The Tyranny Of The Fearful And Feeble Minded Claims Another Victim

Yet another citizen’s life and career stand to be ruined because of a poorly thought out, excessive law enacted in a knee jerk reaction to the fearful bleating of the feeble minded. Section 73 of the NSW Crimes Act rears its head once more.

What is this legislation actually intended to do?

Protect vulnerable, young people who are still legally children from sexual predators.

What its proponents probably had in mind was a calculating teacher, counselor, priest or sporting coach using their position of authority and power to enjoy a series of sexual conquests of the good citizenry’s 16 and 17 year old sons and / or daughters.

OK. Most of us would agree that such clearly predatory behaviour should engender some official censure additional to merely getting the sack.

This is the point: the framing of the law should clearly distinguish between a pattern of behaviour whose circumstances obviously indicate predation and one off affairs in which the person “in authority” lacks maturity themselves.

But what does the law actually do? Who are the people being charged? What are their alleged crimes?

Firstly, it is a serious criminal offence to have “sexual intercourse” with a 16 or 17 year old “under your care”, even though it would be perfectly legal were they not. The offence carries up to 4 years if the “victim” is 17 and 8 years if they are 16. That is, if you’re a 19 year old student teacher and you have sex with a 16 year old student at your school, you could be sentenced to 8 years in prison. Regardless of the length of sentence, you’ll be placed on a sex offenders’ register for life. However, have sex with a 16 year old student from another school and it’s perfectly legal.

A 21 year old university tutor who had sex with a first year student who attended one of their tutes and happened to be 17 could be charged under s73. Now, the police may or may not bring charges in such circumstances, but they could if they felt like it and that’s the problem with this idiotic law: its practical implementation does not in any way reflect either common sense or the views of the majority of the community.

This law as currently framed, allows selective prosecution, either due to police bastardry or conservative, vindictive parents. It also fails to adequately differentiate a wide spectrum of severity of wrongdoing.

Recently, a middle aged teacher was jailed for 18 months for a sexual relationship with a 16 year old student. A sackable offence? Certainly. Career ending? Maybe. But jail? Manifestly excessive. This was not a pattern; there did not ensue a host of other students coming forward to make complaints.

Now we have an injustice an order of magnitude greater. Another example of the tyranny of the stupid.

Carla Ruggeri has been charged with having sex with one of her 17 year old students, seven years ago, when she was 22.

Are we serious? As a society, do we believe this represents justice?

She is being prosecuted on our behalf. Will our society have gained anything after this travesty has run its course?

Apparently, we will have lost a good teacher. Carla Ruggeri is clearly liked by at least some of her students. Positive comments about a teacher on a website are not trivial: students usually devote their time to slagging teachers off. She has evidently grown up significantly in the intervening period and become a good teacher.

Are people’s children “at risk” around her? No, I don’t think so. People’s children are far more at risk from the lefties in the Teachers’ Federation or youth hating curmudgeons who, somewhat bizarrely, have chosen teaching as a profession.

I have taught 21 and 22 year olds in the final year of their B.Ed. Many of them were significantly less mature than some of the 17 year old boys in my final year at school.

Is the “power relationship” between a 22 year old teacher and a 17 year old student necessarily so one sided as to automatically infer predation from any sexual relationship?

Not in my experience.

My point here is that to be just, a law such as s73 (if we are to have one at all) must clearly differentiate patterns of behaviour from single affairs. It must also take into account the relative maturity of the so called perpetrator and victim.

It is reasonable that teachers, counselors or sporting coaches be sacked for sexual affairs with students. Evidence of predation involving 16 and 17 year olds should attract a ban from certain types of employment. However, I find it difficult to see the justice in jailing someone for sexual conduct which would be legal, but for the “position of authority or care”.

If you agree that Carla Ruggeri has already suffered an injustice by merely being charged, write to the NSW Attorney General, Greg Smith. Obviously, he cannot interfere with the particular case, however, it is his responsibility as AG to fix this unjust law.