Teacher gets 10 yrs for sex w/ student

WILMINGTON, Del. — A sixth-grade science teacher who was accused of having sex with a 13-year-old student has been sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Rachel L. Holt, 35, had pleaded guilty to second-degree rape. She sobbed in court Friday as Superior Court Judge Calvin L. Scott gave her the mandatory minimum sentence.
Prosecutors had wanted Scott to sentence Holt to the maximum of 25 years.
Holt was initially charged with 28 counts of first-degree rape.
Police accused her of having sex with the boy that many times during an intense week-long affair. She was also accused of plying the boy with alcohol and allowing him to drive her car.


Holt's attorney, John S. Malik, said the sentence was much longer than what teachers convicted in similar cases got. He reviewed 40 such cases and found the average was 18 months to two years.
In her brief comments to the court, Holt apologized "to everyone who suffered" as a result of her actions, including the victim and his family.
"I hope you can forgive me," she said. "I know what I did was wrong."
The victim's uncle, who spoke on behalf of the family, asked for the maximum sentence, saying Holt had tarnished the reputation of teachers and violated his nephew's trust.
"He had his innocence taken away through betrayal," he said.






I know it's a double standard, maybe I'm just weird, but If I was gettin some from a teacher when I was 13, I don't think she should have been put in prison.

And 28 times in one week?........ No wonder she likes 'em young.

.

 

then it only a .22 to solve........................A male teach or a female teach? when is it wrong>>>>
still stinky snowstinkbyrd

 

I've seen pictures of her in the Israeli media.

She's ugly.

But then again, we all know teenagers (male ones especially) will jump it if it moves.

This is not exactly the kind of scumbag pedophile the laws were written for.

 

Exactly..... Not saying it was ok, just saying ... does she really need to be in prison?

 

Then we're talking about a whole lot more than sex with a minor, and if she was aware of her condition, the charge should be at least manslaughter.

 

You know, I'm going to put myself out for lots of trouble when I say this, but this is why age of consent laws, as currently enforced, sucks.​

​

You put up an arbitrary age – say 16, 18, 21, 12, no matter, it's still arbitrary – and you say "fine, you can screw people above this age, and anybody below this age is off-limits." And the purpose – as we all know – is to prevent the horrible pedophile that kidnaps 6-year-old pre-teens away from your daughter or son. And this is a great thing, and people who rape 6-year-old pre-teens are scum and should be locked away. As a matter of fact, all rapists are scum, period.​

​

But get the modern legal system, with it's mandatory sentencing and suchlike, and you create a problem. A 19^th-century jury, with it's nullification and with a completely different outlook on when people mature*, would have stared at this case, shrugged, and refused to convict (or maybe I'm too naïve about the 19^th century, they may have nailed her still for eeeevil extramarital sex). The point is, these things have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Not everybody who makes love to the legally underage is an eeeeevil pedo.​

​

But we are swiftly forgetting about the fact human beings are in fact individuals – this is part of the consequences of the creeping collectivism, socialism, and statism in our system. Thus you have stuff like this.​

​

​

​

​

​

*At this time it was not uncommon for people to begin independent life at a much earlier age then today. Think of guys like Admiral Farragut.​

 

Most 13-year-olds are children perhaps. But this does not detract from my point that the law, such as it is, should be enforced on a case-by-case basis, rather then on a 'no discretion basis'.

Justice is dealt out based on the concept that all people are individuals. In some cases it's perhaps better to let a man go (for the jury to acquit him, which is in their power, or for a judge to assign a symbolic sentence) even though he's technically guilty.

 

Actually, not necessarily. First of all, judges often have discretion to replace a penalty by something as symbolic as a fine, and second, juries used to have the power to acquit a man guilty under the fact.

P.S. Here in the deserts judges are allowed to declare that a man is guilty, but a conviction is not to be recorded into his 'permanent record'.

 

P.S. Think of Bernie Goetz, here.

 

My mother was 15 when I was born. I do not see the damage from consentual sex at any age other than stds and pregnancies.

 

Well, in America in many states you can't vote, own guns, and so forth, if you're an eeeeevil convicted felon. Worse, if you're a sex offender (like this woman will be) you will lose your privacy. This may make sense with horrible violent criminals, but I think it'd be more just if it allowed exceptions.

 

And this is arguably true to an extent - but observe what is actually done.

EVERY sex offender (to my knowledge) is put on these lists. Even people who are arguably not a danger to society in any way shape of form.

What do you think this say about society?