Married teacher rapes 14 year old, gets 6 months in jail [Archive]

GommeInc

16-01-2014, 09:20 PM

Oh absolutely, the fact that women can't be found guilty of rape is a huge part of the problem and is the reason that around 40% of rape victims are erased by the courts completely. The fact that there are supposedly equal charges that women can face in many countries with these sexist laws means nothing because judges and society still see the word "rape" and see it as the worst crime possible as opposed to "sexual assault" which extends as far down as grazing someone's arse on a bus by accident or looking at someone the wrong way

Female teachers seem to get away with this all the time - here are three (http://nypost.com/2013/04/14/queens-teacher-had-sex-with-students-at-school-report/) recent (http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/06/banned-female-teacher-who-played-whos-a-virgin-game-with-pupils-4176104/) cases (http://metro.co.uk/2013/12/10/teacher-caught-half-naked-in-layby-with-student-struck-off-for-two-years-4225180/) of female teachers sexually abusing their students and getting no jail time at all and even congratulations, while men get death threats and castration requests no matter how serious the crime and whether the victim was complicit or not
Rape is a technical crime. A man when he is aroused gets an erection and hence he now has a tool to stick into the complainant's 3 specific areas. A woman will have a hard time sticking a flaccid penis into her body, and a woman lacks any sort of tool she can stick into a man's 2 key areas (men lack vaginas so obviously they only have the two remaining areas). Rape is literally sticking a penis into the 3 specific areas. A woman in this country who sexually assaults a man will begin from the main crime of assault by penetration e.g. sticking a sex toy, fist etc into the complainant, down to sexual assault and lastly to making the victim engage in a sexual activity (it has a proper name but too lazy to look it up :P)

What she did with this boy was simple sexual assault - touching that is sexual in nature. If she stuck the boys penis into her then 1) the boy was aroused and must have consented to maintain an erection and to not run away. She is guilty of sexual assault involving a child - it can't be assault by penetration (one below rape) purely because she was the one being penetrated, not the boy unless she stuck something into the boy. Rape is very technical and consent makes it even more so difficult, hence why rape is gender specific as a man is the only sex with something that was designed to be stuck straight into a woman or another man, or youngsters.

As for the three cases, the teacher who played the "virgin game" as far as I can tell didn't rape, sexually assault, penetrate or get the pupils to engage in a sexual activity (asking people who were virgins isn't an activity). It was based on poor conduct and a ban from teaching was the only acceptable outcome. Sending texts may amount to harassment or assault, but the sexual part needs some sort of physical activity to accompany it.

Also the last teacher didn't get away with it. Both are consenting but she was in a level of trust and the punishment for that is deemed reasonable, seeing as she's now completely messed up her teaching career.

Can't really talk for the American case. American and English (and Welsh) law differ.

EDIT: Oh, I censored my post to not have anal, oral and vaginal sex as the 3 specific forms of sexual intercourse that can result in rape without consent and you already used them :P

FlyingJesus

16-01-2014, 10:29 PM

While in this case the boy was quite possibly technically consenting the issue is that he's too young to legally be consenting. That aside, an erection is not consent and nor does it mean willingness in any way - it's a biological response to stimuli, and assuming otherwise is a large part of the reason that so many female-on-male rapes go unpunished or even unreported. Rape is sex with an unconsenting party pure and simple. When looking at figures for "forced penetration" (male-on-female rape) versus "forced to penetrate" (female-on-male rape) the numbers are almost exactly equal, yet because one doesn't count as rape in law - or in the eyes of the ignorant as a crime at all - crime stats and society believe rape to be a male issue. The actual split between gender of the perpetrator is around 60/40 if one counts envelopment as rape as should be the case. The very fact that you referred to this woman's crime as "simple" sexual assault shows further how damaging this disparity is, since people view that as a far lesser crime

I see losing one's teaching license and otherwise being free to do as one pleases as "getting away" with rape with a rather minimal punishment. Also your understanding of sexual assault as having to include the physical is well away from the truth. There is no sense in making a long post if you're completely unaware of the reality of the issue, or if you're going to dismiss half of the world's rape victims just because of how they were born

GommeInc

18-01-2014, 02:21 AM

Rape is sex with an unconsenting party pure and simple.
That's far too wide a definition. What is sex? Sexual intercourse and sexual activity are not the same thing, there is some overlap but sexual activity has a much wider context. What about touching that is sexual in nature? That's not sex but according to your definition it is based purely on the lack of consent by the complainant. R v H [2005] is clearly not a rape case - shouting "fancy a ****" and tugging on the complainants jogging bottoms is not rape. Rape is when a man intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis. Why is rape male specific? Because of history - originally it was based on virginity of a woman, then ownership of a woman and generally it is now regarded as the fear of a woman becoming pregnant which holds a greater risk to the woman and not the man (it used to also cover sexually transmitted diseases but then the government recognised that women can spread it too so was omitted).

There is:
Rape - committed by men - life imprisonment
Assault by penetration - non-gender specific - life-imprisonment
Sexual assault - " - 10 years / 6 months + fines
Causing an individual to engage in a sexual activity - " - 10 years / 6 months + fines

These are all sexual activities with non-consenting parties, and not all fall within the scope of sexual intercourse (the latter specifically, though the second crime of assault by penetration may not be sexual intercourse - playing with sex toys is a sexual activity, but not intercourse which requires genitalia (specifically penis to vagina though sometimes judges rule that insertion elsewhere applies). Rape and assault by penetration are so serious because they violate the inner-sanctum of an individual. However, you're focusing on statute when in this country and even the US also have case-law. One example could be a woman who is a main partner in a law firm having to lay off employees. One man approaches her fearing the loss of his job. She says she will let him keep his job if he has sex with her. The authorities for this case all involve male defendants yet the law recognises that gender is irrelevant but only the act and mental elements are of importance - cases such as Linekar [1995] 2 WLR 237, Tabassum or Green [2002] EWCA Crim 1501. You also have to consider the nature and purpose of the activity, such as deceit, fraud, position of trust or power.

The very fact that you referred to this woman's crime as "simple" sexual assault shows further how damaging this disparity is, since people view that as a far lesser crime.
Simple as in "easy to conclude" - thought that was obvious. Facts of the case: Woman doesn't penetrate the complainant therefore its not intercourse and not rape (if the woman was a man) or assault by penetration. It's that "simple". It's certainly not a lesser crime, seeing as 10 years measures up to the same as some terrorism crimes, possession of a weapon with intent to commit a crime/resist arrest (Duggan comes to mind has he not been shot), importing/supplying class A drugs, aggravated burglary, treason etc

I see losing one's teaching license and otherwise being free to do as one pleases as "getting away" with rape with a rather minimal punishment. Also your understanding of sexual assault as having to include the physical is well away from the truth. There is no sense in making a long post if you're completely unaware of the reality of the issue, or if you're going to dismiss half of the world's rape victims just because of how they were born
Rape, assault by penetration and sexual assault have to be physical by definition and in law, while causing sexual activity without consent doesn't have to be. A case for this is R v Sargeant [1997] Crim LR 50 where the father of a girl who broke up with her boyfriend posed as a girl on the internet and got him to play with himself on webcam to humiliate him. he was convicted for causing an individual to engage in sexual activity, which can be physical but not always. It's blatantly obvious sexual assault has to be physical, so no idea what alternative reality you're in when in actual reality sexual assault IS physical. For reference, the below section of SOA and the bit in bold:

Sexual Assault in Sexual Offences Act 2003:

3 Sexual assault
(1) A person (A ) commits an offence if–
(a ) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual,
(c) B does not consent to the touching, and
(d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable–
(a ) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

Also dropping an argument on the pretence that I am somehow writing off half of the worlds rape victims because you fail to understand the definition of rape is ridiculous - women cannot rape so your sources are going to come back with a lack of results. It's like searching for cats who give birth to puppies. You're using the wrong terms. Search for sexual assault, assault by penetration et al and you will get far more results. Also other parts of the SOA which are child related offences and position of trust (which relate to the original teacher had she been in the UK) are all relevant. I work within the law and reality, I do not live in a fantasy land which you have proven to be living in seeing as you claim sexual assault isn't always physical when clearly it is. The fact it's in black and white right in front of you and you deny it is very Undertaker-ish of you, especially when you play the presumption card (sorry Dan, but I noticed a similarity :P)

Edit: Also, "he" in the context of the crimes other than rape means "anyone". The law tends to be masculine rather than gender neutral. It's only specifically about men when the act goes on to state something specific to a man e.g. penis.

FlyingJesus

18-01-2014, 07:27 PM

That's far too wide a definition. What is sex?

As it's currently defined by law it's the penetration of the mouth, anus, or vagina. That still works for gender-neutral terms.

Sexual intercourse and sexual activity are not the same thing, there is some overlap but sexual activity has a much wider context. What about touching that is sexual in nature? That's not sex but according to your definition it is based purely on the lack of consent by the complainant. R v H [2005] is clearly not a rape case - shouting "fancy a ****" and tugging on the complainants jogging bottoms is not rape.

Yep, never claimed it was.

Rape is when a man intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis. Why is rape male specific? Because of history - originally it was based on virginity of a woman, then ownership of a woman and generally it is now regarded as the fear of a woman becoming pregnant which holds a greater risk to the woman and not the man (it used to also cover sexually transmitted diseases but then the government recognised that women can spread it too so was omitted).

So history dictates reality? Up until not that long ago it was impossible for a wife to accuse her husband of rape because she was his property and it was considered indefinite consent when she married him. I'm not arguing that the law says something different, I'm arguing that the legal terms are gender exclusive and are hugely damaging to the 40% of rape victims who are turned away as non-victims.

you're focusing on statute when in this country and even the US also have case-law.

Yes because statute law doesn't allow for females to be convicted of rape despite being a huge percentage of the perpetrators.

One example could be a woman who is a main partner in a law firm having to lay off employees. One man approaches her fearing the loss of his job. She says she will let him keep his job if he has sex with her. The authorities for this case all involve male defendants yet the law recognises that gender is irrelevant but only the act and mental elements are of importance - cases such as Linekar [1995] 2 WLR 237, Tabassum or Green [2002] EWCA Crim 1501. You also have to consider the nature and purpose of the activity, such as deceit, fraud, position of trust or power.

Not sure why you're bringing up different laws and different crimes when the entire point I'm making is that there are gender-specific laws and gender-specific sentencing when there shouldn't be - the fact that other laws see gender as irrelevant is itself irrelevant.

Simple as in "easy to conclude" - thought that was obvious. Facts of the case: Woman doesn't penetrate the complainant therefore its not intercourse and not rape (if the woman was a man) or assault by penetration. It's that "simple".

Forcing someone to penetrate isn't intercourse. Right. Not sure what your experience with sex is but you seem to be under the impression that it's always something done to someone rather than something that people engage in together. Pretty archaic.

It's certainly not a lesser crime, seeing as 10 years measures up to the same as some terrorism crimes, possession of a weapon with intent to commit a crime/resist arrest (Duggan comes to mind has he not been shot), importing/supplying class A drugs, aggravated burglary, treason etc

Societally it's extremely different. A drug runner in prison can assume any role they can take for themselves, but even in the highest security prisons full of the most heinous criminals rapists are seen as dead men walking and the same tends to be the case with the average person's views. Rape is so awful that it's pretty much the one topic that no-one of a certain maturity would openly joke about, even while we constantly talk of killing and maiming and stealing and all sorts of other things. Juries and courts are just as susceptible to this and especially when the sentences that can be given are flexible you see a huge disparity in how rape is sentenced (always a jail sentence that can go all the way up to "life" and often will) and how female sexual assault is sentenced (6 months and lose your job). They are clearly not judged the same.

Rape, assault by penetration and sexual assault have to be physical by definition and in law, while causing sexual activity without consent doesn't have to be. A case for this is R v Sargeant [1997] Crim LR 50 where the father of a girl who broke up with her boyfriend posed as a girl on the internet and got him to play with himself on webcam to humiliate him. he was convicted for causing an individual to engage in sexual activity, which can be physical but not always. It's blatantly obvious sexual assault has to be physical, so no idea what alternative reality you're in when in actual reality sexual assault IS physical. For reference, the below section of SOA and the bit in bold:

Sexual Assault in Sexual Offences Act 2003:

3 Sexual assault
(1) A person (A ) commits an offence if–
(a ) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual,
(c) B does not consent to the touching, and
(d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable–
(a ) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

http://www.crimeatthecoalface.com/2011/04/sexual-assault-without-touching-the-victim/ since you seem to enjoy naming specific cases

Also dropping an argument on the pretence that I am somehow writing off half of the worlds rape victims because you fail to understand the definition of rape is ridiculous - women cannot rape so your sources are going to come back with a lack of results.

Yes they can, yes they do, and saying otherwise IS writing off the 40% of forced penetration victims who are males abused by females. I understand what the current legal status of rape is, but disagree with it on the basis that it's gender-specific without necessity and allows millions upon millions of crimes to go unpunished.

It's like searching for cats who give birth to puppies. You're using the wrong terms.

No it's like saying putting your foot in a sock is the same as putting a sock on your foot, which it is.

Search for sexual assault, assault by penetration et al and you will get far more results. Also other parts of the SOA which are child related offences and position of trust (which relate to the original teacher had she been in the UK) are all relevant. I work within the law and reality, I do not live in a fantasy land which you have proven to be living in seeing as you claim sexual assault isn't always physical when clearly it is. The fact it's in black and white right in front of you and you deny it is very Undertaker-ish of you, especially when you play the presumption card (sorry Dan, but I noticed a similarity :P)

I'm not sure why you're so unwilling to understand that the point isn't that I don't know the current law, it's that I see it as inherently wrong and badly written in a way that excludes a huge amount of victims. The legal system is sexist and certain things need changing, just like they did when people of specific ancestry couldn't vote or when it was legal to own other human beings. As for being Danlike, that's the role you've taken on with your single argument defending the current law being "BUT IT'S BEEN THAT WAY FOR A LONG TIME".

Edit: Also, "he" in the context of the crimes other than rape means "anyone". The law tends to be masculine rather than gender neutral. It's only specifically about men when the act goes on to state something specific to a man e.g. penis.

Yes, like this law does...

!x!dude!x!2

18-01-2014, 09:28 PM

This is so wrong

GommeInc

19-01-2014, 12:49 AM

Going to cut a lot out and simplify it :P

As it's currently defined by law it's the penetration of the mouth, anus, or vagina. That still works for gender-neutral terms.
I can see where you're coming from. My original point was that you seem to be misleading others in the thread that it is rape and nothing else, and women can get away with sexual offences when they do not, they can be convicted of other crimes under the same law which covers rape. You weren't making people aware of the law and were placing your opinion above the facts of the matter at hand.

