Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   Teacher accused of sexual misconduct with student has life destroyed. News: Is found not guilty 3 years later. Fark: still faces disciplinary hearing from professional body as "the burden of proof is not as high as it is in the courtroom"   (cbc.ca) divider line 182
    More: Asinine, sexual misconduct, teacher accused, professional bodies, sex crimes, Toronto  
•       •       •

18077 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Sep 2012 at 10:34 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



182 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-24 04:00:55 PM  
Now that I think about it, how is it that no one was alerted to the fact that she and the kid were buddy-buddy before he made the accusations? Did his parents see nothing strange about the fact that he was going running with his French teacher and spending time at her house?
 
2012-09-24 04:01:34 PM  

simkatu: The concept is very simple. You can be fired from your job for doing things your boss finds inappropriate


But, oh yeah, she QUIT her job. My bad. What she is doing is trying to rebuild her life.

Do you really think you are proving a point to me by explaining that companies can pretty much fire you for any reason?
 
2012-09-24 04:05:23 PM  

Nogale: Now that I think about it, how is it that no one was alerted to the fact that she and the kid were buddy-buddy before he made the accusations


You have to be accused of doing something and then found not guilty before they can look at you and wonder why you were accused of something you didn't do so they can vilify you for being something that you are not, ultimately destroying your life.

It's a simple concept and I can't believe how many farkers in here can not see it.
 
2012-09-24 04:25:15 PM  

GavinTheAlmighty: Flagg99: The flipside of that is that the kid "conveniently" didn't have them either.

What guy doesn't hang on to some of his dirty shiat on his phone?

Heck if I know. All we know is that apparently there were records of usage between the two of them, and that he wasn't the only one sending them, and the timestamps for some of them were strange for a harmless teacher/student relationship. Neither had them, despite records of their existence.

The circumstances around the whole case were strange and smacked either of a teacher who had a sexual relationship, or at the very least, a highly inappropriate relationship with a student.


You send me a text at 2AM saying "I wanna see you nekkid"

I reply saying "Fark off"

I delete your text.

That is not evidence of anything more than normal texting behaviour (if you're like me and a night owl and awake at that hour).

Funny thing is it happened to me recently (not a criminal case, but a girl who likes to sext at random who I have no interest in). Get several texts, and I either ignored or deleted. Traditionally I reply unless the person is too pushy. Actually it has happened more than once and at one point I wound up with over 500 messages from someone I had no interest in, including photos she sent to me of her in various states of undress. Yes you read that right, 500. I didn't reply to each one but they do pile up pretty quick. And it can start with being polite - a few basic responses as you hope the person gets the message that you aren't interested.

There simply is no way to know. Society in its current incarnation prefers the scandalous explanation. Frankly I think it smacks of a student who was rejected. I find it hard to believe that, being a "victim," he destroyed evidence. I'm more inclined to believe the evidence wasn't there, otherwise he would have had it. However - I wouldn't try to ruin the kid's future over my gut feeling, which is happening as far as this woman is concerned.
 
2012-09-24 04:30:26 PM  

fisker: Nogale: Now that I think about it, how is it that no one was alerted to the fact that she and the kid were buddy-buddy before he made the accusations

You have to be accused of doing something and then found not guilty before they can look at you and wonder why you were accused of something you didn't do so they can vilify you for being something that you are not, ultimately destroying your life.

It's a simple concept and I can't believe how many farkers in here can not see it.


I agree, but I also maintain that their relationship was inappropriate - even if it was completely platonic - and that she should have known it.
 
2012-09-24 04:48:00 PM  

fisker: Nogale: Now that I think about it, how is it that no one was alerted to the fact that she and the kid were buddy-buddy before he made the accusations

You have to be accused of doing something and then found not guilty before they can look at you and wonder why you were accused of something you didn't do so they can vilify you for being something that you are not, ultimately destroying your life.

It's a simple concept and I can't believe how many farkers in here can not see it.


Just a guess, but maybe the teacher's college is not omniscient? Maybe they do not routinely surveil every farking teacher in the province 24/7, looking for evidence of an inappropriate but non-sexual relationship? Maybe they had no idea that this was happening until after the charges were filed?

Should they ignore the inappropriate relationship just because they weren't the first ones to hear about it?
 
2012-09-24 04:48:52 PM  

Flagg99: You send me a text at 2AM saying "I wanna see you nekkid"

I reply saying "Fark off"

I delete your text.

That is not evidence of anything more than normal texting behaviour (if you're like me and a night owl and awake at that hour).

