When is rape not rape?

[Pappa]

Reading between the lines, by "less serious" I think he means where there are no further aggravating circumstances. If he means "agrevating" in its usual legal sense (such as "agrevated trespass" and "aggravated burglary") then that would merely mean that rapists who used additional violence (or were armed?) would not be considered for the scheme. 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. How violent would it need to be to be considered agrevating in his proposal?

[Rum]

Personally I have always been fond of Clarke - particularly his ability to cut through political BS and say what he really thinks. Besides the points identified above he also pointed out that a case of an 18 year old male sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend is technically and legally rape, but that such cases are not normally progressed. Everyone then get really pissed off that he was suggesting some rapes are 'less serious' than others.

We have an example here of a subject that no matter what you say somebody is going to make a huge fuss and demand you resign..or commit hara-kiri because it is the worst thing evah anyone evah said!

[charlou]

Personally I have always been fond of Clarke - particularly his ability to cut through political BS and say what he really thinks. Besides the points identified above he also pointed out that a case of an 18 year old male sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend is technically and legally rape, but that such cases are not normally progressed. Everyone then get really pissed off that he was suggesting some rapes are 'less serious' than others.

We have an example here of a subject that no matter what you say somebody is going to make a huge fuss and demand you resign..or commit hara-kiri because it is the worst thing evah anyone evah said!

That's the impression I'm getting.

[Santa_Claus]

So what folk are saying is that Racially aggravated Rape is not more serious than "normal" rape. Sometimes it's hard to keep up........

Personally I would feel that being bundled into the boot of a car, beaten nearly to death and gang raped by Muslims would be more "serious" than getting a bit too pissed and in the morning regretting taking it up the shitter. But I've not done either, so it may be the same...........

[Atheist-Lite]

Ken Clarke is the media's chew toy now. He's asked for it really. He's a fat old windbag with outrageous attitudes belonging to the middle of another century. Deserves a long slow chew. It appears the media are well pleased to have a politician they can chew on after the last couple of months.

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

"Rape is rape, with respect."

"No, it's not."

You can't get any clearer. What he should have said is "Rape is serious, but some 'rape', as it is legally defined, is more serious than others." What he says is equally as important as what he does, as he's meant to be taking decisions that represent the best interests of the electorate and he needs to be able to communicate what he's doing. If he can't effectively communicate the logic behind his decisions he shouldn't be in his position. Nor should he be if he thinks allowing a rapist to leave prison halfway through their term is acceptable - there needs to be a balance between punishment and prevention, drastically cutting sentences doesn't achieve that goal, it just gives the impression that the crime wasn't that serious. "Five years for rape, but it's okay, I'll be out in half of that."

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.

[PsychoSerenity]

Personally I have always been fond of Clarke - particularly his ability to cut through political BS and say what he really thinks. Besides the points identified above he also pointed out that a case of an 18 year old male sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend is technically and legally rape, but that such cases are not normally progressed. Everyone then get really pissed off that he was suggesting some rapes are 'less serious' than others.

We have an example here of a subject that no matter what you say somebody is going to make a huge fuss and demand you resign..or commit hara-kiri because it is the worst thing evah anyone evah said!

Serious issues need to be tackled with cool heads, which is what Ken Clarke was trying to do - though going on a live call-in show with such a sensitive issue was clearly a mistake in the first place.

[pErvinalia]

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.

I know what you are trying to say here, but this isn't about "sovereignty over" one's body. If it was, then someone sticking their tongue in your mouth would be as bad as someone sticking their dick in your front or rear bottom.

I actually don't see the problem with saying some rapes are worse than others (depending on what accompanied the rape), just as saying that some muggings or even murders are worse than others. Rape surely isn't just about the direct penetration? Surely there can be more or less accompanying physical and/or psychological damage. But having said all that, i'm a guy, so I'm not really sure what it would be like to be in that position.

[Evabot]

Speaking as a woman, I think the experience of being violated in any capacity would be damaging. I don't care if I'm drugged, beaten, gang raped, molested on the train, or tied to a pole. In any variation, at it's core, it is still a violation of my body sexual liberty. In any degree, it would still leave me, personally, scarred for life.

[MrJonno]

Penalty for rape in the uk is already a few months to life imprisonment so its pretty obviously its a crime who punishment vastly depends on circumstances.

If you are going to say all forms of rape should carry a life imprisonment/execution by castration then quite simply juries are not going to convict if there isnt even the slightest amount of doubt. The whole point of his statement was to try to improve convinction rates

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

Penalty for rape in the uk is already a few months to life imprisonment so its pretty obviously its a crime who punishment vastly depends on circumstances.

If you are going to say all forms of rape should carry a life imprisonment/execution by castration then quite simply juries are not going to convict if there isnt even the slightest amount of doubt. The whole point of his statement was to try to improve convinction rates

I fail to see how introducing new, sentence shortening provisions will improve conviction rates. If a 33% cut doesn't make someone plead guilty, a 50% cut won't either.

[pErvinalia]

That's interesting logic...

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

That's interesting logic...

The point of offering reduced sentences, according to Clarke, is to get them to plead guilty. The only reason a rational person would plead guilty is if they didn't think it likely that they'd win their court case. The size of the sentence cut won't affect how likely they believe it is that they'll win - only whether or not it's worth pleading guilty, just in case they lose. Either way, it still doesn't tackle the real issue, re-offending (which is what Clarke states he wants to tackle) because in any case it projects the impression that the crime they've committed isn't THAT serious.

[Pappa]

That's interesting logic...

The point of offering reduced sentences, according to Clarke, is to get them to plead guilty. The only reason a rational person would plead guilty is if they didn't think it likely that they'd win their court case. The size of the sentence cut won't affect how likely they believe it is that they'll win - only whether or not it's worth pleading guilty, just in case they lose. Either way, it still doesn't tackle the real issue, re-offending (which is what Clarke states he wants to tackle) because in any case it projects the impression that the crime they've committed isn't THAT serious.

He also said that it was to spare the victims by drastically reducing the length of time a case spends in court (and presumably the cost too).

[HomerJay]

This is serious BS from Clarke.

He was caught lying and today he hasn't corrected himself and it's just to save money.

He's a likeable old duffer, one of our local MPs but he's well out of order on this and should make amends quickly.