The definition of rape would be a complete mess with what you've just said. Your suggestion of it being gender-neutral would be "A inserting something into B's X, Y, Z", so your concern that women cannot rape wouldn't really change, as it's missing the important word "force" and still involves A inserting something. It could be changed to have another section written to be something like "OR, A forces B to penetrate with his penis A's anus, mouth or vagina" which in some sense I support because it at least recognises that the penis is important, but the owner of the penis can be the victim and the one it is being inserted into is the offender under the important use of the word "force".

Alternatively, it seems the second offence under the act of assault by penetration has been poorly written or thought through. It's intentions that insertion is a crime is good, but it's again focussed on the offender inserting something of theirs into the victim, when the victim could have something they own inserted into the offender for the offender's own sexual gratification e.g. hand, tongue etc.

Also, I found out why the SOA defines rape as penile penetration. The Home Office Consultation Document 'Setting the Boundaties' (2000) kept it confined to the penis because:

1) Rape was understood to be by the public as an offence committed by men against women and men.
2) Penile penetration was of a personal kind, carrying risks of pregnancy and disease transmission
3) Penetration of the body orifices by objects would become a new offence of assault by penetration of the former offence of indecent assault (hence we never see indecent assault being references anywhere these days)

Basically history and the public perceptions of the time have locked the law into becoming rigid. The only part that makes sense is 2, hence the importance of the penis, but as you'd probably agree - a man may not want to make a woman pregnant or give a disease to the one applying force.

... female sexual assault is sentenced (6 months and lose your job). They are clearly not judged the same.
Not necessarily - "4(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years." 6 months from a Magistrates Court but this could go to the Crown Court who would be less lenient, and many cases end up at the Crown Court for sexual assault.

Also you referenced 3 cases which didn't involve anything to do with rape, penetration or assault. They all involve consent, while rape, penetration and assault require a lack of consent. The teacher who had sex with a 16 year old received their consent BUT she was in a position of trust (they were under 18). The second one didn't involve any touching at all because she was asking sexually explicit questions about the pupils who were again over 16 but yet again she was in a position of trust. She violated s.4 of the Act. The final one again was in a position of trust with a consenting adult, therefore none of the offences.

http://www.crimeatthecoalface.com/2011/04/sexual-assault-without-touching-the-victim/ since you seem to enjoy naming specific cases
That's an Australian case. All the ones I've referenced are from the UK. In Australia, sexual assault is a broad term for all sexual offences while in the UK, sexual assault has a specific meaning. Hence, sexual assault in AU can involve no touching at all (because some offences do not need it) while in the UK sexual offences can involve no touching, but the specific offence of sexual assault in the UK must be physical - involve indecent touching, for example.

Yes, like this law does...
You're mixing up the words law and offence. The offence of rape is male specific, yet other offences under the law do not take gender into account.

FlyingJesus

19-01-2014, 01:04 AM

I can see where you're coming from. My original point was that you seem to be misleading others in the thread that it is rape and nothing else, and women can get away with sexual offences when they do not, they can be convicted of other crimes under the same law which covers rape. You weren't making people aware of the law and were placing your opinion above the facts of the matter at hand.

It's pretty much indisputable that these sentences for female assailants are far far more lenient than they would be if the genders were reversed. That is the entire point.

The definition of rape would be a complete mess with what you've just said. Your suggestion of it being gender-neutral would be "A inserting something into B's X, Y, Z", so your concern that women cannot rape wouldn't really change, as it's missing the important word "force" and still involves A inserting something. It could be changed to have another section written to be something like "OR, A forces B to penetrate with his penis A's anus, mouth or vagina" which in some sense I support because it at least recognises that the penis is important, but the owner of the penis can be the victim and the one it is being inserted into is the offender under the important use of the word "force".

For one you're still looking only at someone inserting themself into someone else which is entirely NOT what I'm talking about so that first sentence is entirely wrong. How can "forced copulation" be messy? It's quite clear that if one person's genitals are inserted into another's against their will that is forced copulation, and there's really no change in that regardless of which way around it is. Also you seem to still be under the impression that a penis can't be erect without consent which is utter lunacy - by the same principle nothing is rape ever since biologically a female will secrete vaginal fluid when stimulated regardless of whether she wants to or not.

Alternatively, it seems the second offence under the act of assault by penetration has been poorly written or thought through. It's intentions that insertion is a crime is good, but it's again focussed on the offender inserting something of theirs into the victim, when the victim could have something they own inserted into the offender for the offender's own sexual gratification e.g. hand, tongue etc.

Also, I found out why the SOA defines rape as penile penetration. The Home Office Consultation Document 'Setting the Boundaties' (2000) kept it confined to the penis because:

1) Rape was understood to be by the public as an offence committed by men against women and men.
2) Penile penetration was of a personal kind, carrying risks of pregnancy and disease transmission
3) Penetration of the body orifices by objects would become a new offence of assault by penetration of the former offence of indecent assault (hence we never see indecent assault being references anywhere these days)

Basically history and the public perceptions of the time have locked the law into becoming rigid. The only part that makes sense is 2, hence the importance of the penis, but as you'd probably agree - a man may not want to make a woman pregnant or give a disease to the one applying force.

Again using history as an argument when such logic dictates that you are also a fan of the slave trade and despots. Let's make something clear: forcing someone to have sex when they don't want to is rape.

Not necessarily - "4(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years." 6 months from a Magistrates Court but this could go to the Crown Court who would be less lenient, and many cases end up at the Crown Court for sexual assault.

"Not exceeding 10 years" is quite different to the suggested sentence of life imprisonment for male on female rape, especially when the former is so regularly diminished.

You're mixing up the words law and offence. The offence of rape is male specific, yet other offences under the law do not take gender into account.

Since the offence cannot be attributed to a female that kinda dismisses any current legal argument. If you give immunity to one group then of course they aren't going to be recorded as perpetrators. If an offence can't be attributed to a certain type of person then clearly the law has no charge over them in that field

GommeInc

19-01-2014, 11:43 AM

For one you're still looking only at someone inserting themself into someone else which is entirely NOT what I'm talking about so that first sentence is entirely wrong. How can "forced copulation" be messy? It's quite clear that if one person's genitals are inserted into another's against their will that is forced copulation, and there's really no change in that regardless of which way around it is. Also you seem to still be under the impression that a penis can't be erect without consent which is utter lunacy - by the same principle nothing is rape ever since biologically a female will secrete vaginal fluid when stimulated regardless of whether she wants to or not.
Pretty sure I didn't say that in that paragraph but we'll just assume that you're blind reading and responding. You're imagining that the court procedure on determining consent is clear cut, when rape and other sexual offences are incredibly difficult to prove i.e. "messy". It's why your suggested alterations to the law wouldn't make sense. You say gender-neutralised terms, but this suggestion would still make the woman in the US walk away under a different offence had the boy not consented, because it has to be the offender inserting something of theirs into the victim, not the offender sticking something of the victims into the offender as it requires more than just neutralised terms but a re-written law entirely.

Regarding the last bit - that wouldn't make sense, since a vagina cannot be inserted into something. It's designed to receive, not to give. A penis on the other hand is for inserting. Technical use is key. Again, consent would be difficult to prove had a woman forcefully inserted a penis into herself. The court would have to see the prosecution and the offence battle over important questions, such as: If the male victim protested why was it inside the woman? If he is erect - why? Not everyone has an erection out of fear - the prosecution and the defence will have to battle over that. Did the offender think the victim was consenting and had a reasonable belief that the victim was consenting? If so, why does the prosecution think they didn't? If the victim was protesting, how did the penis stay in the vagina throughout the entire event? Why did they not escape? These are common questions the court considers, with greater emphasis placed on incapacity, intoxication etc.

Back to the US case, it wouldn't be rape or any of the main four offences had it been in the UK as again, the child consented (at least from the facts of the case). Having sex with a consenting party isn't an assault unless the party lacks the capacity to neither consent or not consent e.g. babies. As the boy consented, other offences need to be considered - the position of trust offences, for example. Again, you've misread the facts of an article and plaster them poorly on a completely different offence - hence why I disagreed with your argument - first on the grounds of a technical, physical limitation that only men can rape, and then later (after reading the case more) that even if women could rape it couldn't be rape as consent was alive between both of the relevant parties. I even stated clearly the problem is that for cases like this, imprisonment isn't long enough or justified.

Again using history as an argument when such logic dictates that you are also a fan of the slave trade and despots. Let's make something clear: forcing someone to have sex when they don't want to is rape.
How very Undertaker-ish of you. Assuming I agree with slave trade is an irrelevant "puff" to gage a response that is neither here nor there. Moving on: I stated why that's the reason rape has such a locked in view - I didn't actually agree with it. In fact, I clearly stated underneath that it's the poor decision by the Home Office history that has locked a law into becoming rigid, which I'm fairly sure shows I disagree with it.

And it isn't - again, asserting your opinion before fact. It's like stating "Let's make something clear - immigration is the biggest problem in the United Kingdom today." It's subjective.

"Not exceeding 10 years" is quite different to the suggested sentence of life imprisonment for male on female rape, especially when the former is so regularly diminished.
And life imprisonment isn't actually life.

Since the offence cannot be attributed to a female that kinda dismisses any current legal argument. If you give immunity to one group then of course they aren't going to be recorded as perpetrators. If an offence can't be attributed to a certain type of person then clearly the law has no charge over them in that field
Women are not immune... They clearly are not as they were all found guilty of their actions in the very cases you linked to. If they were immune, they would have walked away from the court as a free person. But clearly not. Again, you let passion overlook reason.

Personally I think the law needs to change as well. Laws which are too specific will cause problems later on in the life of the Act - it's inevitable. It's an occurring problem in modern Britain with modern laws trying not to go as far as they probably should or favour one group against another. The Equality Act is another act which has huge problems, and the Digital Economy Bill showed signs of either going too far or being an unwanted piece of legislation from the beginning. Strangely, Acts dating as far back as the 1800s have faired better than these quickly passed modern laws, but that's another debate for another time. I'm tempted to ask my tutor to see what happens if a woman has sex with an intoxicated man without his consent, as that must surely have been the topic in many cases and why it would only come under touching when clearly inserting a penis is penetration. Had the law stated assault by penetration included a woman inserting her victim's penis into her vagina (penetration), there would be no argument as it would hold the same punishment as rape and, as far as the law is concerned, would be treated the same.

FlyingJesus

19-01-2014, 10:37 PM

Pretty sure I didn't say that in that paragraph but we'll just assume that you're blind reading and responding. You're imagining that the court procedure on determining consent is clear cut, when rape and other sexual offences are incredibly difficult to prove i.e. "messy". It's why your suggested alterations to the law wouldn't make sense. You say gender-neutralised terms, but this suggestion would still make the woman in the US walk away under a different offence had the boy not consented, because it has to be the offender inserting something of theirs into the victim, not the offender sticking something of the victims into the offender as it requires more than just neutralised terms but a re-written law entirely.

You did state in the first reply that you think an erection equals consent (and then you say it again lower down), so there's no sense in pretending that I'm making things up. Also you're still to state why it would be "messy" to say that forced intercourse is rape when it's very clear what constitutes forced intercourse - except for your belief that somehow all men are capable of physically stopping all women no matter their state

Regarding the last bit - that wouldn't make sense, since a vagina cannot be inserted into something. It's designed to receive, not to give. A penis on the other hand is for inserting.

Hence any forced copulation. Again.

Technical use is key. Again, consent would be difficult to prove had a woman forcefully inserted a penis into herself. The court would have to see the prosecution and the offence battle over important questions, such as: If the male victim protested why was it inside the woman? If he is erect - why? Not everyone has an erection out of fear - the prosecution and the defence will have to battle over that. Did the offender think the victim was consenting and had a reasonable belief that the victim was consenting? If so, why does the prosecution think they didn't? If the victim was protesting, how did the penis stay in the vagina throughout the entire event? Why did they not escape? These are common questions the court considers, with greater emphasis placed on incapacity, intoxication etc.

This whole paragraph is utterly disgusting and shows that you know nothing about rape or biology. You're saying that an erect penis means that the guy totes wants it and if he isn't able to push her away he also totes wants it. Would you say "why didn't you escape?" to a female rape victim and ask her why there was vaginal fluid present if she wasn't aroused? As I said before, it's exactly the same because it's a natural biological response to a stimuli.

Back to the US case, it wouldn't be rape or any of the main four offences had it been in the UK as again, the child consented (at least from the facts of the case). Having sex with a consenting party isn't an assault unless the party lacks the capacity to neither consent or not consent e.g. babies.

...Or children. You claim to have some legal background yet you're stating outright that minors can lawfully consent when that's the complete opposite of the truth.

As the boy consented

Not legally

first on the grounds of a technical, physical limitation that only men can rape

Again not true, again you've proved nothing other than your own misunderstanding of sex.

and then later (after reading the case more) that even if women could rape it couldn't be rape as consent was alive between both of the relevant parties.

Aaaaaaaaand also not true since minors can't consent by law.

And it isn't - again, asserting your opinion before fact.

So you don't think forced copulation is rape. Right. Argument over since you are clearly not as intelligent as previously thought.

It's like stating "Let's make something clear - immigration is the biggest problem in the United Kingdom today." It's subjective.

Not at all, that's a ridiculous false equivalence. HOW VERY UNDERTAKER OF YOU!!!!111

And life imprisonment isn't actually life.

It's a hell of a lot more than 6 months

Women are not immune... They clearly are not as they were all found guilty of their actions in the very cases you linked to. If they were immune, they would have walked away from the court as a free person. But clearly not. Again, you let passion overlook reason.

What argument are you in here? They very clearly are immune to certain rulings which is the entire point. If red car drivers can't be found guilty of drink driving but can be sentenced for wreckless endangerment they are immune to the former law despite still having a lesser charge.

Had the law stated assault by penetration included a woman inserting her victim's penis into her vagina (penetration), there would be no argument as it would hold the same punishment as rape and, as far as the law is concerned, would be treated the same.

I still don't get why you're talking as though I'm arguing against what the law is rather than should be.