Funny thing is it happened to me recently (not a criminal case, but a girl who likes to sext at random who I have no interest in). Get several texts, and I either ignored or deleted. Traditionally I reply unless the person is too pushy. Actually it has happened more than once and at one point I wound up with over 500 messages from someone I had no interest in, including photos she sent to me of her in various states of undress. Yes you read that right, 500. I didn't reply to each one but they do pile up pretty quick. And it can start with being polite - a few basic responses as you hope the person gets the message that you aren't interested.

There simply is no way to know. Society in its current incarnation prefers the scandalous explanation. Frankly I think it smacks of a student who was rejected. I find it hard to believe that, being a "victim," he destroyed evidence. I'm more inclined to believe the evidence wasn't there, otherwise he would have had it. However - I wouldn't try to ruin the kid's future over my gut feeling, which is happening as far as this woman is concerned.


In this day and age, as a teacher, you have to be woefully naive to think that you can have the kind of relationship with an underage student where they're babysitting your kids, you're exchanging thousands of text messages with them, they're spending time at your house, that sort of thing, and not have alarm bells go off.

Some texting is fine, but it's not just as simple as you've put it. There were over 2000 messages between them. You would think if she had a problem with that, she would have put it a stop to it before it got to the four-digit mark. And what is a teacher doing giving out their mobile phone number to a student? It's not appropriate conduct for a teacher at all.

Like I said, I don't know if she did anything, and you'll note that I am not accusing her of having a sexual relationship with the kid. But professionally, as a teacher? This kind of relationship is absolutely inappropriate. Some of the facts that came out, like how the kid was the first person she texted on Christmas Day and New Year's Day seemed quite damning against her. One of the key pieces of testimony was how he knew about her breast implants (which she'd apparently had before she met the kid).

You have to be willfully ignorant of the environment around teaching to think that the relationship she had was not inappropriate.
 
2012-09-24 05:02:29 PM  

UberDave: "Gowans's lawyer said her reputation has been so badly damaged that she may never recover."

Translation: Someone's gettin' a suin'.


Who is she going to sue?

She can't sue the police because they did their jobs. They got a complaint and investigated it.

She can't sue the school because they also did their job. They got a complaint and suspended her while it was investigated. During the investigation she decided to quit, after she quit they don't have any obligation to rehire her.

As for suing the accuser, if Canada is anything like the U.S that won't happen. How many times have you ever heard of a person that made false accusations like this against a person getting sued, or even prosecuted for that matter?
 
2012-09-24 05:22:33 PM  

fisker: simkatu: The concept is very simple. You can be fired from your job for doing things your boss finds inappropriate

But, oh yeah, she QUIT her job. My bad. What she is doing is trying to rebuild her life.

Do you really think you are proving a point to me by explaining that companies can pretty much fire you for any reason?


I have to revoke my earlier statement regarding your intelligence. I apologize for giving you too much credit.

To make this as simple as possible: The COT is the organization that issued what is essentially her license to teach. They are the ones who will be reviewing this incident and determine whether or not she can keep her license, or pay a fine, or whatever. The COT is not connected to the criminal court. It has its own process. It has its own standards. It's really not any more complicated than that. Whether or not it's the right thing to do is not connected to why it works that way, and why you're generally just jumping around like a hooting little monkey when you continue to shout that since she was found not guilty, she should be free to go do whatever she wants and not have to suffer a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE investigation process by her accrediting body, which is completely un-farking-connected to the criminal case.

At this point I can't tell if you're trolling masterfully or just that obstinately stupid. If you're trolling then I bow to you and say well played. If you're really that intent on demanding morality and justice be on the same page, let me point you to a large group of people in the United States who want to tell you what you can and can't do because of a certain book they own.

Yeah, the system sucks but the only people in this thread speaking as if things are a foregone conclusion are you and others assuming she's going to be stripped naked and gently beaten with drunk snakes dipped in pleasantly scented oils.
 
2012-09-24 05:24:06 PM  

ongbok: UberDave: "Gowans's lawyer said her reputation has been so badly damaged that she may never recover."

Translation: Someone's gettin' a suin'.

Who is she going to sue?

She can't sue the police because they did their jobs. They got a complaint and investigated it.

She can't sue the school because they also did their job. They got a complaint and suspended her while it was investigated. During the investigation she decided to quit, after she quit they don't have any obligation to rehire her.

As for suing the accuser, if Canada is anything like the U.S that won't happen. How many times have you ever heard of a person that made false accusations like this against a person getting sued, or even prosecuted for that matter?


I think Jack Thompson sued the Florida bar.

He's a funny guy.
 
