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

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

19-01-2014, 01:04 AM
FlyingJesus

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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
19-01-2014, 11:43 AM
GommeInc

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

"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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.
19-01-2014, 10:37 PM
FlyingJesus

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

As the boy consented

Not legally

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

And life imprisonment isn't actually life.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.
19-01-2014, 11:31 PM
Kardan

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 :)
19-01-2014, 11:44 PM
GommeInc

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

...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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyingjesus

Not legally

Precisely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.
20-01-2014, 12:29 AM
FlyingJesus

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.
20-01-2014, 12:55 PM
GommeInc

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

"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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.
20-01-2014, 08:23 PM
FlyingJesus

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.
21-01-2014, 12:54 AM
GommeInc

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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".

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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

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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

[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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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?
21-01-2014, 02:06 AM
FlyingJesus

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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 for the exact same sex crimes and on average across all crime areas just 40% of the jail time. I'd say the law and how it's enforced is certainly also at fault alongside societal problems :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

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

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page