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

[GommeInc]

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

So you didn't say the following when you made this thread, which caused the problems in the first place?

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

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

The Gillick guidelines cover doctors being able to give under 16s contraceptive and medical treatment without parental consent - as it covers sexual contraception it acknowledges that leniency exists in the law for those under 16. I'm not sure which came first or if both treatment and sexual contraceptive advice were relevant, sometimes the courts bung things together (doctors giving advice on contraception may be regarded as treatment, as it's in their ambit). A quick Google search will bring you onto the NSPCC's website describing it as medical and sexual advice:

NSPCC - Gillick competency and Fraser guidelines

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

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

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

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

It depends, in a way they both need to be satisfied as you have to ask "is x over 16 and did they understand", but then I can see your point that it may be fine with it just being satisfied on age alone if there is no evidence prior to the court hearing that they had a mental disability (for example) that renders them unable to understand sex. The prosecution would probably bring this up during the case or when compiling one if not. Problems only arise when you get people who were could be considered to lack an understanding, like those who were drunk, suffer from horrible diseases like Alzheimer's or have disabilities, etc.

[-Moniquee.]

This is disgusting.. I could only watch the first 30 seconds or so when she came on, the fact that she is smiling after all this is disgusting. 6 months is barely a punishment, she needs the same sentence a male would get. Some laws need to be changed, the fact that she will also be able to teach again in a few years is beyond me, she shouldn't be able to teach again at all.