Whats the difference between these cases?

[rizzo]

A) http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,25072396-948,00.html

B) http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25142720-661,00.html

Both had intercourse with a 15 year old student, one gets jail, the other gets away.

Is it because he is male?

 

[Selective Retention]

The male teacher ****ed the girl.

The female teacher "engaged in kissing and groping".

 

[adelaide_40]

There is no difference...but there's different standards.

 

[The Lemon]

Both had intercourse with a 15 year old student

Didn't you read both articles properly?

Anyway, I agree with both sentences, although the female teacher still should have been given a community based order.

 

[Armitage2Riewoldt]

Andrew Beaumont is the name of one of the teachers at the school I went to lol.

Haha, could be a decent practical joke in the making there.

But yeah, seems the female didn't actually have sex. So theres a decent difference.

 

[rizzo]

Didn't you read both articles properly?

Anyway, I agree with both sentences, although the female teacher still should have been given a community based order.

Sorry your right. Still makes her a pedo though. There was a deeper motive to this thread though. If the man had done what she did to a girl then I bet he would have got a harsher sentence.

 

[Hoffy95]

Sorry your right. Still makes her a pedo though. There was a deeper motive to this thread though. If the man had done what she did to a girl then I bet he would have got a harsher sentence.

Probably because most would expect a male sleeping with a female student would be against the females will, whilst a female teacher sleeping with a male student would more likely be consensual...in fact every chance it would be the male student having a crack.

A male student is far less likely to be pushed around and has a much stronger physical presence, so if a male gets involved with a female teacher he's probably not putting up much of a struggle if you get my drift. Consequently this is probably how things get played out in the court room.

On paper, same act, reversed gender roles, should be the same sentence, but the reality is there is a lot more to take into account.

How many guys on here had a hot teacher they would've ****ed at 15?*

*Ghey if you didn't

 

[Strike Swiftly]

Most female teachers get a lesser penalty due to the male student not being on the receiving end of the penetration. The offence is sexual penetration with a child. Unless the female techer milks his prostate, there's no penetration, even if they intercourse. Kissing isn't sexual penetration. Female teachers are therfore charged with a lesser charge

 

[Hoffy95]

Most female teachers get a lesser penalty due to the male student not being on the receiving end of the penetration. The offence is sexual penetration with a child. Unless the female techer milks his prostate, there's no penetration, even if they intercourse. Kissing isn't sexual penetration. Female teachers are therfore charged with a lesser charge

wat.

 

[beez]

Most female teachers get a lesser penalty due to the male student not being on the receiving end of the penetration. The offence is sexual penetration with a child. Unless the female techer milks his prostate, there's no penetration, even if they intercourse. Kissing isn't sexual penetration. Female teachers are therfore charged with a lesser charge

Epic fail

Your last sentence, saying that because females don't do the penetration they get a lesser charge, is a load of tripe.

You may just want to delete your post.


Fwiw, double standards are always going to appear in regards to gender, but as has been stated above, sexual penetration was not proved in the 2nd case, which is one of the reasons why she was not given jail time.

 

[magic_johnson!]

i agree, riz
girl gives me nipple cripple, everyone laugh
i give her nipple cripple, war breaks out

 

[Strike Swiftly]

Epic fail

Your last sentence, saying that because females don't do the penetration they get a lesser charge, is a load of tripe.

You may just want to delete your post.


Fwiw, double standards are always going to appear in regards to gender, but as has been stated above, sexual penetration was not proved in the 2nd case, which is one of the reasons why she was not given jail time.

Section 35 of the Victorian Crimes Act 1958

sexual penetration means—
(a) the introduction (to any extent) by a
person of his penis into the vagina, anus
or mouth of another person, whether or
not there is emission of semen; or
(b) the introduction (to any extent) by a
person of an object or a part of his or
her body (other than the penis) into the
vagina or anus of another person, other
than in the course of a procedure
carried out in good faith for medical or
hygienic purposes;


Therefore

Sexual Penetration with a child under 16 does not apply. Committing an Indecent Act with a Child under 16 does. This has a lesser penalty. Thats why male teachers get the harsher sentence.

