weakest

1. The research seems to suggest that with bad (or no) parents' care, children are more likely to have conduct disorder.

2. For the overseas students case, I don't doubt your description about the school(s) overseas. But it seems that there are not so much of this behavior in HK. Would it be also possible that the mis-behavior are of common because of the different culture in the 2 places (of course, this explanation is your mutually exclusive to yours. That means, it is possible for both explainations to apply for this case). But it is also perfectly possible that the students who are originally being "too cared" by parents would conduct mis-behaviors also when they are overseas, since they would want to "try new things" once they are not under supervision of parents. If it is the case, should the students be trained to be independent as early as possible?

3. For the exchange experience. I agree that having another experience is an advantage, but it is not the only advantage. Being independent is also frequently used as a selling point for those engaged in exchange program. Although students will be independent also if they are in poorly functioning boarding school, but the impression of other people would be different for the 2 choices (exchange and poorly functioning boarding school). For the boarding school case, it would simply make others to think of poor parents; but for exchange, others would think of independent.

4. For the 淫審處 case, it have the judical power. If it is also a government adminstrative matter, would it means that the judical and the adminstrative matter are not separated? In fact, I really wonder if the group is really selected at random (just because the government say it is selected at random (in the general description doesn't mean that it is really selected at random). If it is really representative to the social's view, why the 中大學生報, or even 大衛像 are problematic? I don't know if the rumor that thisfunction is 外判 to an organization is true (as I remember, there is a news article about it, there is a link (about the bible case) in this forum could lead to that article). But if it is true, won't that would be a case that the organization could make use of its judical power to supress the opposing opinions?

5. But the problem is that: there is no formal education about sex, no matter is it of lower, or higher form, at all. How can those 11-year-old students be different to the older people? If there is such a difference, the difference should not be on the formal education, but on other means. (The only "sex" education I have received in formal education is that: 夢遺 is similiar as 水杯is too full, when I was in primary school). But can't those 11-year-old students get their own info. in the "other means"?

6. The maths would be a better description of the choice "I will have sex for 5 times", but not the situtation that "I consider to have sex this time. After having sex for 1 time, then, when time goes, I consider to have sex again. After having sex for 2 times, when time goes, I consider to have sex again again.... (repeat the process until people have sex for 5 times)". What I mean is that: in economics, there's a principle that "bygones are bygones", and people would make choices only by forward looking, and won't be influenced by things in the past. As such, when people are having sex in the 2nd time, they would simply ignore the 10% in the 1st sex they had (in past). The only matter that concerns them is the risk that they have to bear IN FUTURE (that means, the 10% (2nd time) + 9% (3rd time) + ...). However, it seems this would not be a good description of the decision making process of normal people when they are considering about having sex. Having sex is different from having meal. When having meal, people would consider future meals (e.g. in 19/1 morning, it is possible for some individuals to consider the breakfast in 20/1, even if the guy doesn't have the breakfast in 19/1 morning yet). However, when having sex, it seems that people would not consider future sex(s). For example, before having sex for the 1st time, people would consider only if he would have sex for the 1st time. But it seems that the guy is likely to consider also about the 2nd time sex, the 3rd time sex, etc., unless he have very strong desire for sex, and just treat sex as a normal thing, as normal as having everyday meal... Therefore, for me, the maths should be like:
1st. time: 10% ---> cost-benefit analysis
2nd. time: 10% ---> (a totally new) cost-benefit analysis
3rd. time: 10% ---> (a totally new) cost-benefit analysis
4th. time: 10% ---> (a totally new) cost-benefit analysis
5th. time: 10% ---> (a totally new) cost-benefit analysis
...
For me, it seems that even if a normal people of older ages would perform this consideration when thinking of having sex. Of course, It would be better for some people who have the experience to share his/her view in here also...
Hopefully, my words in here is not too confusing...

dye

If the question is about whether or not we should have a 淫審處, I think the public will side with me and think it is neccessary.  It is a totally different question on how 淫審處 operate within (which is government adminstration).

To put it straight, the question is not whether or not we should seperate children from obscene material, but in HOW to determine if something is obscene.

