After all these years, I'm shocked that JonBenet Ramsey's alleged killer has been arrested. I'm not shocked that authorities arrested him in Thailand. I'm not shocked that his profession is "school teacher."

Just this week, police arrested a middle-school drama teacher in Waltham, Massachusetts for allegedly staging an elaborate production designed to molest male teens by offering them massages from prostitutes, then blindfolding them, donning a wig, and pretending to be the female masseuse. On August 10, police arrested another middleschool teacher, in New Jersey, for allegedly attempting to lure children into his car. On Tuesday, Jacksonville, Florida police arrested a teacher in a 13-year-old's house he had chatted with over the internet after a relative, wondering why the boy hadn't gone to school, arrived at the house to find the teen in his underwear and a strange man locked in the bathroom. Surely the teachers' union will be outraged when they learn that one of their own helped a student play hookey, no?

Teachers in Vacaville, California, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and Newport News, Virginia also found themselves in trouble this last week in relation to alleged sex crimes with minors.

I'm unaware of any Catholic priests arrested on molestation charges in the same period. I'm sure that if one were arrested, I would have heard about it. The media have been pretty dogged in exposing Catholic priests who molest children. But what of teachers? Except when a woman is involved, especially a good-looking one, the national media hasn't made much of a fuss over what seems, anecdotally at least, to be a disproportionate number of age-of-consent violators within the ranks of the teaching profession.

Like almost all Catholic priests, almost all teachers stay clear of sex offenses involving teens and children. But like priests, teachers occasionally find colleagues embroiled in scandals involving children. Sure, there are millions of teachers, meaning that they encompass a wide variety of humanity. And sure, the measure of trust parents put in them necessarily inflates the public outrage when a teacher, rather than say a gas-station attendant, gets sexually involved with a child. But doesn't it appear, at least, that a high percentage of pederasts and pedophiles are pedagogues?

Teachers, we are led to believe, are altruistic people who enter their profession to give back to the community. Some fit that description. Others are attracted to the long vacations, short hours, and unparalelled job security. My guess is that John Karr, the man arrested in JonBenet Ramsey's murder, found education attractive because it afforded him the opportunity to meet and gain the trust of children.

Karate instructor? Boy Scout troop leader? Little League coach? Catholic priest? School teacher? These positions seem to be popular among those charged in sex-crimes cases involving children. Does it require all that much common sense to conclude that those who are attracted to children are also attracted to professions that put them in contact with children?

I don't feel tardy.

Did you see the photo of this guy? The caption should include the word "creepy." Gee, I wonder what he was doing in the land of child prostitution?

"Others are attracted to the long vacations, short hours, and unparalelled job security."

Amen.

I used to teach in public schools. Vacations were nice, the job security was there. The hours were not short at all - that's completely false. You're there from when school starts (i.e. the wee hours of morning) to at least an hour or so after, longer on "late bus days" for kids who need extra help, and that's before you've had any time to grade essays/homework/tests.

But I will say that we could do away with the need to stereotype teachers as "altrustic" if we'd also dispense with the peanuts salaries. I live in N. Va. My first year teaching here, at which point I had an MA as well as 4 years experience, my salary was $38K. My good friend whose first year it was teaching actually qualified for -- and took -- a gov't payment towards his rent b/c he qualified for section-8 housing. If we want qualified teachers in every classroom, we need to seriously curtail if not outright do away with public education - or at the very least, stop acting as qualified individuals will be attracted to a profession whose salary that guarantees them a very low standard of living.

Now, getting to the point of your post. :) I have a boy about to enter Kindergarten. I am about to say something quite politically incorrect...I'd be loathe to have him taught by a male teacher. In the higher grades, it wouldn't be a problem, because teachers in those positions, in my experience, are there because they love the subject - not necessarily children.

But in elementary school? Not a chance. I'd move heaven and earth to get him out of that class. A grown man wanting to spend his days with 20 children who are not his own? No thanks.

Sorry, very politically incorrect, I know.

Veronica,

Do you not consider the fact that teachers have roughly four paid months off in the summer, enough incentive to not complain about having to work nine hour days during business hours with weekends off? Not to mention holidays, winter and spring vacations, "teachers" days and the like.

When I die, I want to come back as a public school teacher.

ASDF,

Well, to answer your question, it probably IS to some folks who are misinformed about how much time they're really going to get "off."

Christmas and Spring break total the two weeks vacation most youngish - private employees get.

Weekends off - no. Never. Try, required sponsorship of the yearbook, drama club, lit mag, band, newspaper, etc, plus sporting events that you'll be scorned for not attending, etc.

The longest summer break I had off in the summer was 8 weeks, not "roughly four months."

Good teachers spend that entire time studying, attending seminars, reading, taking college courses.

