Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Nutshell view- rape is rape. if it meets the statutory definnition, as interpreted usingh analgous case law, then it is rape. The end.
But not quit.... because there is, to a dgeree, a sentencing discretion and a judge will look into the facts and circumstances, including lieklihood of reoffending, before pronoucing on sentence. So, in that respect, some rapes are more serious than others in the eyes of the law. In the same way that some murders are more serious than others. the end result (ie dead victim/ raped vitim) is still the same, but the nuances behind the intention of the accused are valid distinguishing features at law.
i mean, he even implied that when a 17 year old has consensual sex with a 15 year old, the offence they are going to be charged with is rape. this is not true!
however, i like him and he does have rape victims in mind. just be more careful ken.
was seeking to lay down sentencing guidelines in his soundbite comments.
Minister opining on a matter which directly relates to his own office needs to be very careful because soundbites = official statement on the matter.
But the public should give some leeway when a minister is talking about an inherently complex topic. Someone's always going to complain about how a soundbite comes across because it's impossible to address all the nuances of an issue in two sentences.
As you say- it's so complex.
When BBC interviewer Victoria Derbyshire interrupted to say "Rape is rape, with respect" Mr Clarke replied: "No it's not, if an 18-year-old has sex with a 15 year old and she's perfectly willing, that is rape. Because she is under age, she can't consent..."
Keeping trying Ken.
or he does not understand the defintnions of it.
Either way, it's appalling.
of the country's most misogynistic papers getting outraged.
Is this message board?
Doesn't seem likely.
it's going to be on 400 posts. Someone will say something patently insane and about 6 people will argue with them for hours til the boxes get all tiny. Then I'll skim read it, get mildly annoyed, and go back to a pun thread.
Yeah, you meant Bamnan, didn't you?
There are plenty of serious issues that get discussed on here, and as the clue as to subject matter is gerneally in the title, these threads are easily avoided by those who don't want to get involved.
More concerned that the majority of the French public appear to think Strauss-Kahn is the victim of a plot.
none so blind as those that won't see
more to compensate for me being person most likely to make this thread and lots of people not wanting this thread to happen.
but yeah i think the strauss-kahn thing is baaaaaad. i mean of couse it would be better for the left if this had not come to light. just too bad. if the timing is suspect, this isn't at all material to whether or not he did sexually assualt and attempt to rape a women/several women.
other thing i've struggled with recently in this vein - that acid throwing punishment thing in iran. i mean i think i'm actually morally ok with the guy getting acid thrown on his eyes. it could set an example to men that they can't expect to throw acid in the eyes of a woman who rejects their advances and get away with it (it's a prettty common thing to do in iran apparently). it's being done under anaesthetic. the victim wants it to happen to avoid other women going through her ordeal. it's tricky.
I really, really struggle to get to grips with how the literal eye for an eye thing is acceptable. I'm open to persuasion, obviously, but i'm not placing bets on anyone persuading me it's the Right Thing To Do.
especially in a justice system as inadequate as iran's.
for a state to be admininistering it, that's pretty barbaric yeah. but i don't think the woman is "wrong." and generally, i think people are actually pretty up for retribution.
i think i follow you now.
*holds up arms to defend against verbal missiles* in that his latest proposals are intended to boost rape convictions and considering we have one of the lowest rate of rape convictions in europe ->http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5321555/Britain-has-lowest-rape-conviction-rate-in-Europe-study-finds.html (don't trust the source lol) it is something worth looking at.
However his ideas about of certain kinds of rape being less serious are contentious at best.
play into the hands of people who seek to downplay the gravity of that rape has given certain circumstances.
The way he expressed himself was wrong, although his logic was not entirely without merit. unfortunately, the way he has expressed it has given ammo to dimwits who say things like- how can situation 1 (two pissed people who have sex, and in the morning the girl regrets it) be as bad as situation 2 (knife-wielding masked man jumps on women and take s her into alley whereupon he penetrates her by force.)