----------
When a student attend a class on sex education, it is considered they are informed about it.  Whether they really listen in class or not, is not the question.  

When a police officer told the driver to stop the vehicle, he is considered informed about it.  (Assuming the driver is not disabled) Whether the driver listen or not is not the question.

The 11 year old is not informed.  And I wonder if she can be informed about complicated matter as such and truly grasp the gravity of it.

-------------
Here is a bit of math:

Suppose there is 10% of having a baby.  The girl have sex 5 times.

10% for the first time
10% + 9% for the second time =19%
10% + 9% + 8.1% for the third time = 27.1%
10% + 9% + 8.1% + 7.39% for he fourth time = 34.49%
10% + 9% + 8.1% + 7.39% + 6.651% for the fifth time = 40+%
(As the number of times of sex increase, the chance of having a baby will become a certainty or 100%)

In any case, the chance of the girl having a baby is not so low after 5 times of sex.  Fortunately, if they use condom properly, the chance is below 0.1% each time.  But has the girl been taught about the use of contraception.  Both on the gravity of the situation, and the know-how?

Least we forget there is also STD standing on the door.
--------

For legal system, the jury is slected at random.  And lawyers on each side can reject a certain number of them.  The decision is not made by an INDIVIDUAL, but by a random sampling of the society at large (if everything is running smoothly).  That is, YOU too can be selected to become the jury and judge.

If the judge is not fair, he can repeal the ruling and try again.  New judge, new jury.

The law is made by the people for the people, they know about that too.  (Hey, it is a few thousands years of experience with many trial and errors.  It is quite refined system)

dye

The research I hear is from Open University on TVB Pearl

But anyway, here is a bit of information:
http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/p ... -0010/default.asp#4
"Who is at risk for conduct disorder?"
"Separation from parents, without an adequate alternative caregiver;"
"Family neglect;"
"Parental marital discord; "

"What are the signs of conduct disorder?"
"Precocious sexual activity. "

"Conduct disorder affects 1 to 4 percent of 9- to 17-year-olds, depending on exactly how the disorder is defined (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1999). The disorder appears to be more common in boys than in girls and more common in cities than in rural areas."

---------
I am an oversea student myself.  I see xactly the opposite.  It is even reported repeatedly on school's newpaper on the kind of things that can happen to oversea student once they are seperated from their parental love.  (Gamble, speeding and drug.. my brother's school for example, is a school with a total population of such student.  Drug is as prevalent as coca cola in the school...)

Exchange student is valuable because they live in an area with different experience, not because they are seperated and un-cared for.  If they only need a state of living alone, they do not need to move to another country, all they need is sent the kids to a (poorly functioning) boarding school. (Well functioning boarding school take care of their student better than their mom, physically.)  Cheap and efficient?

---------
For more, we have study on psychopath...

http://crime.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=crime&cdn=newsissues&tm=49&gps=446_757_1020_568&f=00&tt=14&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/tick/victims_1.html%3Fsect%3D19

Poor parenting is certaining a key factor.

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2008-1-21 13:43 編輯 ]

抽刀斷水

原帖由 Guest from 218.208.230.x 於 2008-1-21 01:37 發表
有沒人知果個教師係咪真係教徒啊 ﹖﹖

新聞指男教師名字為趙憲暢，似乎是任教路德會聖十架學校（[url=http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:RZk9tsx7PZgJ:www.hcls.edu.hk/index/fastlink/p%20...%20B2%E6%9A%A2&hl=zh-TW&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=hk%5Dhttp://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:RZk9tsx7PZgJ:[url]www.hcls.edu.hk/index/fastlink/p%20...%20B2%E6%9A%A2&amp[/url];hl=zh-TW&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=hk]參考連結[/url]）：

我想上有關學校網頁查詢，卻似乎Down了，大家可以在另一時間試試：
http://www.hcls.edu.hk/

教會學校果然行事迅速！

抽刀斷水

事前我不知道男教師已有妻兒，昨日看報才知，而幾天來妻子仍願意為丈夫奔波張羅，在下十分欣賞妻子的氣魄。

報章上指教師一直低頭，給我感覺是表現深深後悔。反而女童向警方供出曾有四次性交及一次非禮，又令我感到她知道自己不會有事，似乎在侃侃而談她的威水史。（對不起，這只是我的感覺）

原帖由 dye 於 2008-1-20 11:19 發表
Sure, if you can also sympathize manslaughter who murder because they lost control of their emotion.  (Do you sympathize with the VICTIM?)