Kardan

19-01-2014, 11:31 PM

It's strange to read a debate in current affairs that doesn't involve -:Undertaker:-;

Edited by Drewar (Forum Moderator): Please do not post pointlessly or off topic, thanks :)

GommeInc

19-01-2014, 11:44 PM

You did state in the first reply that you think an erection equals consent (and then you say it again lower down), so there's no sense in pretending that I'm making things up. Also you're still to state why it would be "messy" to say that forced intercourse is rape when it's very clear what constitutes forced intercourse - except for your belief that somehow all men are capable of physically stopping all women no matter their state
Second post actually. Also I never stated it was my belief - show me where I said "I believe..." I'm quoting the Home Office Report, which I paraphrased for you, as well as case law and statute. Also I clearly said it would be messy for the courts to decide - again, consent is incredibly to difficult and is one of the main offences in UK and indeed human law where the prosecution must also prove why they did not consent as well as the defender believing they did consent.

This whole paragraph is utterly disgusting and shows that you know nothing about rape or biology. You're saying that an erect penis means that the guy totes wants it and if he isn't able to push her away he also totes wants it. Would you say "why didn't you escape?" to a female rape victim and ask her why there was vaginal fluid present if she wasn't aroused? As I said before, it's exactly the same because it's a natural biological response to a stimuli.
And again, the courts will find it difficult to prove. The prosecution may argue it was an ordinary reaction as you say, and the defence may argue that he clearly wanted sex because he had an erection. Don't be disgusted, it's how courts operate. Doesn't mean I agree with it either. Also, according to one report men are only likely to report a sexual offence they are a victim of IF they were in a relationship with another girl and were made to feel like they were cheating on their partner, plus coupled with men already being terrible at reporting crimes it is no wonder conviction rates are low.

...Or children. You claim to have some legal background yet you're stating outright that minors can lawfully consent when that's the complete opposite of the truth.
Where did I say they lawfully consent? :rolleyes: Children can consent, BUT they have no legal capacity to consent. This is incredibly obvious. You clearly have yet again ignored my comments. If a child says yes to sex or no to sex it is irrelevant as it is still an offence, because they are either under 16 or under 13. Many of these cases the offender states the child consents, which they believe allows them to act and they claim had they said no they would not. Whatever the response, they are still guilty of sex with a child - the law states the offences involving children. To remind you, the law is the Sexual Offences Act - child rape is an offence, not a law.

Not legally
Precisely.

Again not true, again you've proved nothing other than your own misunderstanding of sex.
This is in law and the reason behind it :rolleyes: Yet to say that was my understanding.

Aaaaaaaaand also not true since minors can't consent by law.
It's strange you say this, when you clearly didn't take your advice and answer above. Children can consent, but they can't 'consent by law'. Law being the key word.

So you don't think forced copulation is rape. Right. Argument over since you are clearly not as intelligent as previously thought.
Not under the law, no. Again, I was calling you out for being ignorant of the law from the first post and again having to remind you that the 3 cases you so poorly cited were not even the 4 main sexual offences under the act. You were making up information to promote your argument, when actually the truth was far from what you were claiming from your initial post. You also stated they got away with their crimes when even the links you referred to mentions the punishment and the crimes they were committed of. Daily Mail came to mind when reading it, for over-exaggerating claims and to some extent making it up as you go along. For some reason you're not even aware that 16 and 17 year olds are at or over the age of consent, which is quite shocking. Also you're hardly intelligent for first thinking sexual assault means sexual offence, and again thinking sexual assault can involve no touching at all when under the law that isn't true - then go on to cite an Australian case when the last time I checked Australia has no jurisdiction here.

Not at all, that's a ridiculous false equivalence. HOW VERY UNDERTAKER OF YOU!!!!111
No it isn't. It's subjective. A woman could force a man to have sex with him and the offence could have a different name but the same punishment - it need not be labelled rape. Rape is clear and precise, much like assault, another offence which has a clear definition. The problem, as I stated in my first post, is that women who commit an offence where she forces a man to have sex with him appears to not have a long prison sentence. You then went on to disagree to agree.

It's a hell of a lot more than 6 months
I see you take the lowest number. Most of the time it will be 10 years, seeing as many of these cases are referred to the Crown Court who has the power to give tougher sentences. It helps to do some research rather than take an extremist view without knowing numbers. That way you end up not wasting the time of others with false information. Arguably, the Magistrates Court is an irrelevant party, seeing as it's rare for sexual offences to end in the court - many are forwarded to the Crown Court or, if the Magistrates Court sentences someone or deems they are innocent, they will be appealed against and sent to the Crown Court for a jury to decide anyway.

What argument are you in here? They very clearly are immune to certain rulings which is the entire point. If red car drivers can't be found guilty of drink driving but can be sentenced for wreckless endangerment they are immune to the former law despite still having a lesser charge.
Ah so now you're loosening your argument to now say "certain things" make women immune. Make your mind up, either they are immune which you seemed to suggest they are entirely, or they're not. It's the same law - again, you're ignorant to the terms. Rape is an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the law. There is no rape law, its an offence. Huge difference.

I still don't get why you're talking as though I'm arguing against what the law is rather than should be.
Because you are. In fact, you're actually doing both - arguing against the law and stating what it should be. In post #18 you stated "Yes because statute law doesn't allow for females to be convicted of rape despite being a huge percentage of the perpetrators." You are arguing against what the law is, that the law doesn't allow for females to be convicted of rape. Also your view on what the law should be is too wide a definition which would not work seeing as you seem to think non-penetrative sex should be rape too, where touching and non-touching should be rape. I gave a much better suggestion that, instead of removing clearly different offences and making just one sexual offence labelled rape, the definition of one or some of the offences could include where force is used e.g. "(A ) intentionally sticks the penis of (B) in to her vagina" ... "A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life." That way you please the historians and those aware that women are also capable of forcing men to have sex with them.

FlyingJesus

20-01-2014, 12:29 AM

Second post actually. Also I never stated it was my belief - show me where I said "I believe..." I'm quoting the Home Office Report, which I paraphrased for you, as well as case law and statute. Also I clearly said it would be messy for the courts to decide - again, consent is incredibly to difficult and is one of the main offences in UK and indeed human law where the prosecution must also prove why they did not consent as well as the defender believing they did consent.

It's difficult to show consent in court yes, never said otherwise. Saying "oh well we might as well ignore entirely whether the males wanted it since that would make it harder" is just stupid.

And again, the courts will find it difficult to prove. The prosecution may argue it was an ordinary reaction as you say, and the defence may argue that he clearly wanted sex because he had an erection. Don't be disgusted, it's how courts operate. Doesn't mean I agree with it either. Also, according to one report men are only likely to report a sexual offence they are a victim of IF they were in a relationship with another girl and were made to feel like they were cheating on their partner, plus coupled with men already being terrible at reporting crimes it is no wonder conviction rates are low.

Still still still still still still still still still the same whether the perp or victim is male or female. This is not difficult.

Where did I say they lawfully consent? :rolleyes: Children can consent, BUT they have no legal capacity to consent. This is incredibly obvious. You clearly have yet again ignored my comments. If a child says yes to sex or no to sex it is irrelevant as it is still an offence, because they are either under 16 or under 13. Many of these cases the offender states the child consents, which they believe allows them to act and they claim had they said no they would not. Whatever the response, they are still guilty of sex with a child - the law states the offences involving children. To remind you, the law is the Sexual Offences Act - child rape is an offence, not a law.

"it wouldn't be rape or any of the main four offences had it been in the UK as again, the child consented". If it's not lawful it's not consent. A child saying yeah go for it isn't consent at all - it's not lawful or unlawful consent because they literally lack the capacity to give consent, just like I lack the capacity to command armed forces. You have two options here: you can either say that the law is final and that's your argument, therefore children can't consent and women can't rape "because", or you can say that AS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE DISCUSSION GOES the law is not infallible and the terms laid out by it are written incorrectly. You can't pick one from each column.

Not under the law, no. Again, I was calling you out for being ignorant of the law from the first post and again having to remind you that the 3 cases you so poorly cited were not even the 4 main sexual offences under the act. You were making up information to promote your argument, when actually the truth was far from what you were claiming from your initial post. You also stated they got away with their crimes when even the links you referred to mentions the punishment and the crimes they were committed of. Daily Mail came to mind when reading it, for over-exaggerating claims and to some extent making it up as you go along. For some reason you're not even aware that 16 and 17 year olds are at or over the age of consent, which is quite shocking. Also you're hardly intelligent for first thinking sexual assault means sexual offence, and again thinking sexual assault can involve no touching at all when under the law that isn't true - then go on to cite an Australian case when the last time I checked Australia has no jurisdiction here.

brb ignoring the entire point of the thread again

I see you take the lowest number. Most of the time it will be 10 years, seeing as many of these cases are referred to the Crown Court who has the power to give tougher sentences. It helps to do some research rather than take an extremist view without knowing numbers. That way you end up not wasting the time of others with false information. Arguably, the Magistrates Court is an irrelevant party, seeing as it's rare for sexual offences to end in the court - many are forwarded to the Crown Court or, if the Magistrates Court sentences someone or deems they are innocent, they will be appealed against and sent to the Crown Court for a jury to decide anyway.

If they really do usually get the maximum sentence (which doesn't appear to be the case) 10 years is still not life. They are not the same sentences.

Ah so now you're loosening your argument to now say "certain things" make women immune. Make your mind up, either they are immune which you seemed to suggest they are entirely, or they're not.

What no learn to read. They are IMMUNE TO CERTAIN SENTENCING. This is a fact since women cannot currently be sentenced as rapists. There aren't "certain things that make women immune" and that isn't what I said. This is so basic I can't believe you're still not getting it.

It's the same law - again, you're ignorant to the terms. Rape is an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the law. There is no rape law, its an offence. Huge difference.

The law covers offences, and certain of those offences are not applicable to female-born persons. The difference in the wording of "the law doesn't see women as possible rapists" and "the law doesn't see women as possible rapists" is non-existent.

Because you are. In fact, you're actually doing both - arguing against the law and stating what it should be. In post #18 you stated "Yes because statute law doesn't allow for females to be convicted of rape despite being a huge percentage of the perpetrators." You are arguing against what the law is, that the law doesn't allow for females to be convicted of rape.

Well quite simply... no. You're making out like I'm saying "the law is X" when it isn't, but what's actually happening is I'm saying "the law should be Y". I'm arguing against the law in the sense that I don't think the current law makes sense, but I'm not saying that the law is anything that it isn't. You keep bringing up what the law says at the moment when that's entirely the opposite of the point.

Also your view on what the law should be is too wide a definition which would not work seeing as you seem to think non-penetrative sex should be rape too, where touching and non-touching should be rape. I gave a much better suggestion that, instead of removing clearly different offences and making just one sexual offence labelled rape, the definition of one or some of the offences could include where force is used e.g. "(A ) intentionally sticks the penis of (B) in to her vagina" ... "A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life." That way you please the historians and those aware that women are also capable of forcing men to have sex with them.

I don't think non-penetrative sex should be called rape, I've never said that and have continuously used the phrase "forced intercourse". I have no idea where you're getting these ideas that I think looking at someone is rape because I have not ever said those things, and your suggestion is not better at all since you're arguing against an idea that doesn't exist - I never said that all sexual offences should be called rape. As for pleasing historians, I really couldn't care less. I'd prefer a justice system that's actually just than to not cause a few people to get huffy over history.

GommeInc

20-01-2014, 12:55 PM

It's difficult to show consent in court yes, never said otherwise. Saying "oh well we might as well ignore entirely whether the males wanted it since that would make it harder" is just stupid.
Agreed, hence why I said in my first post women seem to get lenient sentences in comparison. I think you took my explanation of why the law focused on men a bit too seriously, as if I agreed with it. I was posting it merely to add information to a really empty thread as you seemed to just insert opinion and got people raging over a piece of legislation without telling them what it is, or why it came to be. The definition of rape was missing and even the offence that she committed. I was the first person to really point out what offence she committed and the problem with the sentencing - you just went on some tangent without providing any sources or information.

"it wouldn't be rape or any of the main four offences had it been in the UK as again, the child consented". If it's not lawful it's not consent. A child saying yeah go for it isn't consent at all - it's not lawful or unlawful consent because they literally lack the capacity to give consent, just like I lack the capacity to command armed forces. You have two options here: you can either say that the law is final and that's your argument, therefore children can't consent and women can't rape "because", or you can say that AS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE DISCUSSION GOES the law is not infallible and the terms laid out by it are written incorrectly. You can't pick one from each column.
Wrong, even when unlawful consent is made it helps determine the seriousness of the offences. Hence why it wouldn't be rape. Also, dictating people in an argument is pathetic. Don't do it, you'll be laughed at in any formal capacity. Also the law for most part is good, but I disagree with the two offences of rape and assault by penetration (versus the countless other offences which are gender-neutral). Again, you've mixed the words law and offence, which is becoming tiresome :rolleyes: Also I suggest you understand consent as it is imperative that you actually understand it rather than make an uneducated guess at what it means. Where someone under 16 consents and someone under 13 consents you get different outcomes, particularly where the D didn't reasonably believe they were under those ages (although Under 13 and you're pretty much a child rapist/abuser). Lawful consent does indeed reign supreme, but vis-a-vis consent can determine just how guilty of any offence the defendant actually is. I suppose one way to describe it is: communicative consent "Yes, have sex with me" and lawful consent "The law dictates this". At the time of the event, the under 16/13 said "yes" which created the offence. If there was no consent, then force or power must have been used - this is where seriousness is measured. It's consent from a "willingness" and a "forced" perspective. Going back to rape and assault by penetration, the offence is made when force is used due to a lack of consent. Your problem is you only look at one part of the legislation. Have you even bothered to read s.75 and s.76? Because they're incredibly important - they are the evidential and conclusive assumptions used for many of the offences. Judging by your only reference to the Act, you decided to skip out a large proportion of the law which is incredibly misleading, but I sort of expected it from a evidentially sensationalist discussion from the very first post.

Regarding the US case, the student was over 14 so any provisions for under 13s can be discarded. Position of trust provisions apply because there is a teacher involved. The student was happy to have sexual intercourse with the teacher, hence there was a verbal agreement made (communicated consent). But, as is the problem, they are under 16 and therefore not legally allowed to make that consent. A similar example as far as principles go is when children were buying games off of iTunes to use on their iPads. The children agreed to be part of the sale, but they were not in a position to actually be allowed to form part of the sale (I believe iTunes states an age limit or at least they should be a bill payer). The offence even includes where the victims penis is put into the defendant, although why this doesn't apply to the more general offences which are the basis for this debate is beyond me. It looks like they had a brainstorm part way down and forgot to alter the more important offences.

brb ignoring the entire point of the thread again
So you think a debate should have as little information regarding current circumstances as possible? So if a debate were to happen regarding climate change, if I were to say "man didn't cause it" you wouldn't provide information on the contrary? I must have lost the point of debates a long time ago. It seems like double standards are coming into play here - you countlessly argue in other threads that lack information about how misleading they are, yet you seem to happily do it here. I won't totally agree with someone who only wants people to agree with them, with no discussion.