2012-09-24 05:48:21 PM  

StaleCoffee: Flagg99: Actually, he's not wrong when you get right down to it. I advise you to base your judgment on more than the one article you found on Fark.The review process that is ongoing is likely being pushed for by local media pressure. I actually live in the general area where this went down. There was an article in The Toronto Star villifying this woman even after the not guilty verdict. It's not the only one. Between sensationalist headlines in the local papers and parents in the area screaming "think of the children" this absolutely became a media trial.

This despite the fact that while the trial was ongoing there was a claim by the boy of "thousands of sexts" which magically disappeared and never made it into court. I'm pretty sure most guys keep the dirty shiat girls send them. The kid has zero credability to those who actually followed this case.

The schoolboard absolutely has to act as a result, but it certainly won't be to stand by a teacher who was found not guilty, because in the eyes of a public brainwashed by shows like "To Catch a Predator" (yes it airs in Canada, or did) and conditioned to think their special little snowflakes could never tell a lie, this teacher is worse than a murderer.

Pedo is the new commie. If you're accused of a sex crime, you're screwed, even if it's a complete lie.

I actually think a few of those falsely accused need to take the civil route and go after crown attorneys (our DAs) and their accusers to start correcting this situation, but that won't fly in our legal system, which is less lawsuit happy than our neighbours to the south.

Unless they were using disposable tracphones then text records are usually kept online by the phone company. Not the actual content of the texts but the usage. That's fairly easy to check unless it rolled over a year later.

It's still got nothing to do what the original outrage, which was "Why should she have to answer to the college of teachers since she was found not guilty in court" and the c ...


Again, you're essentially doing what you accused the original poster of doing - you just seem to want to be right. That wasn't the outrage I commented on. I never claimed that they can't have their own administrative process, above and beyond the court. It's that said process is too easily led astray by media sensation. The massive amount of media coverage coinciding with this case is forcing the schoolboard and the OCT's hand. What the original poster you replied to said was: "It's no different with administrative boards and indeed is usually worse." On top of that, the words you even quoted by me "The schoolboard absolutely has to act."

And again, frankly, he's right. The courts are held less accountable in the end than the schoolboard or College of Teachers. Which means they will crack down, regardless of guilt, innocence, or if she even broke their standards. This woman has been tried in the media, lost her husband, was found not guilty in court, but still faces a hearing she cannot possibly win because the court of public opionion has already had its say. That's the outrage.

If you want my honest opinion, names of the accused in these he said-she said types of cases should be kept out of the media, just like names of the victims, until trials are actually over with and the outcome complete. If not guilty, your name is kept off the record. Because we're quickly becoming a witch-hunt based society and the general public cannot be counted on to avoid herd mentality.
 
2012-09-24 05:54:16 PM  

angrycrank: It's not the same entity. The trial was prosecuted by the state. A disciplinary hearing, if there is one, will be conducted by the Ontario College of Teachers, which is a professional association


I was referring to the hypothetical situation mentioned upthread where people who accuse others falsely would sent to prison as punishment. Not to the teachers association hearing.
 
2012-09-24 05:59:48 PM  

GavinTheAlmighty: Flagg99: You send me a text at 2AM saying "I wanna see you nekkid"

I reply saying "Fark off"

I delete your text.

That is not evidence of anything more than normal texting behaviour (if you're like me and a night owl and awake at that hour).

Funny thing is it happened to me recently (not a criminal case, but a girl who likes to sext at random who I have no interest in). Get several texts, and I either ignored or deleted. Traditionally I reply unless the person is too pushy. Actually it has happened more than once and at one point I wound up with over 500 messages from someone I had no interest in, including photos she sent to me of her in various states of undress. Yes you read that right, 500. I didn't reply to each one but they do pile up pretty quick. And it can start with being polite - a few basic responses as you hope the person gets the message that you aren't interested.

There simply is no way to know. Society in its current incarnation prefers the scandalous explanation. Frankly I think it smacks of a student who was rejected. I find it hard to believe that, being a "victim," he destroyed evidence. I'm more inclined to believe the evidence wasn't there, otherwise he would have had it. However - I wouldn't try to ruin the kid's future over my gut feeling, which is happening as far as this woman is concerned.

In this day and age, as a teacher, you have to be woefully naive to think that you can have the kind of relationship with an underage student where they're babysitting your kids, you're exchanging thousands of text messages with them, they're spending time at your house, that sort of thing, and not have alarm bells go off.

