Claire Lyte gets a light punishment

Claire Lyte was found guilty today and sentenced to two years and nine months prison- so why do we feel sorry for her?

The media has some explaining to in relation to the position they have taken in the matter. 

When a man interferes with a child in this manner, it's rape and pedophilia, plain and simple. But this case is being presented as one of "lesbian sex" rather than in its real terms - rape, pedophilia, and gross abuse of position. If it was a man committing this same crime, there would be no question of guilt.  I wonder whether the fact that Claire looks so caring, attractive, respectable and generally just 'nice' that no one has really hurled abuse her way.

This case is twisted in many ways, possibly with the biggest problem and offender is the girls mother. The one person who should care for the girl more than anyone else let her down in the worst possible way.

Baqsically, the girl’s mother, thinking her daughter is a prodigy, knows what is going on, and allows the abuse to continue. It’s not a pretty picture. The mother walked in on them having oral sex, briefly got angry and then sent her daughter back to the same tennis academy, knowing full well that her daughter would continue to be coached by Lyte. 

In my opinion it is the mother needs to be serious questioned along the line of child neglect. Putting her daughter in harm's way by knowingly allowing her to be in contact with Lyte on a regular basis. 

Just because Claire Lyte is a 'fantastic coach' it does not make her a paragon of virtue, she admitted keeping the girl's underwear and wearing it. Even if you discount the Mother's testimony (not that I would give it a huge amount of weight being that the woman should be prosecuted for child abuse) there is  no way that Claire Lyte should have escaped with such a minimal sentence.

There have been several cases in Canada and Australia where female teachers found to be interfering with female pupils have been given a sympathetic treatment by both media and judiciary. This theme seems to have carried over to the UK.

We all know that had the offender in this case been a male, there would have been a public outcry of injustice, apparently there is not total equality before the law - until the judiciary gets past their prejudice towards men being the only sex able to commit such crimes then the situation will not change.

The tricky question remains: did Claire Lyte get off too easily? Or was her sentence correct and we are punishing men too harshly for the same crime?

It seems that maybe the courts have overlooked one of the most fundamental principles of the British common law that all men will be punished equally for committing the same crime.