If they really do usually get the maximum sentence (which doesn't appear to be the case) 10 years is still not life. They are not the same sentences.
Proof of this? You can't just spew it out and make daft, sweeping assumptions. It's pretty obvious they get given the upper sentence. The Magistrates Court nearly always diverts sexual offences cases to the Crown Court because they need to be looked closely, something the Magistrates Court lacks the time for. If they are heard in the Magistrates Court and the defendant is found innocent, the victim can appeal and it goes up to the Crown Court or Court of Appeal - if they do not appeal the decision then they are either hiding something from the Courts (seeing as after a hearing they will be given options and as it's a Criminal Law dispute it is of no cost to them, especially when their solicitors would have already built up the case for the courts to hear) or unbelievably stupid if they do not want justice.

What no learn to read. They are IMMUNE TO CERTAIN SENTENCING. This is a fact since women cannot currently be sentenced as rapists. There aren't "certain things that make women immune" and that isn't what I said. This is so basic I can't believe you're still not getting it.
So why not say it to begin with? You stated: "Female teachers seem to get away with this all the time" when that is not the case, and even went on to cite 3 cases which all involved people at or above age of consent, completely irrelevant to your argument. The thread is about rape (or a more general description - non-consenting sex) and rape with those under the age of consent. Even your main story involves consent, albeit not in a legal capacity, is still something the law considers even if the defendant is male. You're mixing up really specific offences of abuse of position of trust and rape. Rape is really easy to determine even if you were to change it to be neutral and to allow for the victim to enter the offender - s.56 and s.76. However, there should be harsher penalties for those who clearly knew they were committing an offence as was the case here and my original point.

The law covers offences, and certain of those offences are not applicable to female-born persons. The difference in the wording of "the law doesn't see women as possible rapists" and "the law doesn't see women as possible rapists" is non-existent.
Actually you can be born female and be labelled a rapist, but it requires an operation. Again, you're not that aware of the law. But that's not the point.

Well quite simply... no. You're making out like I'm saying "the law is X" when it isn't, but what's actually happening is I'm saying "the law should be Y". I'm arguing against the law in the sense that I don't think the current law makes sense, but I'm not saying that the law is anything that it isn't. You keep bringing up what the law says at the moment when that's entirely the opposite of the point.
Yes but if you really want to make sense in a debate you ought to state the current state of the law rather than go on a rant. Also my problem was with your suggestion of what the law should be, because you do not seem to understand what consent is and how it works in a legal capacity. You made this blatantly clear when you quoted the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in post #13 but omitted the bit that says "(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section" which is about consent.

I don't think non-penetrative sex should be called rape, I've never said that and have continuously used the phrase "forced intercourse". I have no idea where you're getting these ideas that I think looking at someone is rape because I have not ever said those things, and your suggestion is not better at all since you're arguing against an idea that doesn't exist - I never said that all sexual offences should be called rape. As for pleasing historians, I really couldn't care less. I'd prefer a justice system that's actually just than to not cause a few people to get huffy over history.
So you said "rape is sex with an unconsenting (non-consenting) party pure and simple" in post #16 because...? You'd be laughed at for saying sex - sex could mean a numerous number of things. Also you mis-understand what consent is which further makes your suggestion incredibly difficult to determine. According to you those under the supervision of others must be raped even if they are above the legal age of consent are non-consenting - a contradiction in terms - this is referring to the 3 cases you so cited to support your claim. Consent was/is easy to determine in these - sexual age of consent is 16, all the victims were above the age of 16 but below the age of having sex with someone in a position of trust. Even in the US case, had it been in the UK, it would not be rape as rape must fit in with the s.75 and 76 presumptions regarding force, threat of violence, detainment etc. It would appear a bit harsh to label a man a rapist who unknowingly had sex with a 15 year old - the court needs to determine how he needs to have reasonably believed the 15 year old was above 16, which is crucial. It's strangely common, which doesn't help the debate that girls who slap make-up on "deserve it" because they look older than they should do, although if you're careless to go around having sex with anyone so easily without knowing them you probably deserve to be punished.

FlyingJesus

20-01-2014, 08:23 PM

Agreed, hence why I said in my first post women seem to get lenient sentences in comparison. I think you took my explanation of why the law focused on men a bit too seriously, as if I agreed with it. I was posting it merely to add information to a really empty thread as you seemed to just insert opinion and got people raging over a piece of legislation without telling them what it is, or why it came to be. The definition of rape was missing and even the offence that she committed. I was the first person to really point out what offence she committed and the problem with the sentencing - you just went on some tangent without providing any sources or information.

Yes, when you came out with a load of stuff that had nothing to do with what I was saying I took it to be your opinion. Why on earth you're still after several explanations believing that the current law has any bearing on the reality of what an offence entails is beyond me. All you've been doing is repeating "but the law says..." as an attempt to somehow prove a non-existent point; all of your responses take the line of "the law says X therefore X is true" which is argumentum ab auctoritate especially in a thread that's talking about how the current law is wrong. Again. Repeating myself because you keep ignoring it.

Wrong, even when unlawful consent is made it helps determine the seriousness of the offences. Hence why it wouldn't be rape. Also, dictating people in an argument is pathetic. Don't do it, you'll be laughed at in any formal capacity.

Stating two outcomes that cannot be mixed isn't dictating you, it's giving you the only logical options and attempting to stop your hugely fallacious posts that are arguing something that isn't being said. In "any formal capacity" you'd be laughed at for not actually responding to the issue at hand.

Also the law for most part is good, but I disagree with the two offences of rape and assault by penetration (versus the countless other offences which are gender-neutral). Again, you've mixed the words law and offence, which is becoming tiresome :rolleyes: Also I suggest you understand consent as it is imperative that you actually understand it rather than make an uneducated guess at what it means. Where someone under 16 consents and someone under 13 consents you get different outcomes, particularly where the D didn't reasonably believe they were under those ages (although Under 13 and you're pretty much a child rapist/abuser). Lawful consent does indeed reign supreme, but vis-a-vis consent can determine just how guilty of any offence the defendant actually is. I suppose one way to describe it is: communicative consent "Yes, have sex with me" and lawful consent "The law dictates this". At the time of the event, the under 16/13 said "yes" which created the offence. If there was no consent, then force or power must have been used - this is where seriousness is measured. It's consent from a "willingness" and a "forced" perspective. Going back to rape and assault by penetration, the offence is made when force is used due to a lack of consent. Your problem is you only look at one part of the legislation. Have you even bothered to read s.75 and s.76? Because they're incredibly important - they are the evidential and conclusive assumptions used for many of the offences. Judging by your only reference to the Act, you decided to skip out a large proportion of the law which is incredibly misleading, but I sort of expected it from a evidentially sensationalist discussion from the very first post.

Yet again you're telling me that I'm misunderstanding phrases whilst yourself switching between legal and personal terms. By law, which is what you were talking about, a child cannot consent. Saying yes and wanting it are on a personal level consenting actions but in legal terms it will not be consent because they are literally unable to consent in the eyes of the law. What you're describing is the sentencing procedure and taking account of reasonable belief and such is only relevant to determining an offence that the defendant may or may not have made - it doesn't mean that the minor suddenly has the power of consent, just that the defendant mistook them for someone who did. Again I could pretend to be a commanding officer of arms and tell a troop to invade a neighbour, but their belief that I was truly such a person doesn't make it real.

So you think a debate should have as little information regarding current circumstances as possible? So if a debate were to happen regarding climate change, if I were to say "man didn't cause it" you wouldn't provide information on the contrary? I must have lost the point of debates a long time ago. It seems like double standards are coming into play here - you countlessly argue in other threads that lack information about how misleading they are, yet you seem to happily do it here. I won't totally agree with someone who only wants people to agree with them, with no discussion.

You're not giving a discussion though. You're just saying that my terms are wrong because the law says a certain thing concerning them, when *+*YeT aGaiiN*+* I'm talking about how wrong the wording of the law is. This is literally what's happening here -

Me: I disagree with this wording and the judicial system's responses to certain heinous acts
You: BUT THE LAW SAYS THAT IT'S THIS WAY
Me: Yes it does, but I'm disagreeing with their terminology
You: BUT THIS IS HOW THE LAW DEFINES IT

Information on what the law currently is isn't harmful of course, but using it as the argument itself is stupid and well off-tangent.

Proof of this? You can't just spew it out and make daft, sweeping assumptions. It's pretty obvious they get given the upper sentence.

This might be the most hilarious line you've ever come up with. Read it again and see what you've done here.

So why not say it to begin with? You stated: "Female teachers seem to get away with this all the time" when that is not the case

[Citation needed]

and even went on to cite 3 cases which all involved people at or above age of consent, completely irrelevant to your argument. The thread is about rape (or a more general description - non-consenting sex) and rape with those under the age of consent.

Hmm nope it's about how females get considerably lighter sentences on sexual offences than males and how they're fully immune to certain rulings.

Even your main story involves consent, albeit not in a legal capacity, is still something the law considers even if the defendant is male. You're mixing up really specific offences of abuse of position of trust and rape. Rape is really easy to determine even if you were to change it to be neutral and to allow for the victim to enter the offender - s.56 and s.76. However, there should be harsher penalties for those who clearly knew they were committing an offence as was the case here and my original point.

Referring to more than one crime when looking at a whole range of crimes is not mixing things up. On the latter three I purposely didn't use the term rape, and you ever since have just been assuming things about my argument that keep on proving to be completely inaccurate and based on things I haven't said.

Actually you can be born female and be labelled a rapist, but it requires an operation. Again, you're not that aware of the law. But that's not the point.

Apologies, that part I did misread. The specifics are that "penis" includes a surgically constructed penis if it forms part of A and "vagina" includes a surgically constructed vagina (together with any surgically constructed vulva), if it forms part of B which is nice and trans-inclusive but does mean that they clearly equate womanhood with perpetual victimhood :P

Yes but if you really want to make sense in a debate you ought to state the current state of the law rather than go on a rant. Also my problem was with your suggestion of what the law should be, because you do not seem to understand what consent is and how it works in a legal capacity. You made this blatantly clear when you quoted the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in post #13 but omitted the bit that says "(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section" which is about consent.

The current state of the law is that females cannot be convicted of rape and serve lesser punishments for the same crimes as their male counterparts. You don't need details and poorly-worded excerpts to know that this is a disgusting state of affairs. As for 75 and 76, why would they suddenly disappear if the wording about requiring a penis to rape was changed?

So you said "rape is sex with an unconsenting (non-consenting) party pure and simple" in post #16 because...? You'd be laughed at for saying sex - sex could mean a numerous number of things.

This was cleared up literally one post later.

Also you mis-understand what consent is which further makes your suggestion incredibly difficult to determine. According to you those under the supervision of others must be raped even if they are above the legal age of consent are non-consenting - a contradiction in terms - this is referring to the 3 cases you so cited to support your claim.

Ahh yes those 3 cases that I cited as being sexual assault, not rape. That totally shows what you're claiming.

Consent was/is easy to determine in these - sexual age of consent is 16, all the victims were above the age of 16 but below the age of having sex with someone in a position of trust.

Superb news. Totally irrelevant because I didn't call those rape cases, but thanks for again misreading my argument entirely, it's really fun. The only one I've called rape in this thread is the one with the 14 year old.

GommeInc

21-01-2014, 12:54 AM

Yes, when you came out with a load of stuff that had nothing to do with what I was saying I took it to be your opinion. Why on earth you're still after several explanations believing that the current law has any bearing on the reality of what an offence entails is beyond me. All you've been doing is repeating "but the law says..." as an attempt to somehow prove a non-existent point; all of your responses take the line of "the law says X therefore X is true" which is argumentum ab auctoritate especially in a thread that's talking about how the current law is wrong. Again. Repeating myself because you keep ignoring it.
They had a lot to do with what you were saying. You were talking about rape, I referred to the Alabama law on rape and then the UK stance (someone said even in the UK the law is bad). You may as well spill out the facts of the current stance so readers know what rape is and why it is gender specific, so I referred to the relevant law to add to the discussion. In hindsight I probably did it badly (9 to 6 lectures with minimal breaks and learning about Human Rights makes you lose your senses on a Friday :P) Also I didn't say law says X so must be true, it was more "law says X therefore X is true regarding the current circumstances".

Stating two outcomes that cannot be mixed isn't dictating you, it's giving you the only logical options and attempting to stop your hugely fallacious posts that are arguing something that isn't being said. In "any formal capacity" you'd be laughed at for not actually responding to the issue at hand.
My point was that I cannot agree that the law must be wrong when the law is mostly fine. If you said that the criterion for the offences of rape or assault by penetration was wrong I'd agree. The law seems rushed, like many "recent" post-millennium laws and didn't future proof itself at all or allow itself to be altered by case-law, which is what I'm more interested in.

Yet again you're telling me that I'm misunderstanding phrases whilst yourself switching between legal and personal terms. By law, which is what you were talking about, a child cannot consent. Saying yes and wanting it are on a personal level consenting actions but in legal terms it will not be consent because they are literally unable to consent in the eyes of the law. What you're describing is the sentencing procedure and taking account of reasonable belief and such is only relevant to determining an offence that the defendant may or may not have made - it doesn't mean that the minor suddenly has the power of consent, just that the defendant mistook them for someone who did. Again I could pretend to be a commanding officer of arms and tell a troop to invade a neighbour, but their belief that I was truly such a person doesn't make it real.
But they may fear or believe you are the commanding officer - I am sure I have seen somewhere someone or something believing a man to be some famous, powerful person when he wasn't it. That would be a good example but can't for the life of me think of what it was about. Also in terms of rape it is imperative you use s.75 and 76 of the legislation, not just what you quoted from the sexual offences act originally. Otherwise the court would think "what does "not reasonably consented" mean? The presumptions determines the different forms that consent may not have come in - they involve threat of violence, unlawful detainment which I stated or at hinted are important for you to consider in your suggested definition or change to the offence of rape.