Some texting is fine, but it's not just as simple as you've put it. There were over 2000 messages between them. You would think if she had a problem with that, she would have put it a stop to it before it got to the four-digit mark. And what is a teacher doing giving out their mobile phone number to a student? It's not appropriat ...


I'm not saying she wasn't naive, or didn't act without thinking. That doesn't make her guilty of anything. Also, we don't know how many of those texts were initiated or replied to by her. It's a great number for the press but let me give you another example.

When the police charge someone with possession of child porn, and they float out the 10,000 images found number (just a random example)- those are generally the total number of images found on the suspect's hard drive. Whatever they've batch recovered with EnCase or whatever other tools they happen to use (I've done some data forensics so that one is fresh in my mind). They are not reviewed til later.

Since these texts were never even seen, we have no idea how many, if any, were more than polite banter. Or "Tomorrow's assignment is _________."

Teachers give out their cell numbers often, and their Facebook accounts. This is normal in modern classrooms. Even when I was still in school teachers would give out their e-mail addresses. I know teachers who do it. Yes, when it goes wrong the board will say "oh they shouldn't have" but it's common practice.

Again there is no evidence here of anything inappropriate beyond a resonable doubt. The courts agree with that. Yet the masses (as you are proving) greatly prefer the titilating option.
 
2012-09-24 06:02:24 PM  
this kind of thinking is pretty troubling and has been growing lately. Another example is the way title IX was reinterpreted by the department of education for rape cases in university. google "college rape acusations and the presumption of male guilt" for more info.

its pretty disgusting
 
2012-09-24 06:07:22 PM  

GavinTheAlmighty: Flagg99: You send me a text at 2AM saying "I wanna see you nekkid"

I reply saying "Fark off"

I delete your text.

That is not evidence of anything more than normal texting behaviour (if you're like me and a night owl and awake at that hour).

Funny thing is it happened to me recently (not a criminal case, but a girl who likes to sext at random who I have no interest in). Get several texts, and I either ignored or deleted. Traditionally I reply unless the person is too pushy. Actually it has happened more than once and at one point I wound up with over 500 messages from someone I had no interest in, including photos she sent to me of her in various states of undress. Yes you read that right, 500. I didn't reply to each one but they do pile up pretty quick. And it can start with being polite - a few basic responses as you hope the person gets the message that you aren't interested.

There simply is no way to know. Society in its current incarnation prefers the scandalous explanation. Frankly I think it smacks of a student who was rejected. I find it hard to believe that, being a "victim," he destroyed evidence. I'm more inclined to believe the evidence wasn't there, otherwise he would have had it. However - I wouldn't try to ruin the kid's future over my gut feeling, which is happening as far as this woman is concerned.

In this day and age, as a teacher, you have to be woefully naive to think that you can have the kind of relationship with an underage student where they're babysitting your kids, you're exchanging thousands of text messages with them, they're spending time at your house, that sort of thing, and not have alarm bells go off.

Some texting is fine, but it's not just as simple as you've put it. There were over 2000 messages between them. You would think if she had a problem with that, she would have put it a stop to it before it got to the four-digit mark. And what is a teacher doing giving out their mobile phone number to a student? It's not appropriat ...


Hit add before finishing - as for texts, I've taught ESL/EFL in the past. I don't currently. My New Years texts included some students/former students, and Xmas texts., I batch send them. By luck of the draw a student couldn't have gotten the first text. So what? Again as the texts were never recovered that's a rather moot point.

Breast implants would have been the talk of the school even if she got them before meeting him. That's the sort of rumour every kid knows. I also knew my Grade 9 com sci teacher dressed up slutty and partied in a few local bars before I was old enough to get into them.

This whole ongoing thread proves why these cases are made so much worse by the media attention. This poor woman is never going to get a fair shot at her next hearing and has no hope of ever reapplying to be a teacher. I know lots of the folks on here will yell "great" but honestly I see it as the failure of our society to ever accept a "not guilty" finding in the courts. Simply put most people are more interested in the dirty details of the crime than in anyone's actual guilt or innocence.
 
2012-09-24 06:15:30 PM  

Nogale: Flagg99: Nogale: Sexual or not, their relationship was still inappropriate. A student babysitting a teacher's kids? Going running together? How miserable and isolated must this woman have been to have looked for companionship in a 15-year-old. And if she needed the attention of a young boy, couldn't she have picked one from a different school?

She made poor choices.

Because it's oh so unusual to have teenagers who babysit. Never heard of that before.

All of this would be completely normal behaviour until these modern day witch hunts began. We still have all ages runs out this way.