Of course, not all do. There are crappy teachers and the teacher's union makes it impossible to fire them. I am not defending that in any way shape or form. I myself never joined the union.

But teachers in general don't deserve the bad rap they often get.

I am also not defending the public school system.

If we went to year round schooling (which I'd favor) we'd definitely weed out most of the folks who are in it for the vacations. Those folks are gone in two years anyway (three years longer than the average teacher, that is) when they realize that it's not "roughly four months" over the summer and that they're indeed required to work on "teacher days."

Veronica

Speaking of pedophiles, how about that Gene Simmons? I remember(barely)in the 70's when Gene
boasted something to the effect of " we've had more 14 year old girls than any other band- and we've got the photos to prove it"

Now Gene has his own reality show.
Why no investigations? I'll tell you why; MONEY!
Let's face it, if you've got money, you can pretty much do whatever(or whoever) you want.

School teachers, Catholic priests, little league coaches etc. have been accused of many things but having alot of money isn't one of them.

Evil behaviour is evil behaviour no matter how much money you have.

I say go after these child molesters and ruin them like they've ruined the lives of their victims. But don't forget to crack down on a
sc umbag like Gene Simmons just because he gets ratings on VH-1.

I think you make a great point, Veronica, when you note the salary/standard of living issue. Unfortunately, it seems that there is something dangerously pathological with too many (and this is the type of case where even one is too many) school teachers, priests, etc. Common sense certainly leads one to conclude that those who opt for low-paying jobs do so either because they are unqualified to do anything else or because something else is in it for them. That "something else" is also likely going to be something nefarious, since too often the "altruists" can find higher-paying jobs in medicine, certain areas of business, even the law, etc.

I have wondered for a while: If we could "dispense with the peanuts salaries" for teachers, priests, etc., would that necessarily attract a better pool of candidates, or at least a bigger one, from which the creeps could be more readily weeded out? Another question: where would the better salaries come from?

Buzz,

I think when one thinks about it every profession draws either people who feel a vocation for it and are honorable in their practice of it, or see an angle to get "something else" out of it. A few examples: 1) police officers who let out aggression by beating suspects, or railroading them, extorting criminals, etc.; 2) accountants who "fix the books"; 3) Business men like the execs at Tyco or Enron who raid the pension plans; 4) dentists who cop a feel (there was a Golden Girls episode on that one! :) ); 5) politicians who, well, you name it and the bad ones do it.

So my point is that virtue is not a function of pay and all occupations in which humans are involved can yield plenty of examples of humans acting badly, from janitors to lawyers. Some occupations provide opportunites for one kind of crime but not others, and some occupations yield opportunities for extremely despicable crimes. Any occupation involving close contact w/ children being an obvious example of an occupation of this kind.

This strange guy is not your man. I won't believe he committed this murder until the DNA results are published.

Going back to Day One, this case has been totally mishandled by everyone from the first responding officers all the way through the DA's office. This latest news is simply a continuation of that all-pervasive ineptitude. This is just tabloid press stuff going on now.

I am still strongly in the camp that the Ramsay's themselves were involved. If they truly were not, then it is a tragedy. However, much of the suspicion focused on them was the result of their own resistance to,and outright avoidance of, the investigation.

I also think that the reason they told Patsy Ramsay on her deathbed that a suspect was being tracked was either 1.)to allow her a peaceful death, or 2) perhaps she would come clean in a "deathbed confession". If she was involved, it makes her silence all the more devious. In effect, she would be letting an innocent man take the hit.

Just my opinion, but I was involved in many criminal investigations in my life and this one has been bad from the git go, and ain't getting any better.

Regards
Tim

They found footprints and blood samples that did not match any known suspect.

It may not have been this guy, but it wasn't the Ramseys either, unless they hired an assassin.

Well, we can't try the case here, but I have not seen any report of blood, except that of Jon Benet's. Any and all footprints were quickly dismissed as having any evidentiary value when it was shown that the entire crime scene had been trampled by a number of people, not just family members.

My own feelings as to guilt revolve largely around the ransom note ana*ysis performed by a Professor Don Foster of Vassar College. He is the leading linguistics expert in the nation and indicated "unequivocal"-ly that the ransom note was written by Patsy Ramsey. Also, I find it curious that a kidnapper-turned-murderer would take the time to write a multi-page ransom note on a notepad belonging to the victim's family.

This, in line with the failure of the handwriting ana*ysts to rule out Patsy as the note's writer, point a pretty firm finger in her direction.

Again, the evidence was strong but just not strong enough apparently. I think that anyone familiar with the case would have to at least continue to argue that Patsy is still a 50-50 possibility of being the murderer.

Regards
Tim

Funny! The profanity blocker blocked the "*nalyst" in my last post. I'm referring to one who performs an*lysis.
As you can see, it was blocked here too.
Tim