Teacher sex abuse spurs states to act

By ROBERT TANNER
Associated Press

Heeding a steady drumbeat of sexual misconduct cases involving teachers, at least 15 states are considering stronger oversight and tougher punishment for educators who take advantage of their students.

Lawmakers say they are concerned about an increasingly well-documented phenomenon: While the vast majority of America's teachers are committed professionals, there also is a persistent problem with sexual misconduct in U.S. schools. When abuse happens, administrators too often fail to let others know about it, and too many legal loopholes let offenders stay in the classroom.

...

In California, one proposal would close a loophole that bars the teacher credentialing commission from revealing the reasons teachers lose their licenses if they plead no contest to an offense.

Under no-contest pleas, defendants are punished as if they pleaded guilty but retain the right to challenge the charges against them in lawsuits and other proceedings. Such deals have meant public records were unclear about why educator licenses were sanctioned in dozens of cases, the AP found.

"You should not be able to plead no contest to a sex offense just so you can continue teaching," said state Sen. Bob Margett. The measure means that teachers who plead no contest would immediately lose their licenses, and the reasons for the revocations would be a matter of public record.

[The no contest plea in sex offender cases has long been a problem. For the defendant, no contest has meant "I didn't do it," and the resulting resistance to treatment and rehabilitation.

In The Perfect Plea, I recommend not agreeing to any plea bargain in a felony case unless the plea is guilty. That is standard policy in Williamson County. What is your policy?]

We don't have a set-in-stone policy, but generally we don't allow a no contest plea except in cases where the defendant is going to prison. Reasoning: on probation cases, probationers have in the past been difficult to supervise later on, telling the PO, "I wasn't guilty, I pled no contest, I don't need treatment," etc. etc.

By the way, No Contest does not mean "I am not guilty." The plea simply means that the defendant recognizes that there is evidence, if believed, would convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. The plea is often accompanied by a stipulation as to that evidence. The legal consequences of a no contest plea are identical to a guilty plea, except that the plea is not available for use against the defendant in a civil proceeding.

Unfortunately, defendants make up their own meaning.

It is a legal plea and there are no restrictions on the entry of a no contest plea in my county. Even if you require a guilty plea, the defendant will explain it away by claiming he was forced to plead guilty, etc.