Long long ago (in the mid to late 90s) I had a high school teacher who would host a BBQ for students at the end of the year. I have to assume he's stopped the practice, sadly. His wife worked at the school as well and they were said to be excellent hosts (I never went). It was no muss, no fuss.

Sadly the paranoia of a few have ruined it for the many.

Also, there's a difference between hosting an even for a group of students and spending one-on-one time. Professional distance, ever heard of it?


Running is a public activity. Again, that's pretty common. Babysitting her kids I have no issue with either unless you thinking he was plowing her in front of the kids. Students at my high school in the 90s babysat for teachers. There's nothing wrong with that. One-on-one time used to be considered the mark of a great teacher until we got all butthurt and thinking that everyone is a pedo.

The problem here is society feels the need to sensationalize this story. No one actually cares about this kid or if he's a victim - and I don't believe he is anyway - they just want the dirty details. They don't care about the facts unless the facts fuel their little soap opera further.
 
2012-09-24 06:37:03 PM  

phrenicmonkey: This is why I never became a teacher. I'm also unambitious and uneducated...but THIS...!


This sort of for me too, but as much because I've got a penis and that's just dangerous in today's education climate. Last thing I need in my life is some blind girl getting a crush on me, me saying "Uh, you're 15, I'm alot older than that, please find a boy your own age." and her going to her parent(s) "I'm sorry I'm late, but the bus from Mr. Techhell's neighbourhood is... uh, I mean the library, the bus from the library was late! Teehee ooops..." and suddenly I'm living out in the country so I'm sure to be 1km away from the nearest place where kids congregate.
 
2012-09-24 06:37:22 PM  

Flagg99: Again, you're essentially doing what you accused the original poster of doing - you just seem to want to be right. That wasn't the outrage I commented on. I never claimed that they can't have their own administrative process, above and beyond the court. It's that said process is too easily led astray by media sensation. The massive amount of media coverage coinciding with this case is forcing the schoolboard and the OCT's hand. What the original poster you replied to said was: "It's no different with administrative boards and indeed is usually worse." On top of that, the words you even quoted by me "The schoolboard absolutely has to act."


No, the original reply this guy made was to cherry pick my last sentence from the following exchange and set himself up for an Outrage meme:

StaleCoffee: doglover: Sybarite: Yeah, I'm kind of okay with the burden of proof being higher for a hearing where I could lose my freedom as opposed to just my job.

I'm not.

The burden of proof for a criminal trial should be UNIVERSAL. Not that everything should require the same level of proof, no. But after a criminal trial, NOTHING should be allowed to effect you based on what you were tried for. You shouldn't be able to lose your job or be sued for something you've been found not criminally liable for.

It's like saying it's okay to rape a woman who won't marry you because you don't need as much emotion just to rape somebody as opposed to get them to agree to marry you. It's bullshiat is what it is and ever lawyer who takes up such a case against someone who's been found not guilty should be shot twice in head with standard .45 ACP and dumped in a national heap in front of a statue of Dick the Butcher and a bunch of happy children holding hands and dancing in a circle around a globe with the legend "A GOOD START"

The college and the court are reviewing two different things. The court is examining whether or not she committed a crime. The college is examining whether or not her behavior was appropriate and if it will reflect poorly on the institution as a whole. She may not have been farking the kid but the college can still consider her conduct inappropriate and respond accordingly.


My comment was regarding burden of proof and the differences of standards between organizations. While I may want to argue to be right, and I will look that over because I really don't want to go down that road, what you are telling me I said and what I actually said are two different things. I don't know where I said it back there but I did say something about folks making this more confusing than it really is.

What you're talking about is an entirely different topic. It's validity is completely irrelevant to that douchetrap ranting about different standards of burden of proof. Which is what I said the first time, in fact. If you want to talk about how the media influence will affect the COT process then sure, lets talk about that, but I'm not going to say that why yes, the COT should shove its investigation process up its collective ass because the court found her not guilty and she should never ever ever ever gol-durnit (the Necromancer's trailer park by the sea of rhun) have to watch double jeopardy because of that.



And again, frankly, he's right. The courts are held less accountable in the end than the schoolboard or College of Teachers. Which means they will crack down, regardless of guilt, innocence, or if she even broke their standards. This woman has been tried in the media, lost her husband, was found not guilty in court, but still faces a hearing she cannot possibly win because the court of public opionion has already had its say. That's the outrage.

If you want my honest opinion, names of the accused in these he said-she said types of cases should be kept out of the media, just like names of the victims, until trials are actually over with and the outcome complete. If not guilty, your name is kept off the record. Because we're quickly becoming a witch-hunt based society and the general public cannot be counted on to avoid herd mentality.