我較傾向「先撩者賤，打死無怨」的精神，死者因蓄意挑釁對方至令其失控，因而表現失常而錯手殺人的話，我也會同情被挑釁的人。

有沒人知果個教師係咪真係教徒啊 ﹖﹖

prussianz

原帖由 weakest 於 2008-1-20 18:25 發表
1. "Well, although the court should punish people by judging as if a fair judge would do, practically speaking, the judges are simply human beings, and they may have bad impression on the teacher beca ...

>> --->According to the post:
>> http://www.exchristian.hk/forum/ ... 1388&extra=page%3D1
>> 淫審處 is a judicial institution. The dispute is something about law.

ThANKe 4 quoting my post ,

weakest

"兩情相悅：技術上應該要等待到女童的合法年齡才進一步，對事件發生表示同情和感到不幸"
The teacher has a wife and hild himself.  But since we have no mind reader, we will never know.
---> I also feel the teacher is bad since he do this thing behind his wife...

"女主動：在感情上我同情男教師，但亦要為他的自主性失控負責"
Sure, if you can also sympathize manslaughter who murder because they lost control of their emotion.  (Do you sympathize with the VICTIM?)
---> This analogy is a bit inappropriate. In this case, it seems that the girl is not victim (different from a murder, the people killed are the victims). Consider an analogy: if a girl (action doer) rape a boy (action doee), who is the "victim"? The girl or the boy?

weakest

1. "Well, although the court should punish people by judging as if a fair judge would do, practically speaking, the judges are simply human beings, and they may have bad impression on the teacher because of the difference in age, ......the reasons)"

For such a serious criminal case, we may have jury (the public).  Law is design BY the people for the people, ofcourse they know about this.

---> But practically speaking, it is individual persons who make legal judgement. Therefore, even though the judges should make judgements as if a totally fair judges do, it is still possible for the judgement to be affected by the judges' personal impression. After all, there is no "God" here to judge every cases. This is a matter about judicial aspect of the law.

2. It does not matter whether the older ones gets the informaion or not, once they are given the chance, it is THEIR responsibility to grasp the information.   For the 11 years old, she is not even given the chance.

It is like predestian who insist on crossing the road on a red light.  They will deserve all the consequences.  Whereas if it is only a little children below 9 year old crossing, their guardian will e responsible (negligence).

---> Even if the focus is not on if the girls actually get the info., but on if they get the chance to get the info. (since people would be responsible for their negligence if they can, and should find out the info., but they didn't), a 11 year-old girl should be viewed as the same as those who are of older ages. It is bad for girls that they could not get the relevant info. in formal education, no matter how old they are (I don't trust those "sex education" in moral/religious lessons in those schools with religious background). Therefore:
a. it seems that the responsibility that the girls should bear would be smaller (although not to the level of ignorance, but should not be as severe as those negligence) since the students could not get the info. they need in formal education. 唔通叫D女仔個個去家計會排隊?定係叫D女仔排隊買AV??
b. If the girls could just get the info. about sex by means other than formal education, why can't the 11-year-old girl get the info. by other ways?

3. If a social worker lures a mentally disable woman into sex, is that not rape?  What about someone who drugged a woman into sex in her disoriented state?  The girl is only 11, the parent can be charge for child negligence if she is left alone at home.

---> I think the 2 cases you listed are very different in my view. The former could simply be a case that a boy skillfully ask (or pursuade) the mentally disabled woman for sex. In the case, if the two parties both agree in this sexual arrangement, I see no point to object it. After all, some mentally disabled could still have their own thinking, and have their own right to get want they want (as long as they don't harm others). I don't believe that mentally disabled = irrational. On the other hand, the guy who drugged woman into sex is simply a case of rape. It is simply the man use drug to make the woman to be unable to escape from his rape. If the woman do not want to have sex with the man, I would certainly against it. This man is simply using his force to make the woman to have sex with him, without her agreement. This cause harm to the woman.
For me, the 11-year old girl should have the ability to make her own value judgement, she is not infant after all. Even if she is not so experienced as those 4x year-old woman, I think we should respect her own choice.

