Pathiakis, who quit his job after school officials questioned his extracurricular contact with students, was arrested in January 2004 after a 15-year-old boy told authorities the Middleboro High School teacher raped him Dec. 23, 2003.
Massacusetts Superior Court Chief Justice Suzanne Delvecchio
Prosecutors asked Brockton Superior Court Judge Suzanne V. Delvecchio to give Pathiakis four to eight years in state prison, followed by five years probation. But she issued a suspended, 2 1/2-year jail term, followed by five years probation.
Delvecchio, the first woman to be appointed chief justice of the Massachusetts Superior Court, was honored in 2000 as the keynote speaker at the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Bar Association's annual dinner.
Note: the sex was consensual, but the boy was 15. Some questions:
1. Is there a double-standard as some female teachers have been more severely prosecuted for sex with their teen students?
2. Is the judge, being gay, not being objective, and should she have recused herself considering her pro-homosexual activities, even if just for appearance's sake?
3. Does this type of thing deserve prison or jail-time?
4. Is lighter sentencing in this area a move towards accepting homosexual sex between teens and adults? Historically, in some areas of the world, such as with the pashas in Afghanistan, homosexual sex between teens and adults has been somewhat socially accepted and at times widespread. Is it a fantasy for conservative outlets like WND to decry this as a general move, or an accurate reflection of where society is heading in normalizing homosexuality.
This message has been edited by randman, 01-19-2006 05:21 PM
But you are right that she may not be homosexual. That's a mistake on my part. I don't think it really matters in context here. Her stance towards "gay rights" in advocating gay marriage, etc,...is pretty clear. So the question remains if openly advocating for gay rights could be perceived as prejudicial. I am not saying she is or not, but just raising an interesting issue since this is so politicized and she is not the first judge to recently hand down probation for gay sex with teens.
This message has been edited by randman, 01-19-2006 10:00 PM
The Chief Justice of the Superior Court, Suzanne DelVecchio, has championed homosexual marriage for years. The Superior Court is the state's trial court, where the "Goodridge" case began and ended. Justice DelVecchio appeared at the Lesbian & Gay Bar Association the year after Marshall did, on May 5, 2000. This was just after Vermont approved civil unions. "They're all shepherds up there," she told the audience of several hundred lawyers and judges. "They quarry some granite. A stone is what they export. Their product is ice cream and stone. And Vermont recognizes same-sex couples. And here we are in Massachusetts. Would you please? It's embarrassing. Could we get with the program a little bit? The only way gays and lesbians in this state are going to achieve what has been achieved in Vermont is to stay who you are [i.e. be proud of your homosexuality], apply for the [important] jobs and demand to be seated at the table." Noting that it would be an uphill struggle, DelVecchio said: "Nothing is easy. Do you think getting my hair this color is easy?" Attorney Mary Bonauto was also at that dinner listening to Judge DelVecchio speak. Bonauto was applauded for her work in Vermont and she presented an award to the two Vermont lawyers who had helped win civil unions in that state earlier in the year. Bonauto would file her gay marriage case in DelVecchio's Superior Court a year later.
It looks too cozy to me. She is tight with the crowd that files a case in her court, and does not recuse herself even though she also openly advocates that the law be changed to reflect a definition of marriage between individuals and not a man and a woman. She and the legal team bringing the suit to change the law are all essentially in the same group. One wonders if they planned their legal strategy.
Let me ask you something? Is it right and should it be legal for adult men to have sex with teen males if they are willing?
I think there is a sense among many that this is acceptable, and is one reason for some recent light sentencing in that regard, often lighter than what females have gotten for having sex with male teens.
The homosexual movement in political terms is all about normalizing homosexuality. The simple fact is, as I stated in my OP, that homosexual sex between adult men and teens has been standard fare among homosexuals for a very long time, not all, but something that at times has been very prominent, such as with the pashas in Afghanistan.
I think you can see my point on this thread. How many here are willing to say, yea, the guy deserves to serve time? Looks to me like there is a sense among some that such sexual activity ought to be legal and condoned, and I think considering the homosexual movement's history (teen pages having sex with adults in Barney Frank's home for example), this deserves serious consideration.
What do the pro-gay lobby really want normalized?
On the other hand, the issue with teen-age girls and adult men, and as I state in the OP, adult women and boys, seems to be pretty consistent in terms of society's reaction legally and so forth.
So answer the OP. Do you think someone the guy deserves timeZ? Do you think homosexual men ought to be able to have sex legally with teen-age boys?
like I said you only have to go right here to the United States to find adult men having sex with 12-year-old girls without any societal sanction.
You really believe that?
And straight men having sex with teenaged girls in their homes, like the case in Vermont that Bill O'Reilly is foaming at the mouth over. And by the way, this is a case that happened recently, not more than a decade ago.
Yea, and soceity takes a very hard view of that, but it seems the trend is to go light on homosexual offenders. Wonder why?
Do you think heterosexual men ought to be able to have sex legally with teen-age girls?
Byw, I don't see too many hetero-versions of NAMBLA all tied into a prominent political movement. I think it's a legit question to ask pro-gay judges like this lady. Does she think it's not a seriosu crime for gay men to have sex with male teens? Is that something the gay lobby wants to normalize too?
This message has been edited by randman, 01-19-2006 11:15 PM
Is that something you agree with or not? It's amazing to watch you guys squirm and fear giving a straight-up answer. I can respect someone's position I disagree with when they are honest and give a straight-up answer.
For example, on this issue, I think Holmes whom I disagree with would say, yea, it should be legal. i think he believes all consensual sex should be legal.
But trying to get some straight-up answers out of most of you guys is like pulling teeth. You guys are spinning and dodging and weaving so much, ...well, it speaks volumes.
. Is there a double-standard as some female teachers have been more severely prosecuted for sex with their teen students?
You gonna answer the questions posed or keep dodging and weaving?
Btw, the term homosexual is redundant since the act is a homosexual sex. Some media outlets like WND have reported very light sentences for homosexual statuatory rape, and yet we have seen women with heterosexual sex with minors receive stiffer sentencing. When one of the judges is a partisan pro-gay lobby activist, I think it's legit to ask if her light sentencing has to do with her being a pro-gay activist or a judge just following the law.
That's what the OP and thread is about.
Are you going to engage the topic or keep dodging and weaving?