There you go again saying it's a foregone conclusion. You are a part of the media trial just by assuming that. Whether or not I agree with you - which I do, yes - the fact is that they haven't conducted their investigation and any results are pure speculation. The same could have been said for her criminal trial, but she's not guilty there, isn't she?

Yes, it sucks to go through the ringer but the topic to which I was speaking was not about how that sucks.
 
2012-09-24 07:33:41 PM  
Note to all..

Not guilty is NOT the same as a hung jury. Though from the article there WAS NO JURY, and the case was heard by a judge only who stated the crown failed to meet the burden of proof required.

Despite all the flaws in the US, I am so glad I am a US citizen.
 
2012-09-24 09:07:21 PM  
Came for the OJ reference, leaving in a white Ford Bronco
 
2012-09-24 09:16:10 PM  

clyph: MAYORBOB: Just scanning through the comments it seems a number of commenters are having difficulty with the level of proof necessary to sanction someone criminally as opposed to civilly. Here's a handy guide:

You are guilty of a crime if a jury or judge finds you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
You are liable for damages if a jury or judge finds liable by the preponderance of the evidence presented.

We know what the situation IS. That's what the problem is. The law is broken and needs to be fixed.

A good start would be to prohibit the government from being the plaintiff in any civil suit. If the government is the plaintiff it should be handled according to the rules of criminal court.


I guess you missed the part where this is an administrative hearing, not a court where the state is involved?
 
2012-09-24 10:00:46 PM  

bikerific: ukexpat: Just an FYI: we're talking about the "standard of proof" here, not the "burden of proof". The "burden" dictates who has to prove what, the "standard" is the level of proof required to discharge that burden.



Actually, the burden of proof is the level of proof.

The burden of production is who has to prove what.


Not in British jurisprudence, where the terms are defined as I described.
 
2012-09-24 10:41:52 PM  

Archfeld: Note to all..

Not guilty is NOT the same as a hung jury. Though from the article there WAS NO JURY, and the case was heard by a judge only who stated the crown failed to meet the burden of proof required.

Despite all the flaws in the US, I am so glad I am a US citizen.


She may have chosen a trial by judge alone instead of a trial by jury (depending on the type of charge and the maximum penalty, some cases in Canada are always heard by a judge (typically minor offences), some always by a jury (murder, etc) and some the defendant gets to chose. In her circumstances I'd prefer a judge alone to a jury, frankly.

Criminal defendants have no fewer protections in Canada than in the US, and in some circumstances they arguably have more.
 
2012-09-24 10:49:24 PM  

BSABSVR: angrycrank: It's not the same entity. The trial was prosecuted by the state. A disciplinary hearing, if there is one, will be conducted by the Ontario College of Teachers, which is a professional association

I was referring to the hypothetical situation mentioned upthread where people who accuse others falsely would sent to prison as punishment. Not to the teachers association hearing.


Ah, I misunderstood.

In principle I'm not opposed to prison for false accusations, so long as we're mindful of the difference between "cannot be proven true" and "proven false." There need to be a balance between punishing false accusations and deterring accusations that are legitimate but cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Similarly, I think there need to be more deterrents against false prosecutions and more consequences for prosecutors involved in clear cases of malicious or unfounded prosecutions. But again, inability to convince a judge or jury doesn't mean the prosecution shouldn't have been brought in the first place. Witnesses may turn out not to be reliable, and judges and juries have been known to get it wrong.
 
2012-09-24 10:50:07 PM  

StaleCoffee: fisker: simkatu: The concept is very simple. You can be fired from your job for doing things your boss finds inappropriate

But, oh yeah, she QUIT her job. My bad. What she is doing is trying to rebuild her life.

Do you really think you are proving a point to me by explaining that companies can pretty much fire you for any reason?

I have to revoke my earlier statement regarding your intelligence. I apologize for giving you too much credit.

To make this as simple as possible: The COT is the organization that issued what is essentially her license to teach. They are the ones who will be reviewing this incident and determine whether or not she can keep her license, or pay a fine, or whatever. The COT is not connected to the criminal court. It has its own process. It has its own standards. It's really not any more complicated than that. Whether or not it's the right thing to do is not connected to why it works that way, and why you're generally just jumping around like a hooting little monkey when you continue to shout that since she was found not guilty, she should be free to go do whatever she wants and not have to suffer a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE investigation process by her accrediting body, which is completely un-farking-connected to the criminal case.