Penetration with a child under 16 - Maximum 25 years.
Indecent act with a child under 16 - Maximum 10 years.

 

[Hoffy95]

Hang on.

You're still arguing that penetration only applies to the male inserting erect penis into female vagina and/or anus and that it is not penetration on the females part by accepting said erect penis?*

The act of sexual intercourse involves penetration from both parties.

*Typed with a straight face.

 

[Strike Swiftly]

hahaha. hey, I dont create this shiite legislation, just source it.

 

[Chopsticks]

Anyone else got a hard-on??

 

[Strike Swiftly]

^^ hahaha. I laughed out loud you sicko.

 

[beez]

Section 35 of the Victorian Crimes Act 1958

sexual penetration means—
(a) the introduction (to any extent) by a
person of his penis into the vagina, anus
or mouth of another person, whether or
not there is emission of semen; or
(b) the introduction (to any extent) by a
person of an object or a part of his or
her body (other than the penis) into the
vagina or anus of another person, other
than in the course of a procedure
carried out in good faith for medical or
hygienic purposes;


Therefore

Sexual Penetration with a child under 16 does not apply. Committing an Indecent Act with a Child under 16 does. This has a lesser penalty. Thats why male teachers get the harsher sentence.

Penetration with a child under 16 - Maximum 25 years.
Indecent act with a child under 16 - Maximum 10 years.

******.

Go check the precedent in regards to females being charged with sexual penetration. I think you will find many women have been charged with this offence before.

 

[Barwick17]

Stupidest thread ever but -

it is sexual penetration - not sexually penetrated

Meaning you don't actually have to be penetrated personally, just have penetration between the two of them. So both male and females can be charged from having sex.

This case is different as she is claiming they didnt have it at all

 

[notting18]

I have to laugh at the person who thinks women can't be charged under the Australian law. It is interesting to note that in the UK though 'rape', as in the "without consent" sex, can only be committed by a man (Must involve penetration by the penis).

I do believe courts are generally lighter on female offenders in these cases but the two articles listed aren't great examples. There is a significant difference in the number and severity of offences and likelihood they will re-offend which will always lead to different sentences.

 

[Strike Swiftly]

******.

Go check the precedent in regards to females being charged with sexual penetration. I think you will find many women have been charged with this offence before.

Get off your high horse beez and produce the precedent. Can't go suggesting there's a precedent as fact without a link or similar.

 

[beez]

Get off your high horse beez and produce the precedent. Can't go suggesting there's a precedent as fact without a link or similar.

Hey!

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-118320990.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-107766692.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/06/2411998.htm?site=northwestwa

http://news.smh.com.au/national/teacher-charged-over-sex-with-student-20080515-2eo6.html



Hope they suffice

 

[A Living God]

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-118320990.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/06/2411998.htm?site=northwestwa

http://news.smh.com.au/national/teacher-charged-over-sex-with-student-20080515-2eo6.html

These cases are from WA. He was talking about Victorian law so they are irrelevant.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-107766692.html

The article says sexual penetration not sexual intercourse. As this cases involved infants I think its highly unlikely that she was charged for having sexual intercourse. Insertion of a finger into the vagina or anus is defined as sexual penetration under Victorian law.

 

[Strike Swiftly]

How about you provide links relating to Victorian law beez. You may wanna try your google search on Victorian Case Law. You obviously think your yr 10 legal studies has made you an expert and you obviously know "precedents" verbatim

 

[beez]

How about you provide links relating to Victorian law beez. You may wanna try your google search on Victorian Case Law. You obviously think your yr 10 legal studies has made you an expert and you obviously know "precedents" verbatim

I knew there was a reason why I dropped legal after year 11

This whole arguments stems from you saying males getter a harsher penalty because they do the penetrating, which I find really hard to believe.

 

[Strike Swiftly]

Just because "you" believe it to be incorrect, doesn't mean it it is. Not all legislation makes perfect sense. If women penetrate someone with a finger etc, they can be charged with penetration. Women can't be charged with penetration for sticking a persons penis in themselves. Not that hard really.