When is rape not rape?

[Arse]

The point of offering reduced sentences, according to Clarke, is to get them to plead guilty.

And what if they're innocent? The Innocence Project over in America discovered many cases where the wrong man was locked up for a rape, and in some cases the person confessed and pleaded guilty to avoid a harsher sentence. It looks like Clarke is planning to import one of the flaws of the US system to his own country, he should be learning by their mistakes instead.

[mistermack]

The point of offering reduced sentences, according to Clarke, is to get them to plead guilty.

And what if they're innocent? The Innocence Project over in America discovered many cases where the wrong man was locked up for a rape, and in some cases the person confessed and pleaded guilty to avoid a harsher sentence. It looks like Clarke is planning to import one of the flaws of the US system to his own country, he should be learning by their mistakes instead.

I completely agree. Plea bargaining is a load of crap that we should avoid like the plague. It's so easy to get a vulnerable person to believe that they haven't got a chance, even if they know they're innocent.

On the other matter, Ken Clarke is completely right. Some rapes are much more serious than others. Every rape is different in seriousness. This "rape is rape" cry is moronic.

Many are hideous, but many are not. And many are somewhere in between. It may not please the politically correct, but it's a fact.
Technically, I've raped and been raped. Neither were my idea. And nobody complained afterwards, and I remember both quite fondly. But both were technically rape.
But neither come anywhere near the 'classic' stranger rape, or the violent gang bangs you hear of. So I can tell anybody who wants to know, from personal experience, that some rapes are MUCH more serious than others.
.

[Warren Dew]

I expect rapes that do not include some aspect of violence or the threat of violence must be quite rare though, so it's difficult to see where he seems to be drawing the line.

I suspect many cases of statutory rape involve neither violence nor threat of violence.

[Geoff]

I expect rapes that do not include some aspect of violence or the threat of violence must be quite rare though, so it's difficult to see where he seems to be drawing the line.

I suspect many cases of statutory rape involve neither violence nor threat of violence.

"Statutory rape" as a legal phrase doesn't exist over here; the legal term [for underage sex] is "Unlawful sexual intercourse". Rape, by the UK definition, simply means "without consent".

[mistermack]

I expect rapes that do not include some aspect of violence or the threat of violence must be quite rare though, so it's difficult to see where he seems to be drawing the line.

I would totally disagree. I would expect the huge majority to NOT involve violence or threats. Because most take place within marriage or couples living together, with one partner saying no, and the other ignoring that.
That's rape, and rape goes from that, through similar rapes on one night stands, to a small amount of force, all the way to full violent stranger rape. There is no sudden bold black line, with hideous crime on one side, and innocent sex on the other, with nothing in-between.

A lot of rapes involve women so drunk, they are either unconscious, or not capable of consent. No violence or threats needed, and it happens all the time. Rapes of women who pass out due to drink or drugs are probably way more common than violent ones, or ones involving Rohypnol.

And of course you have the example that Ken Clarke gave, of a girl who wants sex, but is just below the age of consent. All the politicians are self righteously saying that ALL rapes are awful crimes, and ignoring such examples.

I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with it, I'm just saying that there is a huge spread of seriousness, all the way from not-really-rape , through only-just rape, all the way to the most horrendous rapes.
.

[Warren Dew]

I expect rapes that do not include some aspect of violence or the threat of violence must be quite rare though, so it's difficult to see where he seems to be drawing the line.

I suspect many cases of statutory rape involve neither violence nor threat of violence.

"Statutory rape" as a legal phrase doesn't exist over here; the legal term [for underage sex] is "Unlawful sexual intercourse". Rape, by the UK definition, simply means "without consent".

According to the article that seems to include what we define as statutory rape, though?

No it's not, and if an 18-year-old has sex with a 15-year-old and she's perfectly willing, that is rape. That's 'cause she's underage, can't consent. Anybody has sex with a 15-year-old, it's rape.

Or is Clarke mistaken there? His logic seems sound.

[Jason]

I'm all for legalizing the private affairs of ordinary citizens. Mistermack's eloquent, erudite, and evocative post only serves to, alliteratively, support my cause.

