Pants-of-dog wrote:It is clear to me.
I think you are attempting to oversimplify reality. Reality can be complex. It's only natural for the mind to try to put things in convenient category boxes.
As I explained to you, "misconduct" is a very broad category and could consist of anything. This type of sexual misconduct of this man would not normally be considered criminal, but it was in this situation, because he established the relationship with her while working in a public office, and somewhat in a position of trust, even though we are only talking about emotional trust.
In fact I wouldn't even say any single thing this man did was specifically very criminal, on its own, but it is just multiple elements combining together.
Having sex with her wasn't criminal, all by itself.
Cheating on her wasn't criminal.
A little mild emotional abuse wasn't criminal.
Establishing a romantic relationship with her while being a police officer assigned to comfort her wasn't criminal, not really. That's something he might have risked being terminated over, but not something anyone would face criminal charges over.
Having a relationship with her while being married wasn't criminal. (Not only that but it looks like she was aware he had a wife but continued the affair)
Taking advantage of an emotionally vulnerable woman to have a sexual relationship with her isn't really criminal.
But when you combine all this together, it was enough to be seen as a crime.
To see what the most critical parts of that were, we have to ask ourselves which components could we take out and have the rest of it still be a crime?
The fact that he was working for a public office and had the responsibility to help her grieve is one critical component.
I believe the fact he had sex with her was another critical component.
I also strongly believe the fact he was also having a sexual relationship with other women was a critical component, that he would have been less likely to be criminally charged if he had not been married and she was the only one he was having sex with. Or I think the punishment would have been a lot less.
Any explicit specific manipulation was mostly just icing on the cake, in my opinion. Most of the so-called "manipulation" can simply be implied by the circumstances of the situation.
That is why claiming the "crime" was "manipulation" is mostly disingenuous, in my opinion.
Him establishing the romantic relationship and having sex with her was
That's something that is not seen as manipulation in other circumstances.
Pants-of-dog, in (nearly) no other situation would a man ever be prosecuted for manipulating a woman into having consensual sex with him.
So "manipulation" all by itself cannot be the crime.