What these idiots don't realise (or if they do, choose to ignore) is that situation 1 is not actually rape. the overwhelming majority of women in situation 1 quite correctly chalk it up to experience and go home whilst chastising themselve at their jagermeister consumption, and there is no evidence to suggest that more than the tiniest miniscule % of woman in situation claim to have been raped. the problem is the actual date rape situation, situation 3- where a person is taken advantage of in a situation where they have not given consent *or where it ought to have been obvious to the reasonable man that they did not or could not give their consent at that point*. This is what people get confused. This situatoin 3 is just as much 'rape' as situatoin 2. the courts will look at all of the circumstances when sentencing. For those who think that situatoin 3 is by far the most lenient of the offences, consider adding into the mix the breach of trust that is there, where a person has been taken advantage of by somebody that they know, and posisbly somebody who owed a duty of care to them. There doesn't have to be a knife-weilding maniac in the room for it to be a devastating offence- soetimes, the fact that it has happened at the hands of someboyd you trusted can be infinitely worse.
I believe that most rape is performed by someone that the victim knows. By implying that "date rape" is less serious, isnt Clarke making it even harder to get convictions in these cases rather than increase them?
but that it may be more likely to be a case of mistaken belief of consent for example or indeed less violent. maybe i'm being too charitable. either way, his comments were quickly seized upon for some superb political points scoring by labour so well done to them for that.
hence lays the problem. Its either rape or it isnt. PickledOeuf then points out how "date rape" can have just as many serious repercussions as "violent, serious rape".
The whole area around date rape is very confusing, and hard to pin down - did she consent, was she too drunk to consent etc. then to come along and say it is less serious? Does that mean it should have less time in court, that women should just get over it? If they were raped, then surely it should be treated as seriously. And if we dont know if it was rape or not, then we have to treat it seriously until we do or not.
God im bad at making sense. essentially: rape = bad. sleeping with someone consensually while really rather pissed - annoying and upsetting, not illegal. There is a difference. Hence one is called rape and the other isnt. I think you should be a bit harder on him.
I don't need convincing that date rape is rape.
I just don't want to speculate about exactly what Ken Clarke really meant by his stupid comment. He seems to have retracted it though, suggesting he hadn't thought through whatever point he was trying to make. or that he does hold some atrocious views on rape that he's not being allowed to voice.
So long as intercourse acn be rpvoen (or at least not denied by either party) then all you have left to prove is consent/ intention. This is the hard bit- seeing inside peoples' heads. If you know or ought to have had good reasonable to believe that a person is not consenting (this means actively consenting- not 'passed out drunk and gagging for it' consenting) and despite that you have had sex with that person anyway (whether or not 'force' was involved) then that will meet the 'intent' part of the crime.
It is far from straightforward, and there is scope in a tiny % of awful cases for genuine but extremely foolhardy mistake on the part of the perpetrator as to whether or not somebody was consenting - and this could amount to sufficient 'intent' to qualify this as rape. This would be taken into account in sentencing, of course, but if it qualifies as rape, it is still rape,. The bottom line is- person A did not consent- person B had sex anyay, but obviously it is so much more complex than that, and for that reason, politicians who are not practising barristers in this field should avoid being drawn into 'black and white' answer territory on the subject.
There is no defence of mistaken belief if a person has sex with somebody <13.
13-15 year olds have the capability to consent in the strict sense, but it is still against the law for somebody who is >18 who have sex with somebody in this age group unless they have gebuine reason to believe they are >16.
Over 16s who have sex with 13-15 year olds are rarely prosecuted though unless is the age gap is vast, or if it is an abuse of a positoni of trust or power.
if that was consensual, it wouldn't be considered rape?
Or, would it still *technically* be considered rape, but simply unlikely to be prosecuted?
are often referred to as 'statutory rape'. That's not really a phrase that is very popular in the legal jurisidctions of NI, scoptland and england&wales, and so it is a bit misleading because sex with somebody under 16 is often erroneously called stat rape. That can't be so, becausee somebody aged 15 can consent- it's just that the law overrides it with its own public policy consideratons. However, in the case of somebody aged 12, it would be rape because that person simply cannot consnet.
i think this is correct, but will happily stand to be corrected.
so i guess it's correct
He rightly pointed out that an average sentence of 5 years includes both non-consensual sex forced upon an adult (ie violent), consensual sex involving teenagers, and "date rape" cases where the judge is able to exercise discretion based on the individual circumstances, surmising that it is wrong to conclude "rapists only get 5 years".
Cue a stream of "I haven't heard what he said, but..."s.
is that there's be an increasing perception of him as being 'soft' on crime, whether true or not, since he was appointed to this cabinet and he so if he wasn't quite careful enough with his words ('haven't heard what he said') then any comments about pleading guilty early on will have fueled those perceptions. Combine that with an emotive crime like rape...
how many teenagers are in prison for having consensual sex with 15 year olds? how many of them are there because of a rape conviction?
and, erm, "date rape" cases ARE "non-consensual sex forced upon an adult" cases.