How are we to differentiate what we might call 'marital' rape from 'rape' rape in the absence of a Government issued, signed, dated, notarized sexual consent agreement between two parties and witnessed by a third, or even fourth party? Personally I'd go for a fifth party witness, that is 3 people must witness the couple agree to, apply for, sign and notarize said sexual consent form and then witness the event itself. This 'witness' redundancy, if you will permit me to stretch the word a smidge, serves a dual purpose - the first being to guarantee that the agreement, application, notarization and act itself are all completely above board and to serve as a safeguard against false witness. It should go without saying that the witnesses should not be in anyway familiar with the signatories nor should they receive compensation for their service in any way whatsoever - to have it otherwise would open the system to compromise wherein one could, conceivably, use three 'friends' as witnesses and go on to commit a rape contradictory to the notarized sexual consent agreement. It would also open up a 'market', as it were, for 'freelance witnesses'. These persons would, for a prearranged fee, agree to bear false witness for one of the signatories to the sexual consent agreement. No, that would not do. I suggest, rather, that the witnessing of the agreement, application, notarization and act itself be written into each and every country's constitution (or equivalent) as a civic duty - similar to jury duty. That is three persons should be selected, at random, and judged either unfit or fit to witness the agreement, application, notarization and act itself based upon certain and clear criteria. Clearly it would be necessary for the primary parties to submit a notice of intent to agree to engage in sexual intercourse and so initiate the bureaucratic process which will have three witnesses selected and ready to serve their civic duty not later than the submitted time of agreement to give sexual consent. This series of consensual safeguards would be completed by the witnessing (by the three witnesses) of the signing, notarization, and submission of a final form - that which will inform those concerned (of whom I'll speak shortly) of the success, failure, or wrongful sexual conduct in contravention of the aforementioned agreement of sexual consent (in which case the witnesses should be required to prepare a sworn statement which they will deliver before a judge and jury of their peers after the arraignment of the offending primary party and which they will be required to swear to be the truth before the court or face charges of perjury). The witnesses should also be segregated immediately following the witnessing of the act itself by specially trained officers of the sexual corps so that they may not corroborate their accounts and so preserve the redundancy failsafe purpose they serve. Naturally, and I come to this last, a new bureaucratic institution needs be created to process the heady inflow of submissions of notice of intent to agree to engage in sexual intercourse, issue the agreements to engage in sexual intercourse which are to be signed and notarized by the primary parties, and witnessed by the trio of witnesses, process the completed agreements, issue the completion of sexual congress forms to all parties (including the witnesses), process them according to their individual status, forwarding the offending cases to the criminal courts wherein charges will be brought against the offending party by a court appointed prosecutor or one of the victim's choice.

I feel that in this way, and only in this way, will we ever be rid of 'rape'. Yes, ladies, gentleman, and rapists - the bureaucratizing, legalizing, witnessing and formalizing of sexual congress is the only moral choice we have.

[Seth]

Furthermore, the suggestion that date rape is less serious than 'forcible' rape, as he calls it, is idiotic. There is very little difference between using violence to subdue a victim and using chemicals to do so, they are both violations of that individual's right to sovereignty over their own body and should be treated no differently.

Not if the chemical was voluntarily self-administered.

If you get drunk or stoned and hand the care of your body over to someone else, it shouldn't be rape, it should be just desserts for your own stupidity.

Voluntary intoxication on the part of the alleged victim should be an affirmative defense to a charge of rape in court.

[rachelbean]

Remind me never to get drunk with Seth

[Seth]

Remind me never to get drunk with Seth

Don't get drunk with anybody you aren't willing to have inside you while you're unconscious is my advice.

Don't get drunk is the best advice.

[Jason]

Don't get drunk with anybody you aren't willing to have inside you while you're unconscious is my advice.

Well.. this certainly sheds new light on the term 'drinking buddy'.

Don't drink with your mates unless you want them inside your cozy stiffly and proper. Oi! :S

[rachelbean]

Remind me never to get drunk with Seth

Don't get drunk with anybody you aren't willing to have inside you while you're unconscious is my advice.

Don't get drunk is the best advice.

I started to write a genuine reply but then remembered who you are. It doesn't matter, what you said is so monumentally stupid, I don't think it needs a rebuttal.

[Jason]

It was a joke. Deadpan humour.

Also you don't know 'who I am', so I don't know what you're on about.

[rachelbean]

It was a joke. Deadpan humour.

Also you don't know 'who I am', so I don't know what you're on about.

Sorry, that was a reply to Seth before I saw yours

You, you're funny

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Don't get drunk with anybody you aren't willing to have inside you while you're unconscious is my advice.

Well.. this certainly sheds new light on the term 'drinking buddy'.

Don't drink with your mates unless you want them inside your cozy stiffly and proper. Oi! :S

If Seth hang out with people like Seth, I can understand why he'd be worried.