Also the law splits up child sexual offences to be between under 13s (of which the child in this case was not) and under 16s (which the child was in this case).

You're not giving a discussion though. You're just saying that my terms are wrong because the law says a certain thing concerning them, when *+*YeT aGaiiN*+* I'm talking about how wrong the wording of the law is. This is literally what's happening here -

Me: I disagree with this wording and the judicial system's responses to certain heinous acts
You: BUT THE LAW SAYS THAT IT'S THIS WAY
Me: Yes it does, but I'm disagreeing with their terminology
You: BUT THIS IS HOW THE LAW DEFINES IT

Information on what the law currently is isn't harmful of course, but using it as the argument itself is stupid and well off-tangent.
Actually my suggestions for what rape should be were from my opinion and not that of the law. You stated somewhere what it should be and that was that it should use gender-neutral terms. I explained that it wouldn't work. Making the law gender neutral would not be enough if you wanted the woman charged with rape, as you would need to go beyond replacing "he" or even making he become gender-inclusive which the English law usually is (he meaning anyone). Using your suggestion of making it gender neutral would change the wording to "she penetrates with her penis" which obviously wouldn't make sense, and that it focuses on the offender doing the penetration when, as we have established, a victim could penetrate against his volition. You actually have to change the wording to make it cover women, to the extent that maybe a new form of rape should exist under the law which covers women inserting her victims penis into her vagina, mouth and anus. I think you may have not read it properly and assumed I was quoting the law somewhre, but I was actually interested to see what your definition should be and how you would think it should be worded given these criticisms, as just saying gender-neutral wouldn't work.

This might be the most hilarious line you've ever come up with. Read it again and see what you've done here.
Ah took a while to get this :P One of the first things you learn about the system is how the court hierarchy works and generally speaking the Magistrates forwards on serious crimes to the Crown Court. To put it in context you could read the overview of sexual offences report:

Sexual Offending Overview January 2013 (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214970/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf)

There were 5,778 cases of sexual activity with minors in 2011, with which 1,500 were held in a Magistrates' Court. This means 4,278 cases of sexual activity were held in the Crown Court (5,778 - 1,500). 75% of these cases were found guilty in the Crown Court. So that is (10% = 427.8, 5% = 213.9. 427.6 x 7 = 2,993.2 + 213.9 =) 3,207. Now if my calculations are correct, that's double the number even held in the Magistrates' Court to begin with. Now only 1,300 defenders were found guilty in the Magistrates' Court of the offence. So 1,300 measured up against 3,207? That's nearly 3 times as much. Therefore, the majority of these cases are held and are found to be guilty in the Crown Court. So that means they really are given 14 years for offences against minors (referring to post #26).

[Citation needed]
Post #4. "Female teachers seem to get away with this all the time". You then you cited 3 cases which evidently show they do not get away with committing sexual offences (their punishments either appear in the news articles you linked to or can be found on Google).

Hmm nope it's about how females get considerably lighter sentences on sexual offences than males and how they're fully immune to certain rulings.
Not exactly. Other than rape, they get the same sentences for sexual offences as men. I believe you mentioned in Post #4 that men who commit sexual offences generally get labelled or treated worse. The problem is not with the law (other than for the already discussed offence of rape), but with society. If a man has sex with a 17 year old student and a woman does the same, both should be treated as sexual offenders irrespective of their genders, and society ought to learn this - but how is up for discussion.

Referring to more than one crime when looking at a whole range of crimes is not mixing things up. On the latter three I purposely didn't use the term rape, and you ever since have just been assuming things about my argument that keep on proving to be completely inaccurate and based on things I haven't said.
So why mention them? As you have said, this thread is about changing the definition of rape to also include women. You also said "female teachers seem to get away with this all the time" - what is "this"? As you thought the teacher in the first post is guilty of rape, then "this" must certainly mean rape as that is the topic of discussion - you have made it clear countless times that this is the point of the thread. At the point of saying "this" you hadn't discussed any other offences - you mentioned sexual assault, but this was stating how it sounds more lenient to rape (although if you had discussed sexual assault, "this" would not make sense seeing as the three cases resulted in sexual assault or abuse of trust specifically, so they did not get away with "this").

After you said "Female teachers seem to get away with this all the time", you said "here are three recent cases of female teachers sexually abusing their students and getting no jail time at all and even congratulations, while men get death threats and castration requests no matter how serious the crime and whether the victim was complicit or not." I can only assume those 3 cases must be thought of as rape cases seeing as you reference them in this thread when your point is clearly that the law on rape is sexist. Now either you were careless, by mentioning these cases which are irrelevant to this discussion or were trying to make a point that doesn't seem to be obvious to me.

Perhaps you wrote it wrong in the heat of the moment? To be fair after reading your replies you've made a good argument and clearly you're passionate about this, which is commendable.

Apologies, that part I did misread. The specifics are that "penis" includes a surgically constructed penis if it forms part of A and "vagina" includes a surgically constructed vagina (together with any surgically constructed vulva), if it forms part of B which is nice and trans-inclusive but does mean that they clearly equate womanhood with perpetual victimhood :P
I like how so much thought went into that when they wrote up the report. Why they stopped there is beyond reason. They must have felt so good about themselves when writing those specifications that they thought the rest is easy and completely ignored women causing coitus not necessarily being the object of it. Had they been careless when defining rape it wouldn't surprise me if judges would jump on it and say "women can force a man to have sex with them" and leave it at that. Case law and judges are usually good at adding offenders to offences. In fact, I may see if there is a case where a woman forced a man to have sex with him, or had sex with a man while he was intoxicated, and see if there is a judgment by a judge where they disagree with the law, and share it with you.

The current state of the law is that females cannot be convicted of rape and serve lesser punishments for the same crimes as their male counterparts. You don't need details and poorly-worded excerpts to know that this is a disgusting state of affairs. As for 75 and 76, why would they suddenly disappear if the wording about requiring a penis to rape was changed?
You missed out s.75 and 76 when you first quoted the Act. I assumed you meant they are irrelevant.

Ahh yes those 3 cases that I cited as being sexual assault, not rape. That totally shows what you're claiming.
Where? You did not explicitly state they were sexual assault. You said sexually abusing. Also, you mentioned them in this thread about rape and claimed they got lenient sentences when even if they were male it would be the same procedure and sentence. They seemed a bit pointless to the discussion of rape.

Superb news. Totally irrelevant because I didn't call those rape cases, but thanks for again misreading my argument entirely, it's really fun. The only one I've called rape in this thread is the one with the 14 year old.
Not misreading it - pointing out issues with it. You have stated your argument is about rape, true? Then why bring those cases into the discussion?

FlyingJesus

21-01-2014, 02:06 AM

But they may fear or believe you are the commanding officer - I am sure I have seen somewhere someone or something believing a man to be some famous, powerful person when he wasn't it.

Yeah just like someone who sleeps with an underage person may have genuinely believed the other party was of age - what I'm getting at with this part is that being mistaken about someone doesn't make you correct, so thinking that a mature-looking 15 year old was old enough to consent could be a genuine mistake rather than someone preying on kids but it doesn't mean that the child suddenly has the power to consent. If that were the case then someone else's mistake could make me a Field Marshall if they're that convinced :P

You stated somewhere what it should be and that was that it should use gender-neutral terms. I explained that it wouldn't work. Making the law gender neutral would not be enough if you wanted the woman charged with rape, as you would need to go beyond replacing "he" or even making he become gender-inclusive which the English law usually is (he meaning anyone). Using your suggestion of making it gender neutral would change the wording to "she penetrates with her penis" which obviously wouldn't make sense, and that it focuses on the offender doing the penetration when, as we have established, a victim could penetrate against his volition. You actually have to change the wording to make it cover women, to the extent that maybe a new form of rape should exist under the law which covers women inserting her victims penis into her vagina, mouth and anus.

A complete re-write including those things is making it gender-neutral. Removing the word "he" obviously wouldn't do anything, especially when as has been mentioned that doesn't actually make it male-exclusive in the first place. Would have thought it was obvious that a re-write was necessary from the very fact that the language is the issue

There were 5,778 cases of sexual activity with minors in 2011, with which 1,500 were held in a Magistrates' Court. This means 4,278 cases of sexual activity were held in the Crown Court (5,778 - 1,500). 75% of these cases were found guilty in the Crown Court. So that is (10% = 427.8, 5% = 213.9. 427.6 x 7 = 2,993.2 + 213.9 =) 3,207. Now if my calculations are correct, that's double the number even held in the Magistrates' Court to begin with. Now only 1,300 defenders were found guilty in the Magistrates' Court of the offence. So 1,300 measured up against 3,207? That's nearly 3 times as much. Therefore, the majority of these cases are held and are found to be guilty in the Crown Court. So that means they really are given 14 years for offences against minors (referring to post #26).

That's very interesting but doesn't actually prove that they got maximum sentencing. A guilty verdict doesn't necessarily make that happen, otherwise there'd be no point in there being court discretion of sentences

Post #4. "Female teachers seem to get away with this all the time". You then you cited 3 cases which evidently show they do not get away with committing sexual offences (their punishments either appear in the news articles you linked to or can be found on Google).

In terms of them essentially getting token punishments for the same crime that a male would have his entire life put in jeopardy, that's getting away with it

Not exactly. Other than rape, they get the same sentences for sexual offences as men. I believe you mentioned in Post #4 that men who commit sexual offences generally get labelled or treated worse. The problem is not with the law (other than for the already discussed offence of rape), but with society. If a man has sex with a 17 year old student and a woman does the same, both should be treated as sexual offenders irrespective of their genders, and society ought to learn this - but how is up for discussion.

I know that the UK and US are different countries with different laws but the same exclusivity issues occur in both with regard to sexual offences, and over there women face just 68% of the jail time as men (http://misformalevolent.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/s-is-for-statistics.html) for the exact same sex crimes and on average across all crime areas just 40% of the jail time (http://permutationofninjas.org/post/21544144182/on-why-most-convicts-are-men-and-it-probably-has). I'd say the law and how it's enforced is certainly also at fault alongside societal problems :P

So why mention them? As you have said, this thread is about changing the definition of rape to also include women. You also said "female teachers seem to get away with this all the time" - what is "this"?

Sexual crime

At the point of saying "this" you hadn't discussed any other offences - you mentioned sexual assault

Which did I do mention it or not mention it

After you said "Female teachers seem to get away with this all the time", you said "here are three recent cases of female teachers sexually abusing their students and getting no jail time at all

Oh right cool I did mention it just like I said

You missed out s.75 and 76 when you first quoted the Act. I assumed you meant they are irrelevant.

I also missed out parts 2, 3, and 4 of Section 1 and everything from Section 2 to 143, doesn't mean I think laws should be written out as one line.

Where? You did not explicitly state they were sexual assault.

Or rape, you made that bit up and went with it

Not misreading it - pointing out issues with it. You have stated your argument is about rape, true? Then why bring those cases into the discussion?

What no I stated that it wasn't just about that only one post ago

GommeInc

21-01-2014, 05:27 PM

Yeah just like someone who sleeps with an underage person may have genuinely believed the other party was of age - what I'm getting at with this part is that being mistaken about someone doesn't make you correct, so thinking that a mature-looking 15 year old was old enough to consent could be a genuine mistake rather than someone preying on kids but it doesn't mean that the child suddenly has the power to consent. If that were the case then someone else's mistake could make me a Field Marshall if they're that convinced :P
I think what applies to this is s.75 and s76, or specifically s.76 about the nature and purpose. Even offenders could be deceived and not know they are committing a crime, and if the victim is fine with it you get a conundrum. The acting party is clearly causing an offence, but what fits the law? Both men and women in this circumstance cannot be convicted of the 4 major offences, unless the victim is under 13 - why this is I don't know, would you guess it's got something to do with sexual education? Because it's the only thing I can think of that splits a 13 and 14 year old apart.

A complete re-write including those things is making it gender-neutral. Removing the word "he" obviously wouldn't do anything, especially when as has been mentioned that doesn't actually make it male-exclusive in the first place. Would have thought it was obvious that a re-write was necessary from the very fact that the language is the issue
Clearly not obvious, as you've only just said this. Plus sexual offences are technical, you can't say "make it gender-neutral" with no suggestions. I stated I was interested to see what you think the law should be. A re-write would not work as the law needs to be clear, precise and understandable. You would have to make an entirely new offence rather than take the current rape offence and re-word it, because a re-write would make the offence jumbled (you can't say penetrates his or their own XYZ) because the law needs to state who the offender is and the victim. You could have under the offence of rape:

A person (A) commits an offence if—

A intentionally penetrates their own vagina, anus or mouth with his (B) penis,
B does not consent to the penetration, and
A does not reasonable believe that B consents.

Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

Would that be a suitable offence? It has the exact same punishment and presumptions as rape, but makes it clear that the victim can penetrate against his volition - so women and men can be the offender for forcing their victim to have sex with them. Although what you would call this I don't know. Reversal rape?

That's very interesting but doesn't actually prove that they got maximum sentencing. A guilty verdict doesn't necessarily make that happen, otherwise there'd be no point in there being court discretion of sentences
Oh it does, the Crown Court in these cases cannot use that much discretion if the crime fits the offences of the law - the Magistrates' on the other hand do, as the offence is 6 months and a discretionary amount paid - you'd get jeopardy and mayhem if the Crown Court said "Hmm, no, we'll reduce it". It certainly wouldn't be as low as the Maigsitrates Court sentence of 6 months, as the Crown Court do not sentence them that low - if they did why would they have not been tried in the Magistrates' Court in the first place? After all they are serious crimes.

In terms of them essentially getting token punishments for the same crime that a male would have his entire life put in jeopardy, that's getting away with it
It is the same crime that a male would be found guilty of - they're not token punishments in the slightest designed for women. Rape is the only gender specific sexual offence that is the problem here. You say this, but go and refer to these irrelevant cases, when even men would have been found guilty of them. These women were causing sexual activity without consent and/or were in position of trust, all of the victims consented to sexual intercourse or, in the case of the virgin game story, were engaged in a sexual activity which was playing this really dodgy game that they clearly did not consent to that involved a position of trust. I thought we established this? A man would have been sentenced the exact same way and have been, I believed I named cases relevant to this. If men in these cases are labelled as rapists then that's not a problem with the law, it's the idiots who think rape is the only offence men can commit :P

I know that the UK and US are different countries with different laws but the same exclusivity issues occur in both with regard to sexual offences, and over there women face just 68% of the jail time as men (http://misformalevolent.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/s-is-for-statistics.html) for the exact same sex crimes and on average across all crime areas just 40% of the jail time (http://permutationofninjas.org/post/21544144182/on-why-most-convicts-are-men-and-it-probably-has). I'd say the law and how it's enforced is certainly also at fault alongside societal problems :P
Blame the US for being stereotypically stupid. As for the UK, other than rape which clearly has problems, the other offences are properly used. If men are labelled rapists for not even having sexual intercourse with a person then those labelling him should have been taken out by natural selection long ago :P

Sexual crime
But they don't, that's my point, or at least they shouldn't as they are clearly guilty of offences and appear to have been found guilty.

