Justice Secretary Ken Clarke is in trouble after suggesting people charged with rape could get any jail sentence cut in half if they plead guilty, as well as some interviews where he said there were different categories of rape, saying there was a difference between a "classic rape, where someone jumps out from behind a bush and forcibily rapes an unwilling woman" and date rape or a 17-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old.

 

I generally support what Ken Clarke has been doing on prisons reform (there's no point sending a young person who's been dealing drugs to prison, where they can just do it some more) - but, on this, I think he's completely wrong and out of touch. I think rape is one of the few crimes where sentences are too soft - the average sentence is 5 years, and, under Clarke's plans to cut sentences in half, they could be released after just 15 months - I don't believe a convicted rapist is safe to be released in society after such a short time. Also, while he might have a point that a 17-year-old having sex with a consenting 15-year-old shouldn't be lumped into the same bracket as other types of rape (though would any court seriously convict someone in that situation anyway?), it's completely offensive and uninformed to dismiss date rape or a boyfriend/husband raping a long term girlfriend/wife, as not "proper" rape.

 

I suspect Clarke will survive for now, but it's not certain...

But as Clarke pointed out that five year average covers all rapes. That includes cases where the question for the jury to decide is whether sex was consensual. Rape by a stranger and involving violence will nearly always mean a sentence a good deal longer than five years.

 

The conviction rate for so called "date rape" (I hate that term) is already very low. If the likely sentence is increased, the conviction rate will fall even further. Even now I am sure a lot of jurors ultimately go for acquittal in these cases because the consequences for the defendant (a near certain prison sentence, losing their livelihood and going on the sex offenders register) are so great. Forensic evidence can show that the two people involved had sex with each other but that isn't the issue in these cases so it's a matter of one person's word against another's.

 

It's also reasonable that a guilty plea should lead to a reduction in sentence. The fact that it reduces the cost of proceedings is of little consequence. The real benefit of a guilty plea is that the victim is spared the ordeal of giving evidence.

 

Clarke's language in this interview was clumsy but , in general, he's right. Labour are just indulging in the worst kind of opposition (as practised by Lib Dems and Tories in opposition as well) in calling for his resignation. If Lansley's NHS Bill is changed beyond recognition that would justify calls for his resignation. Clarke's remarks are nowhere ner a resignation matter.

I saw this on the BBC and put my head in my hands. Utter ridiculous opposition on behalf of Labour: it was clear that he was referring to willing underage sex technically being rape, and he's completely right to say it's obviously less serious than violent coercive rape. It's even worse given that Clarke's one of the few Cabinet members actually doing any good at the moment...

It was unnecessary, he undoubtedly used some very ill-advised language when talking about the matter but if he did resign, I dread to think who they'd get in instead...

But as Clarke pointed out that five year average covers all rapes. That includes cases where the question for the jury to decide is whether sex was consensual. Rape by a stranger and involving violence will nearly always mean a sentence a good deal longer than five years.

 

But I just don't accept that there ARE different degrees of rape, with the sole exception of someone having sex with someone just below the age of consent (though, like I said, I highly doubt there's many people who've been jailed because of that anyway, so I can't imagine that will have dragged down the average rapist's prison sentence much). Clarke's implication was that "date rape" or being raped by someone you know is not as serious as a "classic rape" from a stranger - and I just don't accept that.

 

Maybe he genuinely doesn't realise what was wrong with his comments. He did actually say in one of his interviews, when asked if he'd spoken to any rape victims lately, he said "I don't think rape has changed that much since I was a lawyer (in the 1960s)". Actually, it has: raping a wife only became illegal in the 90s. Maybe he genuinely doesn't see that as being on a par as being raped by a stranger - but, if that is the case, that's a real problem, because the majority of rape victims have been abused by someone they're in a relationship with.

But I just don't accept that there ARE different degrees of rape, with the sole exception of someone having sex with someone just below the age of consent (though, like I said, I highly doubt there's many people who've been jailed because of that anyway, so I can't imagine that will have dragged down the average rapist's prison sentence much). Clarke's implication was that "date rape" or being raped by someone you know is not as serious as a "classic rape" from a stranger - and I just don't accept that.

There are different degrees of rape. That's why the sentence can be anything from a non-custodial one (very rare) to life imprisonment.

 

If all rapes were treated the same with a lengthy jail sentence, juries would refuse to convict when the question was whether sex was consensual.

A rape is NEVER consensual though, by its very nature!

 

(With the exception of consensual sex with a 14/15-year-old - which I've just read isn't actually counted as rape under British law.)

It is counted as rape - statutory rape.

A rape is NEVER consensual though, by its very nature!

 

(With the exception of consensual sex with a 14/15-year-old - which I've just read isn't actually counted as rape under British law.)

I didn't say that rape was consensual. Clearly, by definition, it isn't. However, in some cases there is no dispute that the two people had sex. The issue is whether consent was given, i.e. whether an offence was committed or not. In cases like that, if a guilty verdict was going to lead to a lengthy jail sentence, do you really think a jury would convict?

It is counted as rape - statutory rape.

 

I thought so too, but apparently it only applies specifically to sex with a child under 13 in the UK. There's a separate non-rape offence for having consensual sex with a 14-16-year-old.

 

 

I didn't say that rape was consensual. Clearly, by definition, it isn't. However, in some cases there is no dispute that the two people had sex. The issue is whether consent was given, i.e. whether an offence was committed or not. In cases like that, if a guilty verdict was going to lead to a lengthy jail sentence, do you really think a jury would convict?

