This video contains the audio of the Maryland State Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee February 12, 2014, hearing on Senate Bill 460. (The Senate only releases audio of hearings.)
Go to minute 4:17 of the video below to hear Senator Jamie Raskin's rationalization for adding text to this bill that would permit 22 year old teachers/coaches to have sex with 16 year old students through a 7 year buffer inserted in the current law.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Unbelievable. Mr. Raskin what were you thinking?
ReplyDeleteAfter listening to this, do any of the senators have a clue what this bill is about?
ReplyDeleteThe legislative sessions
ReplyDeleteGenerate obfuscations
Creating much confusion
Labeling crime as illusion.
Sen. Raskin needs to remove the 7 year itch language from this bill.
ReplyDeleteTestimony from Ilene King, Executive Director of Child Justice, which serves abused, neglected minors: changing the age difference to 7 years, "turns our 16, 17-year-old daughters and sons into legally available sexual prey for 21 to 24-year-old teachers or employees." Minute 43.06 on the tape.
ReplyDeleteAdditional testimony from Ms. King: "We all know teenagers. Kids make very poor judgements and bad mistakes. We know this. Why would we set them up?"
ReplyDeleteAnd remove the three-year statute of limitations.
ReplyDeletePart 1:
ReplyDeleteYes, this is long. It’s my response to what seemed to me a disturbing, misleading headline and similarly inaccurate anonymous comments on the February 15 web page of the Parents’ Coalition of Montgomery County. (See note 1, below.) Should I post a response there also? Probably, but I don't want to spend more time registering or finagling any of my email accounts into the proper comment-posting configuration.
Rachel Tickner
________________________________
The general outrage vented here—about adults who seduce teenagers under their authority, even though as grownups they damn well ought to know better—is certainly justifiable. However, the headline and some of the anonymous comments on the web page of the Parents’ Coalition of Montgomery County(1) might imply to a casual reader that Senator Raskin is blithely blessing sexual indiscretion between careless young adults and vulnerable high school students as long as both parties are no more than seven years apart in age. I assert otherwise, after carefully reading his press release(2) and quickly reading SB420, the bill he cosponsored with Senator Jenny Forehand and Senator Nancy King.(3)
Senator Raskin is deeply concerned about correcting situations in which teenagers are left unprotected. He regrets the age gap as described in the bill but describes it as an unavoidable compromise, actually requested by concerned stakeholders: “…We heard passionate pleas to craft a strong compromise to pass a bill that prohibits sexual exploitation of teens by older persons in authority even if we cannot reach an agreement about how to address cases where the adult and teen are closer in age.”(2)
Thus the law will not seek to criminalize relationships in which the two parties are seven or fewer years apart in age. This would still eliminate the most egregious situations in which adults pursue, or are unable to resist falling into, sexual relationships with teenagers young enough to be their children. (One such case, not prosecuted precisely because of these technicalities and loopholes, involved a 16-year-old student and a 47-year-old teacher.) As Senator Raskin concludes, it’s better to pass an imperfect law than wait indefinitely to enact a perfect one. “We cannot allow the perfect to become an obstacle to the very good changes we can get done.”(2)
Senator Raskin briefly discusses the history of Maryland legislators’ efforts to effectively protect young people from seduction by their elders: “In 2006, Maryland made a little progress. The General Assembly passed a law prohibiting full-time, permanent employees who are at least 21 from having sex with the minors they exercise supervision over at a public or private preschool, elementary school, or secondary school. The law says this includes principals, vice-principals, teachers, and counselors.”(2) He further states that the current bill, SB460, attempts to close various loopholes in the 2006 law that until now have derailed some attempts at prosecution:
a. If the adult is--during the intiation and lifespan of the sexual relationship--NOT a full-time teacher at the teenager’s present school; in other words, a sexual relationship is not illegal if the adult is merely a part-time, temporary, or substitute teacher at the teenager’s present school. (AND it’s not illegal if the adult is or was a fulltime, permanent teacher at the teenager’s previous school. This was the case in the situation I mentioned above, in which the teacher was 31 years older than the student.)
b. If the sexual relationship occurs in a time and at a place OTHER THAN those where the adult an the teenager pursue official sports or recreation activities
continues...
ParIf I’m reading the press release correctly, SB 460 would also expand these prohibitions to include any adult regardless of his or her place of employment. This would include private as well as public “sports and recreation facilities and programs.” The current bill, passed in 2006, merely prohibits sexual contact between any teen and any adult who is a fulltime, permanent, employee of a pre-school, elementary school, or secondary school.(2)
DeleteIn summary:
1. The point of SB460 is to decrease, not increase, situations in which grownups are supposed to be able to resist temptation.
2. The point of my comment is to decrease any chance that any readers will conclude that any state senators are eagerly pandering to younger adults (close in age to their teenaged charges) who unable to restrain themselves!
Notes
1. Parents’ Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland, “Sen. Raskin on 22 yr old teacher/coach having sex with 16 yr old student: ‘don't want to draw it so broadly that we're criminalizing something that most people would recognize is basically innocent’.“ February 15, 2014. Retrieved February 17, 2014 from http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2014/02/sen-raskin-on-22-yr-old-teachercoach.html
2. Statement on SB460 by Senator Jamie Raskin, February 16, 2014. Retrieved February 17, 2014 from http://jamieraskin.com/p/salsa/web/press_release/public/?press_release_KEY=948. Copyright 2014 Wired For Change.
3. Senate Bill 460, by Senators Raskin, Forehand, and King, “Criminal Law – Person in a Position of Authority – Sexual Offenses With a Minor.” Retrieved February 17, 2014 from http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/bills/sb/sb0460f.pdf
t 2...
Rachel,
DeleteThe flaw in your argument is that the new "gap" that Senator Jamie Raskin wants inserted into Maryland law impacts a much, much larger number of teenagers than the current loophole.
Under Senator Raskin's "fix" ALL HIGH SCHOOL students would be available for sex with young full-time/classroom teachers.
The current loophole in the law only impacts students who engage in activities with part-time and volunteer adults.
Senator Raskin expands the potential victim pool to include ALL high school students through the insertion of his new "gap" provision.
Unfortunately, Rachel, what Janis says here is true. There is an increasingly large number of new, young teacher hires to replace the retiring professionals who have served well and long, but may be costing MCPS more than they want to spend for high quality teachers.
DeleteUnder federal law, students may continue until the age of 21, and some of these students may be under guardianship, in other words, not considered to be functioning as adults. I'm not certain how the law would consider these cases - would the vulnerability gap be up to teachers aged 28?
The ratio of teachers under age 25 (and even more so 28) to the teachers over 25 (28) continues to mushroom. The result is that our high school students are unprotected from the natural instincts of those who are closest in age and characteristics to them.
Neuroscience shows that our brains are still maturing into our 30s, and our choices in our 20s are still not always the best advised. Perhaps loopholing these youngest teachers may be doing them a disservice.
Having myself been a victim from the age of 13 to 16 of someone several years older, an Eagle Scout from my church, no less, I speak with some authority on the topic of older~aged peer abuse of those who are younger with no power.
I can understand Senator Raskin's wish to get the Bill through, but a compromise with a loophole in this age range is the most foolish possible.
The proverbial 'proof of the pudding' will be if this proposed change is interpreted in favor of a future victim as is navigates through the narrow straights of the judicial process.
ReplyDelete