Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Statutory Analysis

• Author: Craig Hemmens,Guangzhen Wu,Amelie Pedneault,Mia J. Abboud,Mary K. Stohr
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403418806564
• Published date: 01 February 2020
• Date: 01 February 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403418806564

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2020, Vol. 31(1) 133 –153

© The Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403418806564

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Educator Sexual Misconduct:

A Statutory Analysis

Mia J. Abboud1, Guangzhen Wu1, Amelie Pedneault1,

Mary K. Stohr1, and Craig Hemmens1

Abstract

Educator sexual misconduct is a problem that has gained increased attention because

of the high-profile cases reported by the news media. Yet, the diversity in state law

regarding this offense remains somewhat unexplored. In this article, we compare and

evaluate state statutory provisions regarding educator sexual misconduct; our focus is

on what constitutes educator sexual misconduct, and what penalties are provided for

offenders. As such, we explore the differences and similarities in statutory provisions

across states in terms of the definition of child sexual assault, the age of consent, the

penalties for various types of sexual misconduct perpetrated by teachers, and any

requirement for registration as sex offenders. Our findings indicate that though the

number of applicable statutes has almost doubled since 2010, there remains a wide

variety in the definition and penalties included in those laws, and 21 states have not

chosen to enact a specific law at all.

Keywords

teachers, students, schools, educator sexual misconduct, child sexual assault, child

sexual abuse, moral panic

Introduction

Sexual abuse of children is a topic of great concern for parents and the public at large.

In the last decades, studies have uncovered troubling statistics about the occurrence of

sexual abuse of children in schools, with a large study estimating that 9.6% of students

in Grades 8 through 11 had been victimized (Shakeshaft, 2004). This estimate suggests

1Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Craig Hemmens, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Washington State University,

P.O. Box 644872, Pullman, WA 99164-4872, USA.

Email: craig.hemmens@wsu.edu

806564CJPXXX10.1177/0887403418806564Criminal Justice Policy ReviewAbboud et al.

research-article2018

134 Criminal Justice Policy Review 31(1)

that institutions that are designed to foster the healthy development of children are

sometimes being used by offenders to access victims. This victimization causes stu-

dents to suffer serious emotional, educational, developmental, and health effects (M. E.

Afifi et al., 2007; Burgess, Welner, & Willis, 2010; Felitti et al., 1998; Winks, 1982).

Specifically, it is thought that the trauma the child sexual abuse victims experience may

hinder their academic achievement and have a significant negative impact on their lives

post-abuse (T. O. Afifi, Brownridge, Cox, & Sareen, 2006; Burgess et al., 2010).

Some high-profile cases of sexual abuse of students by educators or coaches have

received a lot of media attention (e.g., Mary Kay Letourneau, Jerry Sandusky) and

have heightened the public’s awareness of this specific type of sexual abuse. These

stories have sparked many reactions, specifically surrounding the issues of abuse of

power and compromised trust (Hendrie & Drummond, 1998; Schultz, 2005; Shoop,

2004). Public upset is enhanced when it is discovered that many reported cases of

sexual abuse in schools have not been reported to the police and as a result the offend-

ers have received no criminal sanctions (Fromuth & Holt, 2008). This dissatisfaction

with the current system merges with fear that those with authority over children are not

being held to a higher standard of behavior. Many parents question the way school

officials recruit, screen, hire, and supervise teachers, coaches, bus drivers, and other

staff who have direct contact with children (Vacca, 2009).

The role of legislation on the issue is still unclear, with more research needed to

determine whether legislators have enacted laws that can effectively regulate educator

ethical behavior, and whether such laws serve as an effective tool to prevent, and

respond to, sexual abuse in schools. To address some of the public’s concerns about

ineffective legislation (U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2014a), many

state legislators have added criminal provisions dealing specifically with educator

sexual misconduct, in addition to general statutes prohibiting the sexual abuse of chil-

dren. This article examines these statutory provisions regarding educator sexual mis-

conduct in all 50 states for the purposes of comparison and evaluation. Our focus is

specifically on the differences and similarities in statutory provisions across states in

defining child sexual assault, age of minors, age of consent, penalties for various types

of sexual misconduct perpetrated by teachers, and the requirement for registration as

sex offenders.

Literature Review

In recent years, growing scholarly attention has been paid to educator sexual miscon-

duct. Prior research has examined this issue as it regards its definition, prevalence,

pattern, profile of abusers, and legal responses. This section of the article includes an

overview of these studies.

The Definition of Educator Sexual Misconduct

A number of words and phrases are often used to describe educator sexual miscon-

duct; these include “sexual abuse,” “molestation,” “sexual exploitation,” and “sexual