Rape sentencing etc being discussed on PMQs now

Kenneth Clerk seems very hazy on all this considering he's the Justice Secretary!

I admit I may have been a bit hazy on the detail of the law myself, but it turns out the law does pretty much see things along my lines after all, despite the confusion caused by KC's comments, who should know better as he's paid to know these things, and to communicate them effectively.

As usual MNers are more informative and wiser than cabinet ministers.

Why am I at all surprised ?

juggling consesual sex between teenagers, although theoretically illegal, is very very rarely reported or investigated, let alone prosecuted.

The CPS only bring cases where it is in the public interest to do so, it is not generally deemed to be in the public interest to prosecute.

The reason that the age of consent is set at 16 is to assist in cases of grooming and that type of crime. I don't believe that the age of consent should be removed personally.

Having sex with someone under the age of 16 is not considered rape - it is sex with a minor. Having sex with someone under the age of 12 is considered statutory rape.

He really should know the difference. What a complete cock.

So now a man who has a fantasy of raping someone could well think it worthwhile if he is out in 15 months to continue the rest of his life

I do understand that are there some distinctions to be made about rape..the term rape for someone having sex with a willing teenager muddies the water a bit..but in the end it is still a crime and is there to protect teenagers from coercion etc
Kenneth Clarke sound like he has no empathy or sympathy for rape victims

Possibly do think there could be a case for a different offence for having sex with a girl who's under 16. If the girl has a genuine relationship with a boy, and especially where he isn't much older than her, then I wouldn't say that was rape. Of course the key thing is the experience of the woman, and whether the sex was consensual.
I think the law may be old-fashioned in places, and in need of improvement and clarification.
I know people who've had sex before age 16 and as far as I know it's been OK for them, and not something they've so far regretted.
Hopefully it will do some good to have these issues discussed more fully.

"Forcible rape where the woman is unwilling"

What a dick. He should be fired.

This bit (amongst others) has me horrified:
(from the Guardian)

"During other television interviews Clarke appeared to claim that campaigners had only singled out rape because it injected a degree of "sexual excitement" into the argument over discounts for early guilty pleas."

I think that summarises his attitude.

This is so fucking depressing.

Sorry I am finding myself swearing more and more on here.

I think you might be right that it is under (12?) that children are deemed incapable of giving consent. So it is always rape. With older children I'm not sure what happens but it is a bit different. Certainly young people are not generally sent to prison for underage sex.

Clarke: '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.'

I'm not sure this is true, is it? I thought there was a separate law in force for these situations and that the offence was sexual assault, or sexual activity with a minor.

One might expect the justice secretary to know this

This is disgusting.

We already know that women who are raped often feel horribly guilty that they didn't fight back 'enough' (whatever 'enough' would be), and he's saying what's really important is that we distinguish between those women who really got beaten up and those who 'only' got a penis shoved into them without their consent? Isn't that just like saying 'hey, if you want to rape someone, just make sure you don't leave any bruises where they can be seen'? Which, come to think, is pretty much exactly what they used to say to men who beat their wives.

This is making me shudder - what a foul excuse for a man.

completely agree wigglesrock, the way women are treated in court is outrageous and that should be the real cause

It's okay SQ, you haven't defamed KC by calling him a "stupid, callous, bastard" - or at least, you've got a good defence, should you need it (!)
"Fair comment based on fact".

And for the record, I'm willing to stand up and say I totally agree with you.

I have an idea, instead of letting men plead guilty and therefore reduce their sentence to save women having to go to trial and having to face cross examination re their sexual behaviour, how about we stop letting defence team from badgering and harrassing women who do take the stand.

If someone pleads guilty then the victim doesn't have to turn up to court, and the trial is very straight forward. I have agreed with a lot of what Ken Clarke has said about sentences of less than a year being ineffective, but I can't agree with him here at all.

I guess what he is trying to achieve is more rape convictions and more rapists going to prison, albeit for a shorter time- but as so many rapists are repeat offenders and because it treats the crime far too lightly I completely disagree.

I tend to think rape cases should be decided by three judges rather than by a jury, given the statistics in the Amnesty survey about the percentage of the public who think a woman's dress sense makes her partially to blame. Rape should have a minimal ten year sentence, meaning ten years are actually served, not that they get out in five or three. For each rape you are guilty of you get ten years. Murder (with no partial defences) should be life meaning life.

the argument about 'serious' rape carrying longer sentences I presume are for the aggravating factors, but then rape is rape and would probably be 'stand alone' charge with additional charges

the point age of consent is not particularly well made
he hasn't mentioned general ability to consent either, for example when involving SN

I recall a case when the judge said the 30's something woman with SN was not that innocent and knew what she was doing, in my book the support worker involved raped her from the point of view of her being unable to give informed consent

if the prosecution had gone for a minor charge of 'sex with a mental defective' it would have carried a mandatory sentence, but much lower and likely to get away with probation only

I fell slightly ill

Webchat, hilarious.