Which did I do mention it or not mention it
That's what I'd like to know, you wrote it so poorly. I read it that you were talking about rape, seeing as that's your point of this thread. If you were talking about other offences you weren't being clear, and even then these women didn't get away with it and had they had been men they were have been tried and sentenced the same.

Oh right cool I did mention it just like I said
Yet what you said was wrong, they got jail time. You even agree that it was not rape. So what was your point? You seemed to insert them but seem to think these are crimes only women can be convicted of, when had they had been men they would have been also been found guilty of the exact same crime.

I also missed out parts 2, 3, and 4 of Section 1 and everything from Section 2 to 143, doesn't mean I think laws should be written out as one line.
That's irrelevant. When quoting an offence you quote the offence in its entirety, so readers actually get given the whole facts. Those sections tell the reader that being locked in a room and made to have sex is rape, etc.

Or rape, you made that bit up and went with it. What no I stated that it wasn't just about that only one post ago
So they were pointlessly added for no reason then?

FlyingJesus

21-01-2014, 09:18 PM

You're literally just ignoring everything I'm saying and going "no you didn't" "no it's not" when things have been repeatedly explained.

You're the one who brought in the term gender neutral, you're the one who said a re-write wasn't possible then gave an example of a re-write and claimed that it would work, you're the one who misquoted me as saying that non-rape cases were rape when I didn't, you're the one who misquoted me as saying all sexual assaults should be rape when I didn't, you're the one telling me to post the whole offence and then calling 141 parts of it irrelevant, you're the one mixing up societal and legal terms, you're the one stating that maximum sentences are given for verdicts without proof despite there being proof to the contrary, you're the one ignoring statistics when they don't fit with what you think is real, you're the one flip-flopping between telling me I've said one thing and telling me I've said the other (often when I've said neither), you're the one not understanding what the entire point of the thread is about even after being told time and time again. Please stop making things up that haven't been said, suggested, or even hinted at.

As for "reversal rape", no it's still rape if a woman forces a man into intercourse. Just like "reverse sexism" "reverse racism" and so on aren't things, they are sexism and racism.

GommeInc

21-01-2014, 10:54 PM

You're literally just ignoring everything I'm saying and going "no you didn't" "no it's not" when things have been repeatedly explained.
No they haven't, I pick up obvious flaws in your argument and pick you out on where your argument is weak, and you say this? They haven't been explained, and if they were, why say ignorant things in the first place?

You're the one who brought in the term gender neutral
Proof? I only said it to describe that "he" in UK law generally means "anyone". Even someone else mentioned this. In terms of describing rape, you're the first person to state that the law should be gender-neutral. Your argument throughout this thread is that women should be convicted of rape too, no? There you have it - you want rape to be gender-neutral.

You're the one who said a re-write wasn't possible then gave an example of a re-write and claimed that it would work
Point of this being...? I suggested a new offence, but clearly you ignored that (hence why I said reversed rape) because the suggested offence I gave was about the victim doing the act, keeping the current rape law as it is and that's the offender doing the act. If you disagree with it be mature rather than be pathetic about.

You're the one who misquoted me as saying that non-rape cases were rape when I didn't
I didn't misquote, I quoted it word for word. Don't blame me if you're not very good at presenting an argument by going off on an irrelevant tangent and being caught out for doing it.

You're the one who misquoted me as saying all sexual assaults should be rape when I didn't
Again, don't blame me if you're bad at writing. You went on a pointless tangent. You do know this thread is about rape, or do you have double standards where only you can discuss other offences under the Sexual Offences Act?

You're the one telling me to post the whole offence and then calling 141 parts of it irrelevant
Point of this being...? It's obvious that if you quote an offence, you quote the entire offence seeing as the law is precise and exact. You were misleading people in this thread for missing out these important subsections. Don't blame me if I wanted a proper discussion.

You're the one mixing up societal and legal terms
I've countlessly rebutted this and proven you do not know the difference between legal and societal terms... You thought sexual assault isn't just physical, remember? :rolleyes:

You're the one stating that maximum sentences are given for verdicts without proof despite there being proof to the contrary
Yet I posted proof. I'm taking this as a "Tom thinks he's right even when he's wrong" strop. I even gave proof, I went to the sources. You're the one ignoring facts because I proved you wrong and you're not happy about it. Poor Tom, he's not right and so therefore everyone is wrong.

You're the one ignoring statistics when they don't fit with what you think is real
I posted statistics, you're yet to. Don't blame me if I proved you wrong.

You're the one flip-flopping between telling me I've said one thing and telling me I've said the other (often when I've said neither)
Don't blame me if you can't make a coherent argument. Posting irrelevant sources. This thread is about rape afterall, but you do enjoy double standards.

You're the one not understanding what the entire point of the thread is about even after being told time and time again.
Don't blame me if you can't write a coherent argument. You quoted 3 cases which were irrelevant to this thread. Neither involved rape, and all involved offences that weren't gender specific. Don't blame me if you can't read the law and post irrelevant information.

Please stop making things up that haven't been said, suggested, or even hinted at.
I've inserted post numbers directing you to what you've said. Don't blame me if I proved you wrong.

As for "reversal rape", no it's still rape if a woman forces a man into intercourse. Just like "reverse sexism" "reverse racism" and so on aren't things, they are sexism and racism.
Again you've not understood my point which shows you're clearly ignorant of the law and how to read English. You've proven countless times in this thread you can't write coherent arguments or even read, by making false claims (saying sexual assault doesn't just have to be physical? Ha, you got that so wrong it was embarrassing) - don't blame me if you get laws, jurisdictions, terms and cases mixed up. Rape involves the offender doing the act. Read carefully this time, they are doing the act. It's rare for offences where the offenders gets the victim to do the act upon the offender, because sexual offences are an incredibly difficult bits of law, something you're proving to find you can't understand. The fact this post is a "strop" post is evident enough. Tom says this, Tom must be right when you've been wrong on so many basic principles. Using reverse racism is a stupid example, because it would suggest the offender gets the victim to be racist to the offender - different laws (again, you lack any knowledge on racism laws as well as sexual offence laws).

Clearly the only problem is that: I know the law on sexual offences seeing as I study it, and you're just on an ignorant rampage like those who call all immigrants a waste of time and resources, without really looking at the facts and figures. I've posted loads of sources to support my claims. What have you done? Say "I didn't say that", "that's not true" despite the fact I even quote where you've said something and linked you to the post. Don't blame me if I caught you out for saying something irrelevant, stupid or unclear. I posted Crown Court and Magistrates' Court data to prove that the Crown Court mostly deals with these cases, but apparently that isn't true despite official sources. Somehow you think you're right and the facts are wrong. You're such a stubborn child it's kind of embarrassing having this discussion, as you clearly do not know what you are going on about. You have this "I am right, everyone else is wrong" mentality. And go on to suggest that you didn't even want a debate in the first place, as you clearly only wanted people to agree with you rather than to discuss why x is wrong. It's pathetic.

FlyingJesus

22-01-2014, 01:18 AM

I didn't respond point-by-point in the last post not because it was a strop but because I'd be repeating myself, but fine let's do this again since you still don't get it.

No they haven't, I pick up obvious flaws in your argument and pick you out on where your argument is weak, and you say this? They haven't been explained, and if they were, why say ignorant things in the first place?

Yes they have, you pick up irrelevant points and complain about technical wording when you haven't even understood what I've been saying (as proven by the fact that you keep telling me that I'm only talking about rape when I'm not, and that I want all sexual crimes to be called rape when I don't; and neither of those things were ever said or hinted at).

Proof? I only said it to describe that "he" in UK law generally means "anyone". Even someone else mentioned this. In terms of describing rape, you're the first person to state that the law should be gender-neutral. Your argument throughout this thread is that women should be convicted of rape too, no? There you have it - you want rape to be gender-neutral.

My use of the term gender-neutral was a response to you asking what "sex" where I said "penetration of the mouth, anus, or vagina. That still works for gender-neutral terms". You have since shown - originally in post #20 where you totally made up an offence that I'd never stated, but often repeated since then - that you believe that my idea is just to drop the "he" (which as you said and as has been accepted doesn't even matter in law) which is not what I said at all. What I want the law to be is INCLUSIVE of both genders, not lacking in it. You quite literally attacked a suggestion that wasn't ever made.

Point of this being...? I suggested a new offence, but clearly you ignored that (hence why I said reversed rape) because the suggested offence I gave was about the victim doing the act, keeping the current rape law as it is and that's the offender doing the act. If you disagree with it be mature rather than be pathetic about.

Point of it being that you throughout this whole discussion have been saying that certain things aren't possible then going ahead with them, which is totally illogical and shows that you aren't capable of keeping track of your own posts let alone anyone elses.

I didn't misquote, I quoted it word for word. Don't blame me if you're not very good at presenting an argument by going off on an irrelevant tangent and being caught out for doing it.

You quoted it "word for word" then told me I'd said something else, right. I went off on no irrelevant tangents (HINT: talking about sexual offences and their sentencing is not off-topic in a discussion about sexual offences) you just read what wasn't there.

Again, don't blame me if you're bad at writing. You went on a pointless tangent. You do know this thread is about rape, or do you have double standards where only you can discuss other offences under the Sexual Offences Act?

*+*+*+*+*No iiT iiSN'T*+*+*+* how many times do I need to tell you this

Point of this being...? It's obvious that if you quote an offence, you quote the entire offence seeing as the law is precise and exact. You were misleading people in this thread for missing out these important subsections. Don't blame me if I wanted a proper discussion.

Telling me to quote the entire offence whilst telling me that the rest of the offence and what goes along with it has no point. Well done.

I've countlessly rebutted this and proven you do not know the difference between legal and societal terms... You thought sexual assault isn't just physical, remember? :rolleyes:

And posted a case where this was true.

Yet I posted proof. I'm taking this as a "Tom thinks he's right even when he's wrong" strop. I even gave proof, I went to the sources. You're the one ignoring facts because I proved you wrong and you're not happy about it. Poor Tom, he's not right and so therefore everyone is wrong.

No you didn't, you posted an equation showing how many cases got a guilty verdict and then told me that the Crown court will totes always give maximum sentencing obv, except even if that were true (still no proof) it misses the fact that none of what you posted has anything to do with gender (the point of the thread). Poor Ryan, he's not right so he posts irrevelant stats.

I posted statistics, you're yet to. Don't blame me if I proved you wrong.

None that were relevant, and the only things you've proved wrong are strawmen/fabrications.

Don't blame me if you can't make a coherent argument. Posting irrelevant sources. This thread is about rape afterall, but you do enjoy double standards.

No it isn't and I don't know why you keep repeating that when it isn't the truth, and you're the one with sources that mean nothing. I don't enjoy double standards, THAT is what this thread is about.

Don't blame me if you can't write a coherent argument. You quoted 3 cases which were irrelevant to this thread. Neither involved rape, and all involved offences that weren't gender specific. Don't blame me if you can't read the law and post irrelevant information.

3 cases of sexual crimes committed by women in a thread that's about sexual crimes committed by women. Yeah totes irrelevant. Don't blame me if you STILL AFTER 4 PAGES DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT.

I've inserted post numbers directing you to what you've said. Don't blame me if I proved you wrong.

Again, you haven't. You've inserted post numbers directing me to things that you misinterpreted and/or outright lied about. Boom boom, more strawmen down, congratulations.

Again you've not understood my point

True brilliance from someone who doesn't even know what this thread was written for.

which shows you're clearly ignorant of the law and how to read English. You've proven countless times in this thread you can't write coherent arguments or even read, by making false claims (saying sexual assault doesn't just have to be physical? Ha, you got that so wrong it was embarrassing)

V embarrassing to give an example of a case where this was true, and as for incoherent arguments consent is a legal term no wait anyone can do it but legal but society but they thought but legal but child but defendant.

don't blame me if you get laws, jurisdictions, terms and cases mixed up.

I didn't but k.

Rape involves the offender doing the act. Read carefully this time, they are doing the act. It's rare for offences where the offenders gets the victim to do the act upon the offender

Forcing intercourse or other sexual intimidation on someone is doing the act. Your inability to realise that intercourse isn't a one-way thing and that erections don't mean a willingness to take part is not my fault.

Using reverse racism is a stupid example, because it would suggest the offender gets the victim to be racist to the offender - different laws (again, you lack any knowledge on racism laws as well as sexual offence laws).

This is actually your ignorance again; believing that certain things are done by A to B and that the only way A can be the victim is by being coerced into doing them to B is ridiculous.

Clearly the only problem is that: I know the law on sexual offences seeing as I study it, and you're just on an ignorant rampage like those who call all immigrants a waste of time and resources, without really looking at the facts and figures.

Not really, the problem is that you're arguing against something that isn't the argument.

I've posted loads of sources to support my claims.

Loads of sources such as... the same Sexual Offences Act which I referred to, and some numbers on how many cases went to trial. Hmm.

What have you done? Say "I didn't say that", "that's not true" despite the fact I even quote where you've said something and linked you to the post.

Posts where I didn't actually say what you're accusing me of saying. In fact most of the times you've stated a post number have been either telling me that I didn't state part of the current wording of the offence (which we've been through) or doing your usual act of not understanding what the thread's about. So yes, "I didn't say that" is quite accurate.

Don't blame me if I caught you out for saying something irrelevant, stupid or unclear.

Don't blame me for the fact that you're wrong about what this thread is supposed to show and just made up lines that were never written.

I posted Crown Court and Magistrates' Court data to prove that the Crown Court mostly deals with these cases, but apparently that isn't true despite official sources.

I didn't say those stats weren't true (again putting words into my mouth) and not only did that data show nothing about sentences given, but those very stats show that the number of guilty verdicts in Crown was around 2.4x that of Magistrates, which means just under 30% of cases are in the Magistrates - a pretty hefty amount even if not the majority. All of that aside, it showed nothing at all to do with the sex of the defendant. As an aside, neither of the British cases mentioned in this thread went to either: one was sentenced in a Sheriff Court in Scotland and the other simply had an educational hearing.