At this point I can't tell if you're trolling masterfully or just that obstinately stupid. If you're trolling then I bow to you and say well played. If you're really that intent on demanding morality and justice be on the same page, let me point you to a large group of people in the United States who want to tell you what you can and can't do because of a certain book they own.



Yeah, the system sucks but the only people in this thread speaking as if things are a foregone conclusion are you and others assuming she's going to be stripped naked and gently beaten with drunk snakes dipped in pleasantly scented oils.


Everything you just said has nothing to do with the comment and point I made towards the person I was quoting. fark, man. I can see how that must be so very confusing to you.

Whether or not it's the right thing to do is not connected to why it works that way, and why you're generally just jumping around like a hooting little monkey when you continue to shout that since she was found not guilty, she should be free to go do whatever she wants and not have to suffer a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE investigation process by her accrediting body, which is completely un-farking-connected to the criminal case

So you are telling me that without the actually criminal case they were going to process this investigation anyways? UN-farking-connected?

Wow, I really am stupid. They were already on top of this matter WAY BEFORE she was ever accused?

If so then I take back everything I said, because yes, that would definitely mean that the criminal case was in actuality 'completely un-farking-connected' with the investigation that would have potentially never have happened without it.

GENIUS. Let's start investigating EVERY teacher BEFORE they can be accused of having sex by their students. That way we can prevent this thing from EVER happening in the future. No, I like the part where things are a foregone conclusion and instead of me and others worrying about what may happen to her, she SHOULD be stripped naked and gently beaten with drunk snakes dipped in pleasantly scented oils. Why wait? Get right on that BEFORE she gets accused by some kid and has to go through a legal process that takes 3 years to be found not guilty of.

Completely un-farking-connected.

You heard it here first. The criminal case has absolutely NOTHING to do with the investigation by the college of teachers and because of StaleCoffee's new plan that he his so simply yet eloquently laid out, we can take away a teachers license BEFORE they are ever accused. Think about it. BEFORE they can ever be accused.

But, wait. They weren't investigating her were they? Oh shiat. Something happened, right? Something that, what was it you had said?- was 'completely un-farking-connected' and was totally ignored.

I know, the system sucks and people that are accused of doing something that they didn't do should totally have their careers shattered by organizations that make decisions on your judgements as the relate to your license to teach, and or, whether or not you should pay a fine for something that was completely un-farking-connected to the whole situation in the first place.

"Oh, you weren't having sex with that student? Okay, well lets take a look at what you did do now that we have you in our scope (no thanks to our legal system) so we can make a decision on whether or not you are professional enough to have a license because unless you were accused of something WE WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE GIVEN A FARK!!! LOL, WE AINT EVEN MAD!"

All you are saying, StaleCoffee, is that if someone is accused of something and found not guilty, say goodbye to any of your attempts to rebuild any damage that may have occurred in the eyes of the college of teachers organization because they are going to find that she did something unprofessional through some sort of magic that does not require knowledge of any kind of criminal case that may have happened because that's all, completely un-farking-connected. Were' back FULL circle.

See, we CAN prevent these things. We can fire teachers who talk to their students! We can look at them really weird for jogging with them and then fire them BUT NOT BEFORE THEY ARE ACCUSED OF SEXUAL BATTERY!!! That has to happen first. THEN we can look at her and pretend that the two are completely un-farking-connected.

U mad, StaleCoffee? There's something else, right? You want women to suffer for the shiat men have to be cautious of every second of their lives. You want women like this to be made an example of. Something about not being guilty of the things she was accused of is really striking a nerve with you and we need to push it further and dig for dirt that we would have never been digging for albeit she was accused of something in the first place.

But, you mad. I see your point now. Equals rights. I get it.

Are we cool? Wanna get some coffee? Wanna talk about intellectual things?
 
2012-09-24 11:16:54 PM  

StaleCoffee: That's how the world works. Even if you didn't do something, if you catch the eye of authority they're going to look you over anyway.


Hey, that's how things really are! You just don't know cause you're this pampered little suburban chick.

www.gonemovies.com

But pointing out how stupid it is and how close it boarders on superstition is completely against the rules, because, 'that's how the world works.'

I wanna hire you Stale, that way when you are accused of something I can tell you 'that's how the world works' and fire your ass right there no matter how down and out you are. I believe in all that shiat. Kick them to the curb. If you were accused of something then you should be destroyed. 

It don't matter. I know you didn't do it. But, come to think of it, we dug up all this shiat on you after the fact and decided that you can no longer teach in this state for the rest of you life. Get out of here. I don't want to see your face around here. You make all the parents crazy. Your presence is detrimental.
 
