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

[FlyingJesus]

The very fact that you think being a minor has nothing to do with capacity to consent is laughable enough, especially when even in your quote it says AGE and understanding. You then give a case with supposedly the same details and make the claim that 6 months is the same thing as 5 years. A sentence ten times longer is not the same outcome (and whoops, looks like the courts don't always give the maximum like you tried claiming before)... Then another comparing the first case brought up where the male got four times the sentence and again claimed that minors have the capacity to consent. Brilliant.

[GommeInc]

The very fact that you think being a minor has nothing to do with capacity to consent is laughable enough, especially when even in your quote it says AGE and understanding. You then give a case with supposedly the same details and make the claim that 6 months is the same thing as 5 years. A sentence ten times longer is not the same outcome... Then another comparing the first case brought up where the male got four times the sentence and again claimed that minors have the capacity to consent. Brilliant.

So why wasn't he convicted of rape? You stated if the genders were reversed the man would be convicted of rape. I gave proof that they don't. I can't tell if you're really dense or trolling :/

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

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

[Inseriousity.]

You didn't really give evidence as I'm not sure you can really provide evidence that minors are capable of informed consent. It's all a matter of perspective and it'd be really easy to argue that it is called "grooming" whereby the victim feels like they are consenting and in control but the reality is they're not and likewise you could argue the opposite. Do you not agree that saying minors are capable of consent opens the floodgates for anti-victim prejudice - a major issue for rape victims and possibly why there is such a low conviction rate?

[GommeInc]

You didn't really give evidence as I'm not sure you can really provide evidence that minors are capable of informed consent. It's all a matter of perspective and it'd be really easy to argue that it is called "grooming" whereby the victim feels like they are consenting and in control but the reality is they're not and likewise you could argue the opposite. Do you not agree that saying minors are capable of consent opens the floodgates for anti-victim prejudice - a major issue for rape victims and possibly why there is such a low conviction rate?

If under 16s are incapable of consent, then why do they have the capability to consent to medical treatment, education, food, sexual education and so forth? Under 16s are capable of consent - it would be daft to think otherwise. I've met 15 year olds that seem perfectly happy to choose their own GCSE subjects and I remember happily consenting to the choices put before me. Under 16s are not drivelling little bags of flesh that eat worms, defecate on the floor and then go on to eat it. They're not stupid.

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

[Inseriousity.]

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

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

[FlyingJesus]

Legal age of consent quite clearly refers to sex, if you don't understand that then what the hell are you doing pretending that you know anything? All of the "evidence" that you bring up doesn't actually relate to what you're trying to tell me, then you pretend it's my fault that your arguments don't match up.

[GommeInc]

Legal age of consent quite clearly refers to sex, if you don't understand that then what the hell are you doing pretending that you know anything? All of the "evidence" that you bring up doesn't actually relate to what you're trying to tell me, then you pretend it's my fault that your arguments don't match up.

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

Must I repeat everything twice for it to sink in?

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

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

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

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

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

[FlyingJesus]

I love that half your argument now is that I named a part of the offence incorrectly; referring to the first part of a section by saying "part 1" is oh so hiliarious hahahahaha no you're just being obnoxious and still
STILL
_still ^still stiiiiiiiiill
ignoring everything that's been said in favour of pretending that legal capacity and mental capacity are the same, even to the point of trying to say that someone driving underage has capacity... and then you parade around saying it's me that mixes up legal and personal jargon. Amazing.

[GommeInc]

I love that half your argument now is that I named a part of the offence incorrectly; referring to the first part of a section by saying "part 1" is oh so hiliarious hahahahaha no you're just being obnoxious and still
STILL
_still ^still stiiiiiiiiill
ignoring everything that's been said in favour of pretending that legal capacity and mental capacity are the same, even to the point of trying to say that someone driving underage has capacity... and then you parade around saying it's me that mixes up legal and personal jargon. Amazing.

Glad to see you admitted you're wrong for calling Alicia Gray a rapist and that the law wasn't sexist in this case. So you admit this thread was pointless?

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

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

[FlyingJesus]

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

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

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