Somehow you think you're right and the facts are wrong. You're such a stubborn child it's kind of embarrassing having this discussion, as you clearly do not know what you are going on about. You have this "I am right, everyone else is wrong" mentality. And go on to suggest that you didn't even want a debate in the first place, as you clearly only wanted people to agree with you rather than to discuss why x is wrong. It's pathetic.

Somehow you think I've said things that haven't been said and give only facts that aren't relevant to the discussion. The truly embarrassing thing is that you never responded to points that actually were made (why you seem to think an erection is consent, the provably lighter sentences that women get for the exact same crimes a male might commit, why you're making things up that I haven't written) and instead decided that the only thing of issue in this thread is rape, which isn't the case at all.

ps: in post #17 you said "Also other parts of the SOA which are child related offences and position of trust (which relate to the original teacher had she been in the UK) are all relevant" and have since then continuously told me that they're not for some reason. The flip-flopping of your position not only on terminology but what you seem to believe is what's truly pathetic here.

GommeInc

22-01-2014, 12:08 PM

I am shocked at how ignorant you are! You're completely ignoring my posts! Had the women in all of the cases, including the original case of Alicia Gray, been committed by men they would have all received the same sentences as the women - there are NO double standards involved what so ever and the laws are not sexist in these cases. You are yet to explain why they are. In the first post you made you were proclaiming it was rape when it obviously isn't, but you strongly believe the case of Alicia Gray is rape when there is no evidence of it - had she had been male, it would still not be rape under Alabama law even if the victim was female (I'd get to this later down). Don't blame me again if you're ignorant of the legal terms, the legal system and the law.

Let's take a look at the Alicia Gray case which you proclaim is rape yet you do not provide any evidence of it actually being rape. Had she had been Alan Gray it would still not have been rape, because you're again ignorant of sexual offences which at your age (above 16) is incredibly worrying.

I won't quote word for word the story as it's self-explanatory from any article you find online. There's a reason not even the editors and writers called it rape, because unlike you they know what rape actually is and entails.

Alabama State Law:

Section 13A-6-61
Rape in the first degree.
A male commits the crime of rape in the first degree if:
He engages in sexual intercourse with a female by forcible compulsion; or
He engages in sexual intercourse with a female who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless or mentally incapacitated; or
He, being 16 years or older, engages in sexual intercourse with a female who is less than 12 years old.

Rape in the first degree is a Class A felony.
Essentially the law is that the offender must be a HE and the victim must be a SHE. He must also use forcible compulsion OR engages in sexual intercourse with someone who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless or mentally incapacitated. Alicia Gray is a SHE and the victim is a HE. Had it been Alan Gray HE would not be convicted under the law for rape against a victim who is a HE. But this is irrelevant as the case clearly isn't even rape anyway. I'm amazed at how you have not done your homework. Note: who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless or mentally incapacitated. Rape is a violation of the body. This body wasn't violated and didn't feel violated.

Let's break this down further with why it isn't rape and you're wrong. The student was not physically helpless nor mentally incapacitated. The boy in his evidence states he wasn't, he was not being forced to have sex against his own free will or volition. Rape is literally having sex with someone you do not want to, because you are either threatened with violence against yourself, another person, are locked away etc OR the purpose of the sex is being kept away from you or its nature. There's no evidence the teacher was promising to pass him on to the next grade, for example. These are not evident in this case because, and I repeat as you clearly have not understood this, the boy wasn't against having sex. Legal capacity to consent is irrelevant, because rape is more serious than that - it requires sex against the other party's freedom to choose, and he had the freedom to. By suggesting because he was under aged it is rape shows you're trying to mix in other offences or are trying to make rape a broad term when rape is incredibly serious as a sexual offence. It relies on, as I have to repeat again, the victim being forced to have sex, not just consent or a lack thereof. If there is no force, clearly it is not by logic alone as serious a crime - because, the victim had free will throughout the entire act. They did not feel violated nor were they violated. If you think having the freedom to choose to have sex and having no freedom to choose to have sex are the same we should be thankful you're not in the legal profession, because lots of people would feel they are not receiving justice because they are being judged the same, when all cases are different.

So had she had been male, she too would not have been found guilty of rape. True? Yes - "who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless or mentally incapacitated".

It is not rape of the Second Degree because the child isn't mentally defective. Had Alicia Gray been male, she would not have been found guilty of this form of rape. True? Yes.

So it is not rape. This topic is/was about rape from the beginning as you proclaimed:

married teacher rapes 14 year old - Misleading title. It wasn't rape in any sense of the word.

self-confessed rapist (although of course that word wasn't ever used) who wants everyone to just magically forget what she did and forgive her because God said so. - The bit underlined > There's a reason it wasn't used because it wasn't rape by any standards, not just because she was female, but because rape is a much more serious crime than you bother to think it is. The child chose to have sex and wasn't forced to have it, which is incredibly important. If you have sex with someone and were forced to, that is surely more serious and if you think otherwise then again I am thankful you're not in the legal profession.

Under UK law we even have the basic principles which you purposely ignored when quoting English law. Rape is having sex with someone who a) doesn't consent and b) the offender does not reasonably believe they consented. The law then defines consent that if (s.75) violence is threatened against you, another person, you were drugged, intoxicated, mentally or physically disabled and could not communicate it, then it is rape. OR if you were being deceived by the nature or purpose of the act (s76).

tl;dr - this thread involves a case which the OP strongly believes is about rape yet it actually isn't. He argues the law is sexist when, admittedly it is, the case he uses to justify his point wouldn't have been rape if the defendant was male or female, as it wasn't rape to begin with! In short, the OP needs to educate himself with the law of sexual offences, because he doesn't quite grasp the offence of rape.

Had you of quoted the below case, however, you would have a point to some extent. But you didn't, you quoted a case which wasn't about rape and tried to argue it was, making yourself look silly and wasting everyone's time, by making them believe that rape is a much broader offence when, given how serious it actually is, is a much more defined offence.

Woman, 52, 'caught twice in one day holding men against their will and demanding sex' (Daily Fail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395133/Wisconsin-woman-Terry-Boyd-52-caught-twice-day-holding-men-demanding-sex.html) / Non-Daily Fail link) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/16/terry-l-boyd-holds-men-hostage-sex-slaves_n_3768469.html?utm_hp_ref=crime)

You could have made up a case which would have been rape if a male, but not if a female and get people to engage in a good debate about how women cannot be accused of rape. For example, a woman says she will kill her and her husband's baby if she doesn't have sex with her. Had the woman been male it would be rape, but if she was female it wouldn't be - it would be sexual assault. Is that fair? It's up for debate but to me it isn't as it comes under the law of rape in the UK yet because she's female.

You purposely misled people with this topic and completely ruined a good discussion about rape by putting your misinformed opinions forward making people believe they were fact. It wasn't rape, it couldn't have been rape yet you deceived people into thinking it could have been rape. If I was a moderator, I would have closed this thread and opened a new one which would have actually have been rape and put forward a debate that if he was female the law would have been sexist.

Edit:

ps: in post #17 you said "Also other parts of the SOA which are child related offences and position of trust (which relate to the original teacher had she been in the UK) are all relevant" and have since then continuously told me that they're not for some reason. The flip-flopping of your position not only on terminology but what you seem to believe is what's truly pathetic here.
They're not relevant to rape, they're relevant to the case you thought was rape (Alicia Gray - "self-proclaimed rapist" were your words) and the 3 cases you pointlessly added later on for no actual reason. Had they had been men, they would have been sentenced the same.

FlyingJesus

22-01-2014, 07:23 PM

Inseriousity.

22-01-2014, 07:51 PM

I'm not brushed up on the law so these are more like questions rather than me trying to state facts:

Isn't there a "duty of care" clause when you become a teacher that states you must not have any physical/sexual relationship with a student until they're 18 (even though here the age of consent is 16)?
As the age of consent is 16 (we'll just pretend this case happened here for hypothetical argument) and the issue about it being rape/sexual assault is that he was not mentally capacitated and therefore capable of giving consent is a moot point because he was under the age of consent and therefore classed as a vulnerable person incapable of making an informed and legitimate choice. In the eyes of the law, if you're an adult having sex with a minor, it is classed as rape because it's assumed that they are not capable of making that mature decision to have sex. I personally think having it any other way could be a slippery slope to blaming the child victim (male or female) and it should be classed as rape as a result.

I agree with FlyingJesus. In my opinion, rape is physical penetration without consent. A female could force herself onto a man even though he says no. Just because his body gives the signal that he is saying yes doesn't make it so. It's obvious you're from a legal background but do you perhaps have too much loyalty to the system? Laws are written by people and so that doesn't make them immune to the same values and prejudices that societies hold. Isn't there sociological studies that show that the justice system is biased towards females and they often receive softer punishments as a result.

Kardan

22-01-2014, 07:55 PM

Couldn't a woman just put Viagra in some guys drink or something? Surely that bypasses the whole 'Guy reacted positively' aspect of things.

FlyingJesus

22-01-2014, 08:01 PM

Yes they could (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/karate-expert-keeps-shop-burglar-141233#.UuAj-PtFDs0)

GommeInc

22-01-2014, 11:44 PM

And after all this time and talk you're still mistaken about the entire thing. The whole point is that the current laws are exclusive and damaging, not that I think they're something they aren't. You keep bringing up totally irrelevant non-arguments about things that haven't been said and then telling me I'm wrong about claims I haven't made.
"Alicia Gray, self-proclaimed rapist", "married teacher rapes 14 year old", That was what you claimed. You also claim the law is exclusive and damaging, yet the only area that is exclusive is the offence of rape. Alicia Gray didn't rape the student, not because she is female and because the law states they have to male, but because the boy freely consented, which is my point. Your first post was completely misinformed about the offence of rape - even if it did include women.

Also if we're going to talk about what the law does say at the moment let's take note of the fact that you seem to be under the impression that force has to be used for it to be rape, despite Section 1 part 1 quite clearly saying "(b)B does not consent to the penetration", which shows consent to be the issue despite you saying it isn't. Legal capacity to consent is not irrelevant or it wouldn't even be a thing, this is very simple: if someone cannot consent, they do not consent, and you can't reasonably believe they are able to when you know for a fact that they're your 14 year-old student. S75/76 don't counteract that since S74 very clearly states "For the purposes of this Part, a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice".
This is proof that you do not know how to read legislation - the fact you even wrote "Section 1, Part 1" is evidence enough. What you mean is Section 1 (which is rape under the Sexual Offences Act 2003), sub-section 1, a, b, c, d etc. Written out as Sexual Offences Act 2003, s.1 (1)(a) or (section 1, (1)(a)). Part 1 means the entire section of the Act from section 1 (rape) to section 79. Furthermore, the offence has to include all of the sections to be an offence, it's pretty obvious since sub-section 4 says the punishment - if you only read parts of the sub-sections the individual is not guilty of an offence. It has to include sub-sections 2 and 3, with 3 defining what is meant by consent in sub-section 1 (b) and (c). Also you clearly do not know what capacity means, you're making up a definition to fit your cause when I have stated many times what consent or indeed capacity is.

The Crown Prosecution Service defines capacity as:

Section 74 defines consent as 'if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice'. Prosecutors should consider this in two stages. They are:

Whether a complainant had the capacity (i.e. the age and understanding) to make a choice about whether or not to take part in the sexual activity at the time in question.
Whether he or she was in a position to make that choice freely, and was not constrained in any way. Assuming that the complainant had both the freedom and capacity to consent, the crucial question is whether the complainant agrees to the activity by choice.

Notice age and understanding. Now this is further defined by looking at the reason behind this. It relates to the Gillick guidelines that under 16s can have the maturity and understanding to make their own decisions - this doesn't go lower than 13. The case of Gillick was a mother who protested over her children being given contraceptive advice from a doctor. The Lords dismissed this, because: "...whether or not a child is capable of giving the necessary consent will depend on the child’s maturity and understanding and the nature of the consent required."

Teacher jailed for having sex with student (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1555333/Teacher-jailed-for-having-sex-with-student.html)
Facts:

The defendant was male
The victim was 14 years old and female
The two had consensual sexual intercourse regularly
She was not threatened with violence to her or another, nor was she locked in a room and nor was she mentally incapacitated or drunk
The prosecution (i.e. the person who brings legal proceedings against someone), Mr Randall, even stated: "The defendant reassured her about her looks and attractiveness and she did not resist. It is fair to say she was willing throughout."
He received 5 years in prison for sexual assault, not a rape charge and not even the full 10 years as the legislation states. Isn't the law lenient towards men all of a sudden?

It's incredibly similar to the American case. Both victims consenting, both admitting there was a relationship.

As for making rape a broader offence, the only change I want to see for that offence is changing the badly written wording to include non-consensual envelopment as well as penetration. That's really not that broad.
But it would be, as stated above.

Also, in relation to your first post, paragraph 2:

This is the story of Alicia Gray, self-confessed rapist (although of course that word wasn't ever used) who wants everyone to just magically forget what she did and forgive her because God said so. Reverse the genders and take away the religious spiel and it'd be a life sentence with pitchforks at the door, but a Christian woman in Alabama gets 6 months and her teaching license taken away for a whole 5 years.

Explain this:

Here is another Alabama case with 1) the genders reverse; 2) no religious spiel; 3) no life sentence. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/alabama-man-no-prison-time-raping-teenager) He received 2 years imprisonment and 3 extra years of academic probation. Crucially, he actually raped the girl - and that means against her will - the girl did not consent at all, unlike the Alicia Gray story where the boy consented and had the capacity to consent. So it seems you're wrong again in your first post.

I'm not brushed up on the law so these are more like questions rather than me trying to state facts:

Isn't there a "duty of care" clause when you become a teacher that states you must not have any physical/sexual relationship with a student until they're 18 (even though here the age of consent is 16)?
As the age of consent is 16 (we'll just pretend this case happened here for hypothetical argument) and the issue about it being rape/sexual assault is that he was not mentally capacitated and therefore capable of giving consent is a moot point because he was under the age of consent and therefore classed as a vulnerable person incapable of making an informed and legitimate choice. In the eyes of the law, if you're an adult having sex with a minor, it is classed as rape because it's assumed that they are not capable of making that mature decision to have sex. I personally think having it any other way could be a slippery slope to blaming the child victim (male or female) and it should be classed as rape as a result.