4. Quite the reverse, without parents, she will be even more dependent as she will have no one to learn the life lesson from.  Who will be more mature?  A person who live in a loving family, or a person that live alone in the wild?  

Do we need scientific report to support the obvious? (I have read before about it)

--->I belief is quite opposite as yours. Without parents, the children have to train (or even force) themselves to be more mature and to be independent as soon as possible so as to be able to live on their own. Otherwise, how come the "overseas experiences" or "exchange experiences" be so important for students? In fact, students could be more dependent and be more mature if they are placed into a situtation that they have to live on their own, and that's why the "overseas experiences" and "exchange experiences" are so important for the student's personal growth, and so important for the employers in selecting candidates. If the "overseas experiences" are simply those "experience" of living overseas together with parents, it seems not quite useful for students' development (except for leisure). I am living in the love of my family members, it is very 幸福. But it seems that those children without parents are more mature by everyday "training".
In fact, learning from parents is one way of learning, but it is not the only way of learning. People could learn from talking with friends, from some undesirable experiences, etc.
Of course, I am quite interested in your scientific report. Would you mind sharing it with us? Thanks.

4. If having sex with the teacher (who has a wife and child) is rational, what is not?  I see 11 year old doing silly things all the time.  Yes, they no longer do many things that causes immediate danger, but their foresight is still very short.  I suppose you note that we ALREADY places many place off limit for 11 year old to make it impossible for them to be silly.  Currently (in Canada at least), it is a crime to leave an 11 year old at home alone.

---> Having sex with others, once considered all possible consequences, and adopting suitable measures, and could get mutual agreement of all parties involved, it seems that this is nothing "irrational". Even if the sex partner is her teacher (or former teacher), if the girl have taken into consideration of all relevant factors, she would still be rational. The target (or the profession of the target) is, for me, quite irrelevant in deciding if the act of sexual behaviours are rational or not.
In fact, for me, I could only see the teacher as "irrational", but not the girl. As some of you said, the teacher could just wait for 7 years more before having sex with the girl such that he could be not liable legally of 衰11. Therefore, it seems to me that the teacher is "irrational" (or "foolish") to miss out the possibility of being caught. On the other hand, the girls are liable on 衰11, and she will not be legally punished. Therefore, I don't see any point to say the girl is "irrational" (of course, i don't mean that the girl MUST BE rational. What I mean is simply that there is no evidence to show that the girl is irrational).

5. Sorry, if a person income cannot support a baby, they should not have a baby.  Planning to get welfare for your baby is just irresponsible.  It is irresponsible to force the society to pick up the tab for irresponsible  individual behaviour.  

Will the teacher pay for it?  the teacher has a wife and child.  It is what is so irrational about the girl.  Did she has the life experience to judge WHO can be trusted and who cannot?  The teacher is PLACED in a place of trust, not by his merit, but by the guardians.  Should he be any stranger on the street, the chance of the girl trusting the bull will probably drop.

---> In fact, for the low income people, it seems that when they engage in sex, they would consider the consequences. And if they adopt some safety measure (e.g. condoms), they should be regarded as "rational" since they are already doing something to minimize the risk, and this is what they think is the best for them. In addition, of course, there is a chance that the teacher will leave if the girl has a baby afterward. But to make this worse case happens, it have to be: 1. The safety measures fails (<10%), and 2. the teacher will leave (which I believe that the chance is low, in the girl's subjective evaluation, at least). But would a normal person simply give up their sexual needs simply because of this worse case's probability is >0? I don't think so. Some people would take into account of this risk when making choice, and some may believe that this chance is too impossible to think of. It seems that normal people having sex would not consider for this worse situtation also...
For the point that the teacher have a wife and a child. I think it is only that the teacher is bad since he do this kind of thing behind his wife. But if he do leave the girl after she has a baby, this would means that the teacher would be even worse. However, it is not sufficient for me to show that the girl is irrational. As I said, a noraml person would also not consider that worse to happen since it is quite unlikely.
For the point about life experience to judge who should be trusted, I think it is perfectly possible for the 11-year-old student to make rational judgements basically. I think they won't be so foolish to follow a stranger that they randomly meet in street. They would "trust" (or at least, make some utterances similar as those trusting the hearer) to people only under some grounds. For example, they would "trust" people in the same school. Of course, there maybe some cases that people trust the wrong person, but such cases also happen even if the victim is much older, and the cheater is within some "reliable organizations" (e.g. some employees in a famous company). Therefore, for me, it seems to me that the girl's ability to judge is under-estimated.