 

A jury should either decide that the sex was consensual, in which case the accused shouldn't get any sentence atall; or they should decide it wasn't consensual, in which case they should get a full sentence. If they really do operate on the basis of, where they're only 50% sure someone is guilty, they give them a shorter sentence than someone they're 100% sure is guilty, I find that pretty ridiculous.

I thought so too, but apparently it only applies specifically to sex with a child under 13 in the UK. There's a separate non-rape offence for having consensual sex with a 14-16-year-old.

A jury should either decide that the sex was consensual, in which case the accused shouldn't get any sentence atall; or they should decide it wasn't consensual, in which case they should get a full sentence. If they really do operate on the basis of, where they're only 50% sure someone is guilty, they give them a shorter sentence than someone they're 100% sure is guilty, I find that pretty ridiculous.

That's not the way it works. One of the reasons capital punishment was abolished in this country is because the conviction rate for murder was going down. Juries were voting for acquittal partly because they didn't like the penalty which would be imposed if the defendant was guilty.

 

Treating every rape case the same would be like giving someone who broke a window and stole a carton of milk the same as someone who threatened homeowners with a knife and stole a large amount of property.

That's not the way it works. One of the reasons capital punishment was abolished in this country is because the conviction rate for murder was going down. Juries were voting for acquittal partly because they didn't like the penalty which would be imposed if the defendant was guilty.

 

Treating every rape case the same would be like giving someone who broke a window and stole a carton of milk the same as someone who threatened homeowners with a knife and stole a large amount of property.

I can't believe you have said this.

Rape is always the same. By your analogy if a rapist only gets half way in then that's not as bad as full-penetration! Rediculous.

 

Non-consensual sex is rape whatever the circumstances.

I can't believe you have said this.

Rape is always the same. By your analogy if a rapist only gets half way in then that's not as bad as full-penetration! Rediculous.

 

Non-consensual sex is rape whatever the circumstances.

Non-consensual sex is indeed rape. I haven't suggested otherwise.

 

However, that doesn't mean that every case of non-consensual sex is equally serious.

I can't believe you have said this.

Rape is always the same. By your analogy if a rapist only gets half way in then that's not as bad as full-penetration! Rediculous.

 

Non-consensual sex is rape whatever the circumstances.

 

Exactly.

I've read from some people today that there's such a thing as "violent" rapes - EVERY rape is violent in and of itself. The victim doesn't need to be held at knifepoint for it to be violent.

Non-consensual sex is indeed rape. I haven't suggested otherwise.

 

However, that doesn't mean that every case of non-consensual sex is equally serious.

Exactly. Wasn't there a landmark ruling a couple of years back whereby sex where consent was given whilst drunk was ruled to count as rape? Obviously it's serious if the consenting participant considered it to be rape afterwards, but I don't think you could say that's as serious as someone kidnapping a woman from their bedroom, gagging and bounding them before violently raping and assaulting them. All rape is serious, but some rapes are more serious than others.

Non-consensual sex is indeed rape. I haven't suggested otherwise.

 

However, that doesn't mean that every case of non-consensual sex is equally serious.

So (unless you've already stated in the thread, in which case I apologise), what exactly is not-so-serious rape?

Exactly. Wasn't there a landmark ruling a couple of years back whereby sex where consent was given whilst drunk was ruled to count as rape? Obviously it's serious if the consenting participant considered it to be rape afterwards, but I don't think you could say that's as serious as someone kidnapping a woman from their bedroom, gagging and bounding them before violently raping and assaulting them. All rape is serious, but some rapes are more serious than others.

Yes some rapes are more violent than others but the psychological effects of all rapes are devastating. So how you go about saying some are worse than others is beyond me.

Here you are mixing up a host of crimes all together which should be charged separately. Violation of another person in this way is the same regardless of the methods used.

Basically all rapes are the result of a perceived power differential between the rapist and the victim.

Yes some rapes are more violent than others but the psychological effects of all rapes are devastating. So how you go about saying some are worse than others is beyond me.

Here you are mixing up a host of crimes all together which should be charged separately. Violation of another person in this way is the same regardless of the methods used.

Basically all rapes are the result of a perceived power differential between the rapist and the victim.

And, as I said, all rapes are serious. Surely it goes without saying that a rape with severe violence associated with it would be seen and treated more seriously in the courts and in sentencing than one where the rapist could theoretically be entirely unaware that they're actually raping the victim? Which isn't to take away from the psychological damage to the victim of the latter: namely that a jury would be more sympathetic to the rapist in the latter case than the former.

Exactly. Wasn't there a landmark ruling a couple of years back whereby sex where consent was given whilst drunk was ruled to count as rape? Obviously it's serious if the consenting participant considered it to be rape afterwards, but I don't think you could say that's as serious as someone kidnapping a woman from their bedroom, gagging and bounding them before violently raping and assaulting them. All rape is serious, but some rapes are more serious than others.

 

I think the ruling was that, if someone who's drunk consents to sex initially, but then, maybe as they start to sober up, they want to stop, then it becomes rape from that point on if the other person refuses to stop. I don't think it's legally rape for the period of time where the other person is consenting.

Exactly. Wasn't there a landmark ruling a couple of years back whereby sex where consent was given whilst drunk was ruled to count as rape? Obviously it's serious if the consenting participant considered it to be rape afterwards, but I don't think you could say that's as serious as someone kidnapping a woman from their bedroom, gagging and bounding them before violently raping and assaulting them. All rape is serious, but some rapes are more serious than others.

 

I think the ruling was that, if someone who's drunk consents to sex initially, but then, maybe as they start to sober up, they want to stop, then it becomes rape from that point on if the other person refuses to stop. I don't think it's legally rape for the period of time where the other person is consenting.