I agree with FlyingJesus. In my opinion, rape is physical penetration without consent. A female could force herself onto a man even though he says no. Just because his body gives the signal that he is saying yes doesn't make it so. It's obvious you're from a legal background but do you perhaps have too much loyalty to the system? Laws are written by people and so that doesn't make them immune to the same values and prejudices that societies hold. Isn't there sociological studies that show that the justice system is biased towards females and they often receive softer punishments as a result.
You were right about the first part: Essentially, when teachers become teachers, they sign a contract stating they won't have sexual relationships with their pupils. Strangely, a sixth form teacher can't have sex with a consenting 16/17 year old pupil at their college, but they can have sex with a 16/17 sixth former at another school.

You've made the error too about consent. Rape is a very specific crime that requires a total lack of consent - it makes sense as it is heinous and evil to make someone have sex with you against your own volition. It needs to have force to give the offence gravity. Sex with someone you don't want to have sex with, by being threatened with violence or even being drugged, is logically more evil than having sex with your own free will if you can make an informed choice, but legally the older party is not allowed to have sex with that person.

Also, I stated that I think women should be given harsher sentences. My first ever post was about that - I stated the problem is that women for some reason get lenient sentences. My entire argument is that it isn't rape what she did, and that men wouldn't be rapists for doing what she did either - because the victims, though under aged, made the choice to have sex. It makes a huge difference :P

FlyingJesus

22-01-2014, 11:59 PM

GommeInc

23-01-2014, 12:05 AM

The very fact that you think being a minor has nothing to do with capacity to consent is laughable enough, especially when even in your quote it says AGE and understanding. You then give a case with supposedly the same details and make the claim that 6 months is the same thing as 5 years. A sentence ten times longer is not the same outcome... Then another comparing the first case brought up where the male got four times the sentence and again claimed that minors have the capacity to consent. Brilliant.
So why wasn't he convicted of rape? You stated if the genders were reversed the man would be convicted of rape. I gave proof that they don't. I can't tell if you're really dense or trolling :/

Also minors do have the capacity to consent, I gave evidence that they do. Just because they don't in your mind doesn't mean they don't in reality.

Also I gave the reason why age and understanding is considered. Again, you show your reading skills are below that of a 10 year old.

Inseriousity.

23-01-2014, 12:14 AM

GommeInc

23-01-2014, 12:24 AM

You didn't really give evidence as I'm not sure you can really provide evidence that minors are capable of informed consent. It's all a matter of perspective and it'd be really easy to argue that it is called "grooming" whereby the victim feels like they are consenting and in control but the reality is they're not and likewise you could argue the opposite. Do you not agree that saying minors are capable of consent opens the floodgates for anti-victim prejudice - a major issue for rape victims and possibly why there is such a low conviction rate?
If under 16s are incapable of consent, then why do they have the capability to consent to medical treatment, education, food, sexual education and so forth? Under 16s are capable of consent - it would be daft to think otherwise. I've met 15 year olds that seem perfectly happy to choose their own GCSE subjects and I remember happily consenting to the choices put before me. Under 16s are not drivelling little bags of flesh that eat worms, defecate on the floor and then go on to eat it. They're not stupid.

And it clearly doesn't open the flood gates. Conviction rates are up each year, and had it been a flood-gates argument there wouldn't have been so many from the beginning, seeing as those specifications have existed since the Act was put into force. So it's not a flood gates argument, there is sufficient proof of it that it isn't.

Inseriousity.

23-01-2014, 12:35 AM

I am not saying they are incapable of consent completely as that'd be foolish but it does not seem logical to me to have a law saying 16+ only for sex based on the assumption that they are incapable of the maturity at that age to deal with it then allowing supposedly responsible adults off the hook for rape by being able to argue that they are. Should the age limit for sex be decreased to 14 then (I think you said 13 and under it's automatically classed as rape somewhere)?

I think your argument here completely ignores the power dynamic between teachers and their pupils.

FlyingJesus

23-01-2014, 12:48 AM

GommeInc

23-01-2014, 02:18 PM

Legal age of consent quite clearly refers to sex, if you don't understand that then what the hell are you doing pretending that you know anything? All of the "evidence" that you bring up doesn't actually relate to what you're trying to tell me, then you pretend it's my fault that your arguments don't match up.
No it doesn't, again you do not understand the legal age of consent - it's hilarious you think it only relates to sex. Look up the Gillick guidelines. Again, that's evidence which is relevant to this discussion. The legal age of consent is a much more diverse topic than you bother to understand. It also includes medical treatment, and has also involved food, travel, marriage (with parents consent - unless marriage is another word for sex in your mind?) and education (including sex education). It allows for some leeway to be made where the under 16 understands medical procedures and can consent to the treatment. You don't just wake up on your 16th Birthday suddenly worldly aware. The same applies to sex, except the defendant is still committing a crime as the under 16 shouldn't be having sex below the age of 16. Having sex and not understanding sex are completely different things - I posted this above but you clearly ignored it for no real reason again because you don't understand it, therefore in your mind it doesn't count (even though it does, it's used in the law, in education and in the medical profession countless times).

Must I repeat everything twice for it to sink in?

It is your fault you can't read - I don't have to baby feed you about a topic you claim to understand (claiming Alicia Gray should be a rapist because if a man had done it they would have been convicted of rape) yet I disproved this because a man was not found guilty of the exact same facts, and to some extent committed a much worser crime. Thus, proving you do not know anything about the sexual offences or even how to read legislation - the fact you thought Section 1, part 1 meant something is laughable and the fact you thought you didn't have to read the entire offence for it to be an offence is worrying. If one part of an offence doesn't apply, then the accused has not committed that crime (but may have committed another offence under the Act).

I am not saying they are incapable of consent completely as that'd be foolish but it does not seem logical to me to have a law saying 16+ only for sex based on the assumption that they are incapable of the maturity at that age to deal with it then allowing supposedly responsible adults off the hook for rape by being able to argue that they are. Should the age limit for sex be decreased to 14 then (I think you said 13 and under it's automatically classed as rape somewhere)?

I think your argument here completely ignores the power dynamic between teachers and their pupils.
If there is proof the under 16 victim did not consent, the courts will rule it as rape. The courts do not look for evidence that isn't there. Time is important too, if the student has sexual intercourse more than once, then there must have been consent from the student. But that alone will not suffice - was the adult in question getting the under 16 to have sex with him for favours? This does not mean the teacher is completely innocent, or an adult who hasn't got a position of trust over the 16 year old. Also, was there a relationship? Again, over time the two may discuss having sex and if the student is all right with that they arguably understand the nature of the activity, presuming the adult did not lie about the nature or purpose of the activity under s.76. If he lied about the nature or purpose of the act, then it is rape. If the pupil was made to have sex with them in response of getting better grades, it is rape. There is a case on that but apparently that's not evidence because a certain member says so as apparently he knows the law (despite not actually knowing how to read it).

The argument doesn't ignore the power a teacher has over their pupil, and you seem to suggest that the teacher would "get away with it", when evidently not. If you have sex with an under 16, you will still be convicted of an offence because you have still committed a crime. Gravity to the situation is important, if a student was forced to have sex against their own volition, that is more serious than if the student said "Yeah, all right then" because they clearly understand the nature of the activity and therefore have the capacity to understand. It's like saying a 16 year old who knows how to drive a car - they can't do it legally on a road, but they understand the nature of driving a car (ergo, they have the capacity to understand how to drive a car). Same rules apply, though the activity isn't as stupid.

FlyingJesus

23-01-2014, 03:04 PM

GommeInc

23-01-2014, 11:04 PM

I love that half your argument now is that I named a part of the offence incorrectly; referring to the first part of a section by saying "part 1" is oh so hiliarious hahahahaha no you're just being obnoxious and still
STILL
still still stiiiiiiiiill
ignoring everything that's been said in favour of pretending that legal capacity and mental capacity are the same, even to the point of trying to say that someone driving underage has capacity... and then you parade around saying it's me that mixes up legal and personal jargon. Amazing.
Glad to see you admitted you're wrong for calling Alicia Gray a rapist and that the law wasn't sexist in this case. So you admit this thread was pointless?

Proof I've mixed it up? Saying I have, despite no evidence other than your terrible opinion, is not the same as myself actually messing up. At least I have proven that you're wrong beyond just saying you're wrong by providing proof i.e. how to read statutes, that sexual assault has to be physical, that Australia doesn't govern our laws, that had a man done what Alicia Gray did it still wouldn't be rape, that the age of consent isn't just about sex and sex alone, that the Crown Court deals with more sexual offence cases than the Magistrates Courts which means men and women get more than the minimum 6 month sentence. I'm obnoxious? That's just another way of you saying you admit you're wrong... You're argument is literally falling a part around you and you still claim you're right, some how.

Also, again, you still do not understand the law. Under the law, a child can consent to sex under the age of 16 (Gillick guidelines - again, look them up - that's the third time I've had to baby feed you). You do know there is more to the English System than Acts of Parliament? There's common law and equity. It's the common law as well as legislation that defines that an under 16 can consent to sex, however, the defendant over the age of 16 (or 18 if the victim is a pupil) is still committing a crime. Show me the law on murder, let's test your understanding of the legal system. You won't find it, because it's a common law offence - the court defined it before legislation did. IF an under 16 has the capacity to make an informed decision to have sex with an over 16 or over 18, it is not rape, BUT (and I keep stating this) also under the law they cannot legally consent to have sex. It is still a crime to have sex with an under 16 year old, but the law recognises that under 16s have the capacity to make an informed choice about sexual intercourse and have an understanding of the nature of the act (unless you're saying Acts of Parliament are not law? It wouldn't surprise, you seem to be proving you do not understand the English legal system anyway). The fact children are educated about sexual education from 11 years onwards supports that they must be educated about it, otherwise why bother educating children before 16? Do you support the notion that sex education should not be taught in schools until they can legally consent? The fact you think under 16s can't understand things is hilarious, I can still remember and understand certain things from when I was under 16 - science lessons, how potassium reacts with water... According to your infallible logic I could not understand this. I'm clearly not stating "personal" jargon, where am I doing this? Or are you just saying I'm doing that because you literally can't fall back on any evidence yourself? I have proven this countless times. For some reason you still do not get it. Capacity is the freedom to choose, and the age and understanding of the victim - and is important, an 18 year old could have sex with someone but not understand the act - it's important the law states the word 'and' so those with the mental incapacity can be rape victims, despite being over the age of consent!

FlyingJesus

23-01-2014, 11:33 PM

I see you're still making up things I haven't said...

The proof that you're mixing things up is that you're still even there pretending that "capacity" merely means "ability" and ignoring the legal aspect, even while writing about it. I haven't once said (nor will I) that an under 16 can't understand sex or say they want it, I've said that legally their giving the go ahead is not consent. You yourself have agreed with this in your reply, so I have no idea what you're trying to prove by claiming otherwise. Gillick guidelines are about doctors giving contraceptives to minors and have absolutely no effect on whether or not it's legal to have sex with minors. Thanks for spoon-feeding irrelevant nonsense but it's really not necessary.

As for age and understanding, you're again just proving me right. Obviously understanding is important for the sake of mentally incapacitated persons, even those over the age of 16, but it then follows that both do not need to be satisfied and that one alone is enough for an act to be unlawful due to lack of legal consent - thus a minor cannot by law consent just like someone with sufficient mental ******ation can't. Can't for the life of me work out why you're telling me I "don't get it" when you're just affirming what I'm saying.

GommeInc

25-01-2014, 12:36 AM

I see you're still making up things I haven't said...
So you didn't say the following when you made this thread, which caused the problems in the first place?

...
This is the story of Alicia Gray, self-confessed rapist (although of course that word wasn't ever used) who wants everyone to just magically forget what she did and forgive her because God said so. Reverse the genders and take away the religious spiel and it'd be a life sentence with pitchforks at the door, but a Christian woman in Alabama gets 6 months and her teaching license taken away for a whole 5 years.
...

The proof that you're mixing things up is that you're still even there pretending that "capacity" merely means "ability" and ignoring the legal aspect, even while writing about it. I haven't once said (nor will I) that an under 16 can't understand sex or say they want it, I've said that legally their giving the go ahead is not consent. You yourself have agreed with this in your reply, so I have no idea what you're trying to prove by claiming otherwise. Gillick guidelines are about doctors giving contraceptives to minors and have absolutely no effect on whether or not it's legal to have sex with minors. Thanks for spoon-feeding irrelevant nonsense but it's really not necessary.
The Gillick guidelines cover doctors being able to give under 16s contraceptive and medical treatment without parental consent - as it covers sexual contraception it acknowledges that leniency exists in the law for those under 16. I'm not sure which came first or if both treatment and sexual contraceptive advice were relevant, sometimes the courts bung things together (doctors giving advice on contraception may be regarded as treatment, as it's in their ambit). A quick Google search will bring you onto the NSPCC's website describing it as medical and sexual advice:

NSPCC - Gillick competency and Fraser guidelines (http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/questions/gillick_wda61289.html)

In 1982 Mrs Victoria Gillick took her local health authority (West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority) and the Department of Health and Social Security to court in an attempt to stop doctors from giving contraceptive advice or treatment to under 16-year-olds without parental consent.

The Fraser guidelines build upon this framework (also mentioned).

Also, as it's defined in common law, it's recognised as being in the law, but not enough to fully remove liability from either party and allow for total legal consent - it depends how you define "legal" as the law legally makes itself lenient towards the defendant though not removing their liability, as it would be in the courts consideration when analysing cases like these. Same applies to murder - it's not in legislation but in the common law, yet is still an offence that's legally recognised as being in the law. The original definition for murder is incredibly flowery, even for back then.

As for age and understanding, you're again just proving me right. Obviously understanding is important for the sake of mentally incapacitated persons, even those over the age of 16, but it then follows that both do not need to be satisfied and that one alone is enough for an act to be unlawful due to lack of legal consent - thus a minor cannot by law consent just like someone with sufficient mental ******ation can't. Can't for the life of me work out why you're telling me I "don't get it" when you're just affirming what I'm saying.
It depends, in a way they both need to be satisfied as you have to ask "is x over 16 and did they understand", but then I can see your point that it may be fine with it just being satisfied on age alone if there is no evidence prior to the court hearing that they had a mental disability (for example) that renders them unable to understand sex. The prosecution would probably bring this up during the case or when compiling one if not. Problems only arise when you get people who were could be considered to lack an understanding, like those who were drunk, suffer from horrible diseases like Alzheimer's or have disabilities, etc.