6. Not really.  We must understand the differemce in the underlying causes.  For the older ladies, it is because of their owned INFORMED choice.  For the 11 year old, she is not properly informed.

---> Both are not informed "properly" in the formal education. I don't see any distinctive differences between the 2 groups.

7. The bible issue is not a legal fight.  The agency is a government agency backed by the law, but the ruling is not.  (You notice there is no judges in the case since the beginning)

The dispute is not whether we should have such an agency or not (which is law), but how the details on agency should operate (which is not exactly law, but government administration).

--->According to the post:
http://www.exchristian.hk/forum/ ... 1388&extra=page%3D1
淫審處 is a judicial institution. The dispute is something about law.


P.S.: I think one of the main differences between our view is that if the 11 year-old girl is "qualified" to be "rational". For me, she is; for you, she is not. From my personal experience, the girls (and boys also) are very 早熟, and are not as naive as the children before. I don't know if it is a good sign or not. But I think they do have the basic ability to make judgements

[ 本帖最後由 weakest 於 2008-1-20 18:28 編輯 ]

dye

"Well, although the court should punish people by judging as if a fair judge would do, practically speaking, the judges are simply human beings, and they may have bad impression on the teacher because of the difference in age, ......the reasons)"

For such a serious criminal case, we may have jury (the public).  Law is design BY the people for the people, ofcourse they know about this.

"When compared to older students, those aged 11 would have less chance to know about sex. That's why I believe that schools should  ... ...If so, it seems to me that it is also well possible for the girl to get her information about sex by her own means also."

It does not matter whether the older ones gets the informaion or not, once they are given the chance, it is THEIR responsibility to grasp the information.   For the 11 years old, she is not even given the chance.

It is like predestian who insist on crossing the road on a red light.  They will deserve all the consequences.  Whereas if it is only a little children below 9 year old crossing, their guardian will e responsible (negligence).

"Of course, it is a case very different from rape. But it maybe arguable ...... are likely to be based on some good relationship before one party "乙水" another."

If a social worker lures a mentally disable woman into sex, is that not rape?  What about someone who drugged a woman into sex in her disoriented state?  The girl is only 11, the parent can be charge for child negligence if she is left alone at home.

"Also, I think it would be unfair to compare those of 11 years old with those baby. In fact, we would usually judge people's rationality by their behaviours (after all, we can't just "view" their mental states). ... I think that she does have the ability to make rational choices."

Quite the reverse, without parents, she will be even more dependent as she will have no one to learn the life lesson from.  Who will be more mature?  A person who live in a loving family, or a person that live alone in the wild?  

Do we need scientific report to support the obvious? (I have read before about it)

If having sex with the teacher (who has a wife and child) is rational, what is not?  I see 11 year old doing silly things all the time.  Yes, they no longer do many things that causes immediate danger, but their foresight is still very short.  I suppose you note that we ALREADY places many place off limit for 11 year old to make it impossible for them to be silly.  Currently (in Canada at least), it is a crime to leave an 11 year old at home alone.

" The girls may have not sufficient income to raise the child, but the teacher should have (it doesn't necessary for both parents to have job to raise a children). In addition, there should be some social subsidy if she accidentially gets a baby. Otherwise, should those low income people's right to have baby be deprived?"

Sorry, if a person income cannot support a baby, they should not have a baby.  Planning to get welfare for your baby is just irresponsible.  It is irresponsible to force the society to pick up the tab for irresponsible  individual behaviour.  

