Ah here we come to the vexed subject of rape and on this occasion form a somewhat different angle because the women in question here is the perp rather than the victim. Now I know that her crime has not been described as rape in the News piece below but up here in Queensland precisely the same offences would be classified as rape. Changes to the definition of the crime up here by the Labor governemnt is something that I am happy to endorse.
Of course I am rather keen to know just what the feminists are going to say about this conviction, for one thing but more importantly the manifestly inadequate sentence handed down here, two years suspended for not one offence but four!
Further why is Laura O’Donnell not being put on the sex offenders register?
That is almost unbelievable.and if the genders had been transposed I could not imagine a man getting less than a ten stretch for the same sort of offences. This was (by definition*) non-consensual sex and therefore rape. I am totally flabbergasted that the judge has mitigated the punishment into meaninglessness. But then again what do you expect ?
Look at the judge’s Christian name… Sue…
Clearly not named under the Johnny Cash rationale
Sadly not surprised by this Comrades
*Children under sixteen can not legally consent to sex.