped up their case Thursday before closing arguments began Friday morning.

The five victims all testified to having a sexual relationship with the married mother of three in her Arlington home between April and May of 2011. All five of the students were in Colleps' senior English class in the spring of 2011 and all of the victims were at least 18 when the incidents occurred.

Despite their age, Texas law forbids sexual relationships between teachers and students, even if the students are legal adults and consent to the relationship. Several of the victims testified Thursday to not wanting to testify in the trial with one of them saying he didn't want to press charges.

After closing arguments, the jury took about an hour to render the verdict.

Shitty wife and maybe a bad teacher but...

I wonder if her husband was crying because he didn't get the chance to strangle her or because they were into the cuckold lifestyle

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/17/13338856-texas-teacher-sentenced-to-five-years-in-prison-for-having-sex-with-five-students?lite

"The five victims all testified to having a sexual relationship with the married mother of three in her Arlington home between April and May of 2011. All five of the students were in Colleps' senior English class in the spring of 2011 and all of the victims were at least 18 when the incidents occurred.

Despite their age, Texas law forbids sexual relationships between teachers and students, even if the students are legal adults and consent to the relationship. Several of the victims testified Thursday to not wanting to testify in the trial with one of them saying he didn't want to press charges."

This is bullshit, which Texas is full of. Just more puritanical blue law technicality. Yes, she should have been fired for breach of ethics, but this should not be a criminal offense when the "victims" are all over the age of consent and apparently enjoyed willfully playing around with this woman.

What is the benefit of sending her to prison for five years? Texas now has to support her at great cost and she is not producing anything for her family, which is now without a mother as the kids grow up.

Just more backwater puritan bullshit!

Their age didn't matter, she was in a position of authority over them. How about if prison guard has sex with an inmate who is over age?

Suzi wrote:

Their age didn't matter, she was in a position of authority over them. How about if prison guard has sex with an inmate who is over age?

There is a difference between a prison guard who has real authority and control and a teacher who had sex with grown men, who according to the article were not 'victims' but willing participants.

Who knows, the guys could have seduced her. I have been in a position of authority and had teen boys come on to me. I saw it as nothing but wanting favors and they were under 17 so I did the right thing (Not like Brother Harold at this Catholic Boys Home).

I almost used you too as an example, I am sure the people you work with while of age are also off limits to you as far as sex is concerned. I am not so sure she should have been jailed, but she sure should have been fired and kept from ever teaching again. I really get frothy about teacher of either gender having sex with under aged kids. I also wonder what is wrong with an adult woman that wants to have sex with a young boy who knows very little about the whole thing other than he wants to have sex in the worst way, and for her it is.

Actually, it wasn't until a few years ago that Florida enacted a law against having sex with diminished capacity ppl (if you are of normal intelligence - IDK how they quantify that, IQ tests aren't concrete). BTW, intellectually disabled adults are allowed to have sex with each other after consent has been established. We teach them sex ed and how to use condoms and allow them a social room in the facility where I work.

But the egregiousness of a prison sentence in this case is that none of the boys were underage, nor intellectually diminished. They could have fucked any mother outside of the school who would let them (And a lot of 40-something women like a good, inexperienced, pile-driving fuck - I know, been there in my early 20s)

Like I said, she should have been fired for this but there is no way it warrants criminal prosecution. Her victims weren't victims and her imprisonment is causing more harm to the infrastructure of Texas and to her family than the joyful act of fucking young men warrants.

Sorry but exactly who where the "victims" supposed to be in this case? The 18 year old ADULTS who consented to sexual relations with another adult and didn't want to press charges?

A law is a law. She broke it and was sentenced accordingly.

The thing with this case that gets to me is the men who had sex with her are not culpable, nor should they be, yet one of them had to endure that video being played despite his not wanting to see her prosecuted. That is so unfair.

RedBedroom wrote:

A law is a law. She broke it and was sentenced accordingly.

I don't think anybody is actually questioning that. I think the point is that this is another example of a victim-less crime based on a nonsensical law. Yes, a teacher (or anybody in a position of authority) should not be having sexual relations with a student and of course she should have been fired for this (not to mention the fact that she also committed adultery and embarrassed her whole family). But 5 years in prison? For WHAT exactly? That's just stupid!

BTW. Something like that should only be a prison worthy crime in a country that practices Sharia law, like say Afghanistan.

captainbryce wrote:

I don't think anybody is actually questioning that. I think the point is that this is another example of a victim-less crime based on a nonsensical law. Yes, a teacher (or anybody in a position of authority) should not be having sexual relations with a student and of course she should have been fired for this (not to mention the fact that she also committed adultery and embarrassed her whole family). But 5 years in prison? For WHAT exactly? That's just stupid!

Aren't you questioning it?

It's not that I don't agree with you. In this case, minors were not involved. So, I don't think the law should apply to individuals over 18. But at the end of the day, this law is on the books. Stupid or not, when we break the laws our state imposes, we risk prosecution. She took a risk and now will be in prison for a while because of it.

RedBedroom wrote:

Aren't you questioning it?

I'm not questioning the fact that she broke the law, or was sentenced according to it. I'm questioning the law itself. It's a dumb law that serves no real purpose in 'protecting' anyone because there are no victims in this case. Why are my tax dollars being wasted to apprehend, try, convict and incarcerate someone who is not actually a threat to anyone?

RedBedroom wrote:

It's not that I don't agree with you. In this case, minors were not involved. So, I don't think the law should apply to individuals over 18. But at the end of the day, this law is on the books. Stupid or not, when we break the laws our state imposes, we risk prosecution. She took a risk and now will be in prison for a while because of it.

And I agree with you on that point. I'm certainly not saying that she wasn't STUPID or that she didn't act inappropriately. I just think that as a society we really need to ask ourselves whether or not our laws actually make sense, and whether or not the punishment's our justice system hands out really fits the crime in these cases. My answer to both of those questions is a resounding NO.

My take on THIS case is that it is unfair. And I feel so strongly because these guys, adult guys, did not sign up for their texts and that video to be played. They were adults and if they are not charged with anything, and didn't want to see her charged, they were screwed over by that evidence being allowed at her trial.

But I am not convinced these laws are generally bad. Really, why does a teacher seek to screw a student? More times than not, it is physical attraction and not a matter of them connecting on a deep level.

Just think of the teachers lusting over a 16-year-old and just waiting around, cultivating the relationship, until the coveted 18th birthday.

I feel very strongly teachers should not "do" their students until students are a couple years out of school.

captainbryce wrote:

Sorry but exactly who where the "victims" supposed to be in this case? The 18 year old ADULTS who consented to sexual relations with another adult and didn't want to press charges?

It's mind boggling, right?

The punishment is a bit stiff I think.

These were all consenting adults, who made a decision to be intimate (despite how unethical it was from all angles.) There shouldn't be any punishment in this case, other than the woman being suspended, put on probation...or at the very most losing her job and license to teach. This case has "appeal" written all over it.