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.

 

I really would hope this is the case. Somebody waking up in the morning and feeling embarrassment when gazing at their sexual partner from the previous night through hungover eyes should never be a cause to ruin another person's life because they thought their ship had come in.

 

I think Clarke's comments were clumsy and if it's true about there being a different law between consensual sex between a 17 year old and a 15 year old then he should have made this clear. I agree it would be bad for him to go - as Tory cabinet ministers go he's been fairly benign.

 

The thing is though, if somebody pleads guilty to rape then it throws any question out and there shouldn't be a reduced sentence in this case.

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 would say it's pretty damn serious to the victim mate.... Do you actually know anyone who's had their drink spiked with rohypinol by someone they thought they could trust, and then been taken advantage of while they were completely incapable of resisiting...?? THAT is "Date Rape" my friend, and it's happened to a friend of mine.... I honestly cannot believe I am hearing this nonsense from someone as intelligent as yourself...

 

Ken Clarke is a lawyer.. He SHOULD be able to differentiate between "Statutory Rape" (which is consentual sex with an underage teenager, but still classed as "rape" because a minor cannot give legally give consent), and any other form of rape.. Now, if Ken Clarke wants to make a case for classifying certain "grey areas" under the banner the Swedish legal system uses, ie, create an offence of "Sexual Misconduct", then fine, he should argue the toss for it.. What he SHOULD NOT be doing is misusing terms such as "Date Rape" because it is highly inappropriate, and coming from someone who really should know better, it's unacceptable...

 

As far as I'm concerned, Clarke deserves all the criticism he's getting....

 

You know, first we have Nadine Dorres' comments (which would make even Sarah Palin blush), and now Ken Clarke... The Tories are completely f**king ignorant on this issue, and very clearly anti-woman...

I would say it's pretty damn serious to the victim mate.... Do you actually know anyone who's had their drink spiked with rohypinol by someone they thought they could trust, and then been taken advantage of while they were completely incapable of resisiting...?? THAT is "Date Rape" my friend, and it's happened to a friend of mine.... I honestly cannot believe I am hearing this nonsense from someone as intelligent as yourself...

 

Ken Clarke is a lawyer.. He SHOULD be able to differentiate between "Statutory Rape" (which is consentual sex with an underage teenager, but still classed as "rape" because a minor cannot give legally give consent), and any other form of rape.. Now, if Ken Clarke wants to make a case for classifying certain "grey areas" under the banner the Swedish legal system uses, ie, create an offence of "Sexual Misconduct", then fine, he should argue the toss for it.. What he SHOULD NOT be doing is misusing terms such as "Date Rape" because it is highly inappropriate, and coming from someone who really should know better, it's unacceptable...

 

As far as I'm concerned, Clarke deserves all the criticism he's getting....

 

I agree, but I think what Suedehead was saying was that all rape is obviously serious, but some can be more serious than others. It boils down to the individual case, anything involving serious assault on top of the rape charges is surely even more horrific. No one's saying that having your drink spiked and being subsequently raped isn't serious.

I agree, but I think what Suedehead was saying was that all rape is obviously serious, but some can be more serious than others. It boils down to the individual case, anything involving serious assault on top of the rape charges is surely even more horrific. No one's saying that having your drink spiked and being subsequently raped isn't serious.

Precisely. Spiking someone's drink is obviously a pre-meditated act by someone who clearly intends to have sex without consent. That is more serious than a case where two people are in dispute over whether consent was given. As I have said before, all rape is serious. However that doesn't alter the fact that some cases are more serious than others.

Precisely. Spiking someone's drink is obviously a pre-meditated act by someone who clearly intends to have sex without consent. That is more serious than a case where two people are in dispute over whether consent was given.

 

But it isn't less SERIOUS surely?? Just because a judge/jury is less CERTAIN of someone's guilt in the latter case, that doesn't make it less serious if they're eventually found guilty after a trial?

 

I'm not denying that mitigating circumstances should be taken into account when sentencing a rapist (their mindset at the time, etc.). But it shouldn't affect what CRIME they're deemed to have committed. For instance, in the case of the James Bulger murders, mitigating circumstances were rightly taken into account when sentencing Venables/Thompson - but the crime they committed was still murder, the same as Ian Huntley. In contrast, Clarke was heavily implying that, for rape, there should be lesser sentences, as a default position (irrespective of mitigating circumstances) for date rape and rape by someone familiar to the victim, than for a "classic rape". When he was talking about different categories of rape, he wasn't talking about the circumstances a rapist might be in, he was talking about the NATURE of a certain type of rape - and that's wrong, because every rape should be considered equally serious in nature.

I think he's wrong with that, rape is rape but obviously when it's one of a number of offences the sentence should be longer.

I think this was a stupid thing to say- it may not have been his intention, but all forms of rape all are hideous crimes and whilst some can be more extreme and deserve a far more harsh sentence, that doesn't make any case of rape less serious- and all people who commit it should get the bare minimum of 4 years

 

I do agree that rape sentences are a bit too soft- if these sentences are really cut, they could become far too short and not making them truly pay for what they've done to the person

 

 

Precisely. Spiking someone's drink is obviously a pre-meditated act by someone who clearly intends to have sex without consent. That is more serious than a case where two people are in dispute over whether consent was given. As I have said before, all rape is serious. However that doesn't alter the fact that some cases are more serious than others.

 

Dude, the facts are that in the majority of rape cases, the rapist is actually known to the victim (similar to child abuse in fact).. "Stranger Rape" gets all the headlines, but only makes up for about 10% of the stats overall..... So, "Classic Rape" like the type Clarky intimated about, is a relatively rare occurence...

 

There is no one who would even dare to suggest that there are "less serious" forms of child abuse, so why is it seemingly "okay" to suggest that there are "less serious" forms of rape...?

 

Rape is rape, what you are talking about is what the Swedes would call "Sexual Misconduct"...

 

Dude, the facts are that in the majority of rape cases, the rapist is actually known to the victim (similar to child abuse in fact).. "Stranger Rape" gets all the headlines, but only makes up for about 10% of the stats overall..... So, "Classic Rape" like the type Clarky intimated about, is a relatively rare occurence...

 

There is no one who would even dare to suggest that there are "less serious" forms of child abuse, so why is it seemingly "okay" to suggest that there are "less serious" forms of rape...?

 

Rape is rape, what you are talking about is what the Swedes would call "Sexual Misconduct"...

It may be what the Swedes call "sexual misconduct" but in England and Wales it is rape. If the Swedes have two different crimes then surely that means that not only do they believe the two crimes not to be equally severe, they have actually enshrined that in law. In England and Wales the relative severity of each offence is - in general - reflected in the sentence passed on conviction.

 

I don't know whether the figures you give are correct but I shall assume they are. Correct or not, they are irrelevant to my argument.