2012-09-24 11:52:15 PM  
I'm not really understanding why people are having such a hard concept with an accrediting body doing their own investigation, independently and separately from a criminal investigation.

Example: A woman I know (friend of a co-worker) accused her psychiatrist of sexual assault. The psychiatric board waited to investigate until after the criminal investigation and trial. The short story is that during the trial, it was determined that sex occurred, but that it was consensual. The criminal case was dismissed.

The psychiatric board still revoked his license to practice psychiatry. While there was no crime, sleeping with a patient violates their ethical standard.

So three points.

1) Even when misconduct isn't a crime, it may still have consequences.

2) The two investigations were looking into the same act; But, one was looking into a legal breach, while the other was looking into an ethical one.

3) Just because this teacher *may* have to face a review board (and from the language in the article it is not a given), there is no way of knowing what the review board will do (if anything).
 
2012-09-25 12:09:53 AM  

Solstice: 3) Just because this teacher *may* have to face a review board (and from the language in the article it is not a given), there is no way of knowing what the review board will do (if anything).


I know what I wanna do. I want to dismiss everything the courts found and make sure this lady can never teach again simply because I can do my own investigation and run with my own standards.

She is a stain on society. She will do it again.
 
2012-09-25 09:27:03 AM  

clyph: howdoibegin: Of course, you're advocating shooting teenagers who lob baseless accusations, so it sounds like you might also have a history of poor judgement.

I think falsely accusing someone of a crime should carry the same penalty as the crime they are being accused of, up to and including the death penalty. Same goes for any prosecutor who knowingly tries an innocent person or intentionally withholds exculpatory evidence.


The prosecution action you are talking about is illegal. A motion for discovery requires the prosecution to hand over all evidence.
 
2012-09-25 09:36:05 AM  

dywed88: Crotchrocket Slim: Sybarite: Yeah, I'm kind of okay with the burden of proof being higher for a hearing where I could lose my freedom as opposed to just my job.

Uh, wouldn't that mean if found not guilty in court, that ought to mean that the workplace disciplinary hearing automatically acquits him? Or is this a "you were in the wrong place at the wrong time and oops, we look bad as an organization in the press and now we're taking it out on you" sort of deal?

And people were defending corporal punishment at the high school level in a recent Fark thread.... (granted in TX, one of the more third world-like US states)

It is the same as civil lawsuits vs criminal proceedings. The famous example be OJ Simpson, who was acquitted in a criminal trial but lost the civil suit. Different theatres have different standards of proof and can result in different results. This is a good thing. I want a higher standard for someone being thrown in jail to someone being sued over some money (where you face bankruptcy as the worst case scenario). And the idea that having a criminal trial automatically increases the standard of proof for a civil trial is ludicrous, because that creates an incentive to avoid criminal proceedings when civil proceedings are available.

It is also quite likely that actions not constituting a criminal offence are sufficient for disciplinary action.

clyph: I think falsely accusing someone of a crime should carry the same penalty as the crime they are being accused of, up to and including the death penalty. Same goes for any prosecutor who knowingly tries an innocent person or intentionally withholds exculpatory evidence.

Of course then you have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was a false accusation which is extremely hard to do.


Just establishing the intent for a false accusation would be hard, let alone proving it as you said.
 
2012-09-25 10:54:57 AM  

DoBeDoBeDo: Crotchrocket Slim: Sybarite: Yeah, I'm kind of okay with the burden of proof being higher for a hearing where I could lose my freedom as opposed to just my job.

Uh, wouldn't that mean if found not guilty in court, that ought to mean that the workplace disciplinary hearing automatically acquits him? Or is this a "you were in the wrong place at the wrong time and oops, we look bad as an organization in the press and now we're taking it out on you" sort of deal?



Not really, she WAS spending time with him outside the classroom that may not be appropriate based on the teacher-student relationship. So from a job appropriateness standpoint she may have some censure or something coming.


I'm sorry I didn't see this post before, as I want to say "fair enough". When I was a mere IT guy at the art school I worked at for six years I was damn afraid to even be friendly with the cuter students there, even if I had not intention of hooking it up.
 
2012-09-25 02:54:56 PM  

Blink: I'm amazed at how quickly our society has fallen back upon the "Blame the Victim" mentality.

She was alone with someone not her age? Obviously she was asking for it.

Gosh, maybe we should blame the one committing the crime. Just a thought. It probably won't be long before middle-aged people aren't allowed to be alone with an old people as well. Apparently, everyone between the ages of 25-60 is a walking time-bomb of fornication.


I wish.
 
Displayed 32 of 182 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report