Will the teacher pay for it?  the teacher has a wife and child.  It is what is so irrational about the girl.  Did she has the life experience to judge WHO can be trusted and who cannot?  The teacher is PLACED in a place of trust, not by his merit, but by the guardians.  Should he be any stranger on the street, the chance of the girl trusting the bull will probably drop.

"I agree with you that "Two wrongs do not make a right", but those irresponsible older ladies would mean that ages should not be the underlying difference for people to judge for the rightness in cases."

Not really.  We must understand the differemce in the underlying causes.  For the older ladies, it is because of their owned INFORMED choice.  For the 11 year old, she is not properly informed.

"The law (or at least, the judgement) would not be necessary reflect the social norms. Otherwise, how come so many people have dispute on legal judgements? For example, the cases of 中大學生報 and the bible leads to some dispute, right?"

The bible issue is not a legal fight.  The agency is a government agency backed by the law, but the ruling is not.  (You notice there is no judges in the case since the beginning)

The dispute is not whether we should have such an agency or not (which is law), but how the details on agency should operate (which is not exactly law, but government administration).

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2008-1-20 12:01 編輯 ]

dye

"兩情相悅：技術上應該要等待到女童的合法年齡才進一步，對事件發生表示同情和感到不幸"
The teacher has a wife and hild himself.  But since we have no mind reader, we will never know.
"男騙女：男教師利用自己受人信任的身分，和牧師神父搞細路無分別，都是十分無恥，我十分同情女童的遭遇"
It would look like so.  Do you give the same doubt when the priest molest the altar boy?
"女主動：在感情上我同情男教師，但亦要為他的自主性失控負責"
Sure, if you can also sympathize manslaughter who murder because they lost control of their emotion.  (Do you sympathize with the VICTIM?)
---------
Note the the 3 are not mutually exclusive.
--------------
According to Dakins interview with victim, having church life as a children is actually worst then being molest... (Hence Dawkins argue that child indocrination is child abuse.)
-----------------

抽刀斷水

我對這段新聞有感而發，部分可能因為我的一名中學女老師，與我的中學男同學結了婚，年齡可能差很遠（女大男小），但亦不能阻止他倆真心相愛。

他倆都是待男同學完成學業才結婚，但我就不知道感情在那個時候開始萌生了。

法例的定位有一定的原因，尤其兒童色情對兒童成長的傷害很大，在世界上仍有很多販賣兒童的地下貿易在發生。

總括來說，我假設了以下可能性：

• 兩情相悅：技術上應該要等待到女童的合法年齡才進一步，對事件發生表示同情和感到不幸
• 男騙女：男教師利用自己受人信任的身分，和牧師神父搞細路無分別，都是十分無恥，我十分同情女童的遭遇
• 女主動：在感情上我同情男教師，但亦要為他的自主性失控負責

據我估計，無論如何，這男教師的餘生都要在牢獄中渡過了。

weakest

Well, although the court should punish people by judging as if a fair judge would do, practically speaking, the judges are simply human beings, and they may have bad impression on the teacher because of the difference in age, and thus impose a heavier punishment. That's why I said "I agree with you" (only for the conclusion that the punishment would be heavier than normal cases, but not for the reasons)

  When compared to older students, those aged 11 would have less chance to know about sex. That's why I believe that schools should give proper sex education to young children. But, would those senior students really get more information about sex in formal education (especially in those schools with religious background. As I remember, we made a post about sexual education (http://www.exchristian.hk/forum/ ... &extra=page%3D2) previously)? It seems to me that students would simply get their "knowledge" about sex from other means (other than formal education). (For me, embarrassing to speak, the "knowledge" about sex is get when I accidentially watched AV, when others was playing it, and I was passing by ...). If so, it seems to me that it is also well possible for the girl to get her information about sex by her own means also.

