Rebecca Joynes: Teacher guilty of sex with two boys

It's things like this that make me think this woman will not see jail.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv22nrd061ro.amp
She literally killed someone as was given a suspended sentence. What a joke.
If we are not going to jail people responsible for the deaths of others, why would we do it for sex offenders. The mind boggles.

Serial groomer and rapist deserves a long prison sentence. Of course our justice system is a joke so she'll get 6 months suspended and back to teaching in a year.

Your prediction was incorrect. Joynes was sentenced to six and half years in prison. She will be eligible for release on licence after three and a quarter years in custody.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn08y6785xqo

We will see. Overcrowding and good behaviour and she will be out in a year.

No, she won't. Nobody is released from prison for good behaviour. That is not how the penal system works. Release on licence depends on time served, and a prisoner released on licence is subject to recall if he or she re-offends.
You were wrong in your prediction. It is a sign of maturity to admit a mistake. Digging deeper is silly. Opinion is no substitute for knowledge.

Nah, she find a way to appeal or something, it'll be reduced for some reason. I still don't think she will be inside for more than a year. Mark these words.

Nah, she find a way to appeal or something, it'll be reduced for some reason. I still don't think she will be inside for more than a year. Mark these words.

I cant help but feel you would object no matter what though? if she doesn't go to prison it's a travesty of justice, if she does she'll be out in a year, if she stays in it's a holiday camp... even if she was dragged right to your door and hanged you'd still sulk that she got the easy way out.

There's a whiff of misogyny emanating from Guru Jason's posts. Meanwhile 99% of those convicted of sexual offences are men, and 97% of the victims of sexual offences are women.

What does that statistic have to so with anything? Idgaf about sex. Break the law and you should be punished appropriately.
My concern here is that the wording under law for rape cannot be applied to women for what I consider a stupid reason leading to punishment inappropriate for their crimes.
Edit: 1 more thing, if your gonna call me out with baseless accusations, at least have the balls to tag or quote me

You have seen my post. Women don't have balls, by the way. Your rudeness and your ignorance sit well together.
Rape is a specifically male crime for the reasons explained above. It is a unique form of violence which only a man can inflict.
Statistics about sex patters in offending are important. Most sexual aggressors are men. Most victims of sexual aggression are women.

In terms of sentencing, why should it matter what sex the perpetrator is? I know what people and the law have stated in terms of rape being a male crime but I disagree. The law in my opinion needs to change.
And lastly, it's 2024, to say a woman can't have balls is highly transphobic and I expected better from you.

In terms of sentencing, why should it matter what sex the perpetrator is? I know what people and the law have stated in terms of rape being a male crime but I disagree. The law in my opinion needs to change.
And lastly, it's 2024, to say a woman can't have balls is highly transphobic and I expected better from you.

You have seen my post. Women don't have balls, by the way. Your rudeness and your ignorance sit well together.
Rape is a specifically male crime for the reasons explained above. It is a unique form of violence which only a man can inflict.
Statistics about sex patterns in offending are important. Most sexual aggressors are men. Most victims of sexual aggression are women.

The legal definition of "rape" should extend to all cases of unconsensual sex regardless of the sex of the attacker or victim. Women can force men to have sex with them, to claim otherwise is factually false.

That's utter nonsense. Your lack of understanding of rape is remarkable, but typically male.

What's nonsense about it? You're welcome to explain your reasoning but until now you haven't done so.

I'm aware that the current legal definition of "rape" does not allow for women to be rapists. My position is that this definition should be changed. Sexual penetration without consent, the act at the heart of rape (as currently defined), can happen regardless of the sex of the attacker and victim.

Do you have an argument against why the definition should be changed? Or is your position just, 'The law says X, therefore the law should continue to say X'?

I think you were meant shouldn’t in the last paragraph , but agreed.