Here is yet another example of women getting a pass for a reason that would never apply to a man:

A FORMER dinner lady who had sex with a 14-year-old boy has been spared a prison term because it would have meant her four children would be put into foster care.

That makes perfect sense. A person commits a crime, but because they have a family who depends on them, said person should not face the consequences of their actions. We can be sure, of course, that the crime in this instance was completely harmless and the offender had no idea she violated the law:

Terri Spragg, 35, had sex with the young lad on several occasions – including on the kitchen floor – warned him not tell anyone because it was illegal.

So Spragg not only pursued the victim, gained his trust, and abused him, but she also clearly knew it was wrong.

That is likely why she was convicted on seven charges. Of course, the judge wasted little time holding the victim responsible:

She appeared for sentencing at the Isle of Wight Crown Court yesterday where Judge John Price said: “He started having feelings for her. He became very fond of you. Then it became a sexual relationship.” He added: “I have read his victim impact statement. He says it has caused great upset. He was not able to talk to his parents and found it difficult to get on with people at school.” Judge Price continued: “He could not legally consent, in practical terms, he did. He was very fond of you. “

In other words, Spragg preyed on a boy who was infatuated with her. That obviously makes it acceptable, which would explain the decision to give Spragg a pass on jail time:

However, he spared her a spell behind bars because it would have meant her four children going into foster care. He said: “They would be taken from you and would go into different homes. It breaks up the family. I have no problem locking you up but I have to take into account the effect on the children.”

That is a contradiction. If you do not want to lock her up because she has children and you do not want them placed into foster care, you do have a problem locking her up. You also have a problem with warped morals. The sentence the woman faced was 15 months. She would not serve the complete sentence, and upon release she would receive custody of her children. While one can argue that a year in foster care is not the best situation, neither is allowing a woman who groomed and preyed on a vulnerable boy to get away with child rape.

That is effectively what Judge Price did.

Spragg’s lawyer also played the “pity her” routine, arguing his client was “vulnerable” because she is a single mother and suffered a miscarriage. According to him, “This relationship gave her some sort of self-worth.”

Yes, of course. Adult women need barely pubescent boys having sex with them in order to feel any self-worth. That she requested the boy lie about it out of fear of legal punishment means nothing.

Spragg did not get away completely unscathed. She will have to register as a sex offender for five years, although given that she is female, it is unlikely to result in anything significant.

Cases like this one highlight the double standard used in abuse cases. No man who abused a 14-year-old girl could argue that he should not face jail time because of his family. No judge would accept such a silly argument. Yet this happens in far too many cases involving female offenders.

The most troubling part of this attitude is that female offenders essentially know they can rape and threaten their victims and walk out of court. None of this help victims of abuse. Rather, it sends the message that there is little point in victims reporting female offenders.