  Of course, it is a case very different from rape. But it maybe arguable if the girl is rational enough or not (for me, she is; for you, she is not (i guess)). For me, she maybe as rational as those much older ladies that have sex with their boyfriends after they boyfriends say something very sweet (I want to ask 沙文兄 about his case as reference, but not dared to ask...Could anyone ask that for me?? ), but it seems that those ladies who are "乙水-ed" would not be irrational. After all, those ladies would not just have sex with anyone who "乙水" them. Having sex with each other are likely to be based on some good relationship before one party "乙水" another.

  Also, I think it would be unfair to compare those of 11 years old with those baby. In fact, we would usually judge people's rationality by their behaviours (after all, we can't just "view" their mental states). We would regard babies as "irrational" since we observe that without guidance, they would do some dangerous things, e.g. approach to fire with their own hands. But we would seldom observe such silly things to be done by those 11 years-old children. In addition, it is more likely that those comes from mainland would be more independent, also, I would guess that she is more likely to be independent and rational as she have to live on her own (as her parents would always be away from her). Therefore, I think that she does have the ability to make rational choices.

  The girls may have not sufficient income to raise the child, but the teacher should have (it doesn't necessary for both parents to have job to raise a children). In addition, there should be some social subsidy if she accidentially gets a baby. Otherwise, should those low income people's right to have baby be deprived?

  I agree with you that "Two wrongs do not make a right", but those irresponsible older ladies would mean that ages should not be the underlying difference for people to judge for the rightness in cases.

  The law (or at least, the judgement) would not be necessary reflect the social norms. Otherwise, how come so many people have dispute on legal judgements? For example, the cases of 中大學生報 and the bible leads to some dispute, right?

原帖由 Guest from 219.78.77.x 於 2008-1-19 15:26 發表
個牙SIR係好人泥+!!!佢對男仔定女仔都咁好!!!!

你識佔個阿sir?

dye

I said, society do not punish him because of their age difference, but because the girl is young.  If the girl is 18, even if their age difference remain the same, there will be no charge laid,

The question is do they have the opportunity of getting th knowledge.  At the age of 18, everyone should have pass through the mandatory education, and should have the chance to know about most of the risk involved in the act.  At the age of 11, sex education has hardly started.

It is easy to teach a child to say "no".  Much more difficult is for them to understand the reasons behind it.  Being able to say no to a rapist is very far from having a rational view of sex.  Even baby would have cry when they are mistreated, are they rational about all the pain causing agents?  Do we leave baby besides pool because they will cry as they drown?  

On responsibility, if the girl do get pregnant, she cannot take the responsibility even if she wasnts to.  She is not in the legal age to even work!  If complication occur due to her young age, she is neither able to pay for the extra cost, nor can she take the responsibility of the medical situation she created.    It is simliar to having high blood pressure and getting pregnant.  At least the oldwe woman can claim she is prepare for death (both mother and baby), is the young girl prepare for it?  It is not illegal, but down right irresponsible (assuming she knows the consequences).

The question again, is of chance.  An undergraduate has the chance of raising a child even he do not have enough income for it at the moment.  If the couple has a proper job, they can at least provide food and shelter for the baby.  When worst come to worst, they can move to area with lower standard of living.  However, if the couple are both mentally disabled for example) who are incapable of even feeding themselves, how do they take the responsibility?  With no help, they can only starve the baby to death.  The society cannot just watch the baby dies.  The society is "forced" to pick up the bill (physically and emotionally).  Similiarly, the girl cannot even feed herself and will not be able to do so at least until she can work legally (in 7 years?).

-----------------
Two wrongs do not make a right.  Even if there are irresponsible people who are old, does not make irresponsible behaviour happening in the youth right.  

------------------
If the law do not reflect the moral principle of the majority, it is time to get the opinion across to the government representative.  The law is made for the people and BY the people.

Hong Kong has a Legco, and the government is quite "free" on the discussion of the particular issue.

prussianz

原帖由 抽刀斷水 於 2008-1-18 10:39 發表
18/01/2008

警方在荃灣掃黃期間，揭發駭人聽聞的小學師生風化案。探員掩至一間時鐘別墅查牌時，踢爆一名五十二歲已婚男教師，正與十一歲的同校女生開房尋歡，探員大吃一驚，將涉嫌與未成年少女發生性關係的男教師拘捕。消息稱 ...

