Teacher Fights Sex Statute

By MATT BURGARD, Courant Staff Writer A former high school teacher facing sexual assault charges says his arrest on suspicion of having sexual relations with a student violates a fundamental right guaranteed by both the state and federal constitutions.

Matthew Glasser, a former music teacher at Northwest Catholic High School, was arrested last year under a provision of the state's criminal code that makes having sex with students a crime, even if the student has reached 16 - the age of consent.

But in a motion filed in Superior Court in Hartford, Glasser claims the statute infringes on his constitutional right to privacy, which, he argues, includes engaging in a sexual relationship with another consenting adult. Glasser was 29 when the relationship is alleged to have taken place; the girl was 16.

"We believe that the statute infringes on a fundamental right to sexual privacy and therefore does not hold up under constitutional scrutiny," said Jeremy Donnelly, one of Glasser's lawyers.

Glasser is facing eight counts of second-degree sexual assault, a felony with a minimum mandatory sentence of nine months. The statute was drafted, in part, to prevent teachers and others from taking advantage of their position. Advocates for such laws argue that because teachers have so much sway, students are not truly able to consent.


more here

I'd have to pull the two Connecticut statutes to compare for sure, but just based on the posting, those do appear to be inconsistent statutes. And to the degree that they are inconsistent, the Constitutional right to privacy should trump (assuming the Conn. constitution has such a right).

Now I am not saying that a teacher who acted in this manner could not be guilty of some crime, and it is true that he may have a hard time arguing 'consent' due to the nature of the teacher-student relationship; but that said, if a 16 year old can consent, than a 16 year-old can consent. And it appears arbitrary and capricious to tell a teacher that he can't have sex with his 16 year old student, but he can have sex with that same 16 year old if she's not his student. And the reason is, the defining variable in that statute is age, not status.

And for the record, I do not support his conduct. But I am a huge proponent of objective standards in the law.

He knew the law when he dipped his wick*, so...

*Feel free to rewrite this sentence with a more creative euphemism. [img]graemlins/shhh.gif[/img]

Ok. Per Lan's request...

"A more creative euphanism, he knew the law when he dipped his wick."

16 is not old enough.
The age of consent should be the same as the age to vote, at least.

Well I would agree, Greg, because as a rule, 18 is pretty much the universal age of majority. I suppose the argument for 16 is that, in most states, that's as far as you have to go to school, and it's also the age you can get a driver's license, and so the theory would be that a 16 year old mom can work to support the child.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cincygreg:
16 is not old enough.
The age of consent should be the same as the age to vote, at least.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In your opinion.

Not that I disagree and think all 16 year olds are even remotely mature enough to take that step.

My 14 year old thinks she is mature as can be, and in some ways she is, but not in that respect. That isn't going to stop me from putting her on the pill in the near future though. I live in reality.

That being said, at 16 I was legally emancipated, a straight A student, working two jobs to support myself and living on my own.

He'll obviously never teach again. He violated his contract, I'm sure, and in Missouri he'd lose his teaching license forever. Of course, in Missouri the age of consent is 17, so it would definately be illegal.

Hey good to hear from Ikin checkin' in from the Show Me state....

What some states do, and maybe this is the best solution because I am a huge fan of letting the jury decide the facts in individual cases...

You take an age, say 15, and say anyone that age or lower cannot, as a matter of law, consent to sex. No defenses, no excuses, no nothing.

Then you say if the chid is 16-17, it's still presumed that she can't consent but the defendant can raise mistake of fact regarding her age as a defense. In other words, put her up in front of the jury and let them take a look at her and decide if, in their collective opinion, it would be reasonable to conclude that this 16 year old really could pass for 18 or older (the old "she told me she was 18" line)

I have no problem there, but notice my argument is based on mistake of fact, not actual consent. In other words, in my example above, if the Defendant knew or should have known she was 16, regardless of how mature she was, he would still be in trouble.

I think you are more of the exception than the rule Nikki, and I'm sure there are others that like you could handle the situations of adulthood at age 16. Unfortunately, those that can are far outnumbered by those who cannot these days.

Weren't kids routinely getting married at age 16 around 150 years ago? Interesting how morals "evolve"...