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

[GommeInc]

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

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:

1. 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.
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, 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

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 / Non-Daily Fail link)

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]

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.

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".

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.

[Inseriousity.]

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]

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]

Yes they could

[GommeInc]

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
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. 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