I think there is an error in reporting. Firstly, a woman cannot be charged with rape unless she aids a man in committing it, not the case here. Secondly, if she was charged with rape, the bare minimum is a 4 year custodial sentence.
The more likely scenario is that she was charged with 'sexual activity without consent' which explains the more lenient sentencing.
Just realised that she was given a 4 year sentence, I got confused with the time she has to serve in prison.
It’s ridiculous but here’s what lawmakers had to say about female on male rape:
‘We did consider whether there was evidence that a woman could force a man to penetrate her against his will but, although we found a little anecdotal evidence, we did not discover sufficient to convince us that this was the equivalent of rape.’
This is after stating that rape is most serious and harmful of sexual offences.
I really hope this judgement is upheld at any subsequent appeals as well. It is extremely hard for male victims of sexual abuse to get justice anywhere, especially when the perpetrator is female.