>>>> 抽評：任教教會學校小學，是教徒的機會較大。

o yes ,
that 教會學校小學 would have already prescribed from 'the very beginning
that any 教師-applicant should////must b a Christian教徒 in 'the recruitments ads

weakest

I also agree with you on the factual prediction that the teacher would be severely punished in this case. After all, the age difference, and the teacher's profession would make the society believe that he is extremely unacceptable.

But I do have different view on the children about their "rationality". It seems that the children would be more dared to express their ideas, and to object something that they think is bad even if when they are young. For example, the children would always appeals to 虐兒 if someone wants to punish them for mis-behavior. This shows that they are more tough in defending themselves. Therefore, I believe that they would be more tough in protecting themselves from unwanted sexual disturbance. As such, I believe that the children would have rational believe in considering the choice of "having sex" and "not to have sex".
Of course, the girl may miss out the possibility of being pregnant (of course, she may be aware of this risk also, but she may just choose to take the risk since the risk is too low. But after all, we are not her, we don't know if she do really aware of that risk...), but even if she miss out this possibility, many older people do miss out this possibility as well. Many people have sex is not for baby, and thus adopt some measures to avoid getting a baby, but as you said, the probability of getting baby is not zero even if these measures are adopted. But for those older people who choose to have sex like this case, it seems that less people would blame them for their "irrational" behaviours. And for those older people, many of them are without sufficient income to raise up a baby also (e.g. low income people, graduate students, etc.), but it is necessary for them to have enough income for raise the baby before they can have sex, it seems that just a few portion of people are eligible to have sex...For me, it is just a matter of "cost-benefit comparison" of their own choice. Once they make their own choice as they think the expected benefit is greater, why should we intervene them? Of course, they should bear their own responsibility if their action leads to some undesirable outcome.
In addition, many girls would just have sex with their boyfriends after the boys ask for sex skillfully, therefore, even if the teacher takes the initiate to ask the girls for sex, I would treat this case similar as those pairs in "normal ages" (except that the teacher should bear the legal punishment, at least).

Of course, if the teacher did something against the law set, he should be prepared to bear legal punishment. That's rule of law. But is it the case that every law would coincide with the moral principles of the society?

[ 本帖最後由 weakest 於 2008-1-19 16:59 編輯 ]

dye

I generally agree with Uncle B on "呢單衰十一案，不是一些十七歲青年與十五歲女朋友，偷食禁果那麽單純。如果男教師最後被成功檢控，刑期會長很多的。"

The difference is 3 fold:
1) Whereas it may be 2 person under the age of consent, in this case, it is only one.  The older one should have know better.

2) The relation is one of trust.  The child is placed under the protection of the teacher and professional behaviour is expected.

3) The girl is way below the age of consent and is far from the grey area of age.

-------------
If they are truely in love, they have the obvious option of waiting till the girl is 18 to do it.  It is only 7 years of wait.  NO ONE is charging them because of their age difference.  If the girl is 18, we do not have a case.  Quite a few famous men has a very young wife and the society is not one sided about it.

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2008-1-19 15:57 編輯 ]

dye

If the majority agree that girl can make rational choice on sex, pregency, etc... , they can refect their opinion to their government representative and have the law changed.  The age of concent is different for different era and differemt places.  

When a woman has sex, there is a certain possibility that she will get pregnant (even with a condom, there is still a little chance due to misuse).  I doubt a grade 6-7 student has the experience nor physical ability to handle the situation properly. What does it mean to make a rational choice?  At least the 11-year old must have some idea of all the consequences of her action (STD, pregenancy, etc).  Is she prepared to rear a baby when she have sex?  Even if she is prepare for the child, will she has the financial means to raise the child? A law is made for a case in general , Is an average 11 years old prepare for all that?

However, while the law is in place, I think it must be kept.

For the money, I would rather not guess at the intention as we still have not have a mind detector yet.  Maybe it just happens to be after the act?  Coincidence.  Perhaps he also give her gift and money at other time, this is just one of those time?

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2008-1-19 15:42 編輯 ]

個牙SIR係好人泥+!!!佢對男仔定女仔都咁好!!!!