I think I read that school systems were supporting Raskin's bill, but I don't know where I read that.

Where does MCPS stand on this? the school system is known for harboring sexual predators. They don't fire them, they just move them to other schools.

How can we find out?

Anonymous wrote:But who is demanding a compromise? I agree it's better to have a law but why do we have to compromise on who gets to prey on 16 year olds? How bout no one?

+1 -- I'm really scratching my head on this one -- what's the constituency in favor of this "compromise"? Who are they negotiating with?

Anonymous wrote:I think the point that they can't get this passed without the compromise. Is it better to have no law or a law that narrows the loopholes?

It's narrowing one loophole (the loophole that excludes part-time teachers) while widening another (the loophole that doesn't criminalize consensual sexual contact, acts, or intercourse where one party is a minor but there is less than a 4 year age gap btwn the two parties.)

Current law (MD section 3-308) prohibits a "person in a position of authority" from engaging in a sexual act, sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a minor (i.e. under 18) while that minor is enrolled in the school where the "person in a position of authority" is employed. "PIPA" is defined as a full-time permanent employee, among other characteristics. The 7 year age gap in the new bill represents a widening of the spectrum of people at school who could legally have sex with your child.

I think an important question to ask is -- who says this can't get passed without the compromise? Put up a bill without the compromise and let the people who are against it vote it down in the light of day. Then parents and citizens can lobby those people to change their mind so that the bill can both include part-time employees AND maintain the current 4 year age gap exceptions.

But who is demanding a compromise? I agree it's better to have a law but why do we have to compromise on who gets to prey on 16 year olds? How bout no one?

I think the point that they can't get this passed without the compromise. Is it better to have no law or a law that narrows the loopholes?

OP here. I agree. If they are worried about the 19 year old who comes back to assistant coach at his high school, let there be a law allowing people under 21 to engage in relationships with students 2 years younger. Who came up with 7 years? When I was in college I had a teaching assistant who was teaching a summer course I was taking hit on me. It made me sick to my stomach and I told him to get lost, but this made things extremely uncomfortable for me since he did this in the middle of the semester. Did this make me want to keep excelling in the course? No.
It also gave me a slight paranoia in other classes I took from then on out.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to sanction such relationships unless they are only thinking about the person in power. I can only guess the rep from the sexual assault coalition is agreeing in desparation to get the prohibition against part-time employees who are even older passed. But I want to know WHO is demanding this kind of compromise?

Anonymous wrote:http://www.wtop.com/41/3564472/Bill-seeks-to-close-sexual-abuse-loophole

Hard to get my head around this.

Why is there need for compromise? Are there lawmakers insisting that at least someone should be able to prey upon their students age 16+...if not older part-time teachers and coaches then at least younger ones?

Who are the victims? Probably mainly girls. Is this a necessary compromise because there are lawmakers who think someone in an authority relationship with girls should have the right to objectify them and engage in sexual relationships with them...

If this is the only way to address one major problem, sexual predation by men more than 7 years older than their students, then maybe the compromise is necessary. But why? Can anyone shed some light? Crazy world we live in.

Here's the gazette story on this: http://www.gazette.net/article/20140219/NEWS/140219174/1124/montgomery-state-lawmakers-want-coaches-subject-to-sex-abuse-law&template=gazette

I was shocked to hear a rep from the sexual assault coalition on NPR this morning promoting this compromise. What I really don't understand is this -- who are the legislators who are demanding this "compromise"? Jamie Rubin said (in response to a senator colleague who asked why the gap was set at 7 years and advocated for a smaller gap) some, IMO, very inflammatory things in the hearing not this bill, implying that relationships between 16 year olds and 23 year olds are OK. I think the quote from him was something like "you don't want to draw it so broadly that you criminalize something that people recognize as basically innocent." Then going on to describe these as "Romeo and Juliet" situations. Rubin is promoting the 7 year gap as a "compromise" with unnamed colleagues who a refusing to push this bill which will include part-time employees (previously not covered in the law) because it would criminalize these "basically innocent relationships" which are "romeo and juliet" situations. The example given was a kid who goes to high school, goes away to college and comes back as a 22+ year old to volunteer part-time as a basketball coach and has sex with a 16 year old whom he meets at school.

IMO, as a parent, I don't want the state to sanction 16 year olds having sex with adults who are 7 years older. (Whether the younger person is a boy or girl.) I don't view a 23 y.o. who approaches my 16 y.o. daughter to develop a sexual relationship as a "Romeo." I see him/her as a predator who is relying on his position of authority and status as a "cool" older man (or woman) to encourage my child to do something that isn't really very emotionally healthy.

I say this as a woman who had a consensual relationship in college with someone who was 8 years older. But, I was over 18. Even then, in retrospect, I realize it wasn't a very healthy relationship for me due to the age/power differential. 40/47 is much different than 16/23.

http://www.wtop.com/41/3564472/Bill-seeks-to-close-sexual-abuse-loophole

Hard to get my head around this.

Why is there need for compromise? Are there lawmakers insisting that at least someone should be able to prey upon their students age 16+...if not older part-time teachers and coaches then at least younger ones?

Who are the victims? Probably mainly girls. Is this a necessary compromise because there are lawmakers who think someone in an authority relationship with girls should have the right to objectify them and engage in sexual relationships with them...

If this is the only way to address one major problem, sexual predation by men more than 7 years older than their students, then maybe the compromise is necessary. But why? Can anyone shed some light? Crazy world we live in.

Here's the gazette story on this: http://www.gazette.net/article/20140219/NEWS/140219174/1124/montgomery-state-lawmakers-want-coaches-subject-to-sex-abuse-law&template=gazette