"rapists get 5 years" is a valid statement.
quick skim of MOJ stats, 2009 offenders found guilty or cautioned for rape or attempted rape 1,019, offenders found guilty or cautioned for sexual activity with someone aged 14-16 1,067 - proportion consenting unknown, but it suggests that there's a significant number of those cases. And the fact they're not in prison is exactly the point, the sentencing and punishment is different to cases of serious, pre-meditated, violent sexual offence.
The point that's being missed is that he's talking in the context of the average sentences that have been passed and the sentencing rules that were applied, not about rape cases in general. Someone pleading guilty to violent rape would not get half of 5 years - the tariff for those cases is higher.
'violent rape', presumably as something distinct from 'non-violent rape'. all rape is, by nature, violent. if there is extra violence to the body like beating or stabbing, of course that should be taken into consideration, but as a separate type of assault. the level of violence doesn't affect the severity of the rape itself. to keep specifying 'violent rape' as being the most 'serious' is to perpetuate the idea, even if unintentionally, that some rape is less bad than other rape. maybe you want to make a case for that being true on some level, but i think it's a very dangerous idea to play around with in a world where so many people still have genuinely appalling ideas about what constitutes rape and about women's responsibility for and complicity in their own rape. i don't think you or ken clarke share those ideas, but i think politicians talking about this really have to be extremely careful with the language that they use to avoid accidentally playing into those ideas in some people's heads.
Can someone who actually knows the practicals of successcfully charging and convicting someone of rape tell me what they are? Or point me towards a source elsewhere? Out of genuine interest that is, I'm not looking to shoot anyone or thing down.
For a start, pages 9\10 outline why 'conviction rate' is actually quite a misleading term in the debate. (That's not to say there's not still a massive problem, but it's not necessarily the one we assume when hearing about the low conviction rate and unfortunately that's probably a result of a soundbite-obsessed media as much as anything else).
you'd think with the day he is having he'd have brushed up on all this stuff before giving any more interviews
Nobody really knows, and even if it is a crime, it may not necessarily be prosecuted, it being so rarely in the public interest to do so. In most cases the answer is 'it is discretionary as to whether to prosecute, depending on many factors'.
i think KC has been a colossal idiot, but let's not just give the guy a kicking for being unable to discern subtle legal points that many legal professionals (and indeed the CPS themselves) struggle with on a daily basis.
when he mentioned date rape, he "meant" unlawful sex with a minor
which kind of just digs him out of one hole, straight into another slightly deeper one
PickledOeuf is correct and KC should be cut some slack given that it is impossible to cover all of the nuances of the complex criminal law of rape in a brief statement about average sentences.
I might feel that had more weight if he was some wet-behind-the-ears politician. He's not and he really should have known better. That said, it sounds like he has made the point of actually apologising/clarifying now...
was getting sucked into the whole 'rape' debate.
It wasn't the issue they were meant to be discussing. It was supposed be a broader discussion on the goverment's approach to crime and prisons in general.
Victoria Derbyshire kept pushing the average rape sentence at Clarke. When the conversation finally seemed to be moving away from rape and back to crime and punishment in a broader sense, Derbyshire suddenly said 'Not to labour a point, but... ' and continued to quote the average rape sentence. Cue phone call from a rape victim of a repeat offender with much squirming from Clarke.
Derbyshire, along with 5 live most of the time, usually strive to offer an open and balanced discussion. Repeatedly quoting average rape sentences would be as equally ridiculous as Clarke turning back to Derbyshire and saying 'So what o you think the average rape is then Victoria?'
Some of Clarke's comments may have been misguided or misjudged, but at least he acknowledged that rape is much more of a complex than the BBC were putting forward to him.
On listening to it on the way to work, it smacked of the BBC trying to create a shit storm. They realised that Clarke had been sucked into making comments on such an emotive issue, when the initial conversation was meant to be a much more mundane discussion on general government policy on crime and punishment.
it's already lead to some useful discourse and at least within this arena there's a chance people will take something positive from it
means that he definitely won't resign now.
I think he's past it. He should know how sensitive a subject like this is, having been in politics for decades. He clearly hasn't adjusted well to changes in public communication.
He sticks out of that cabinet like a sore thumb anyway. The sooner he moves on, the better for the government.