Ken Clarke differentiates date rape from 'serious rape'

[NotFromConcentrate]

AIBU to think it's time he went?

'What is your view? Every rape to be treated equally, regardless of aggravating or mitigating factors?'

Yes, every rape should be treated equally.

What is a 'mitigating factor' when the one issue that defines rape is consent, or lack thereof?

What makes rape rape is not bruises or bleeding or where it happened. What makes it rape is the lack of consent. How can there be mitigating factors?

bin him

jesus brownie so sorry.

the posts on here demonstrate that it is not possible to say "X type of rape is worse than Y kind of rape". Different people will find different experiences more or less distressing. But ANY kind of rape experience is going to be bloody horrible.

I understand that judges have to decide on sentence lengths. And they may take into account the impact on the individual victim in doing that. But there can be no presumptions about "oh well it was this kind of rape, therefore it won't have been as bad".

Think Ken's only chance is to say that the reference to date rape was a slip of the tongue and he really just meant consensual but underage sex. (though how it is possible to make that kind of mistake I'm not sure).

Having had a think, I suppose this idea could have some merit...

If they double or treble all the sentences for rape

And so taking 50% off for pleading guilty means you end up with the sort of tariffs that get imposed at the moment.

You rape someone and plead guilty early = 5 years min
You rape someone and don't plead guilty early = 10 years min

That's more like it.

Also if there is a case which is absolutely cast -iron, with witnesses, CCTV, the victim is sober, covered from head to toe, rapist is a stranger, he is violent and uses loads of evidence, there are 15 other women he has attacked and they are also giving evidence...

Shouldn't there be the option for the CPS/victims to say NO we don't accept that guilty plea, this man should not have the option of halving his sentence, we want to go to court and for him to have to serve the full whack?

Together with the hiding of the identities of men accused of rape, there emerges a worrying picture of how this government views this particular crime.

we do have plea bargaining in this country; not as much as the yanks

a lot of what goes on behind the scenes is secretive

I am aghast quite frankly, to hear David Cameron standing up an quoting the kind of shocking statistics we all know about rape convictions, and then using them as a justification for reducing the time rapists serve in prison.

Of all the ideas, honestly.

Since coming to power, the Tories have tried to improve the situation re: rape convictions by:

• giving anonymity to those accused of rape

• halving the sentences for rapists

T H A N K S

The Government is pursuing a liberal policy towards law and order and this proposal fits in with the general policy direction. Encouraging guilty pleas is a positive thing and should be incentivised which is what these plans do.

The victim would be portrayed as a bitter woman waging a vendetta against a considerate man who was taking a plea to spare her a trial, SardineQueen.

Yes Victoria does get some very high profile interviews

And in case anyone's forgotten (thanks for transcript dittany) what he said amongst other things was:

"Serious rape, I don't think many judges give five years for a forcible rape, the tariff is longer than that."

NO it isn't actually. He clearly doesn't know his own job.

I may be the only person who agrees that there are distinctions within all categories of crime? SUrely someone who rapes a child of seven deserves a harsher sentence than where the victim is 37? Would you give them the same sentence?

Just as someone who cold-bloodedly murders a stranger for kicks is more evil than someone who kills a man who's been battering them for years.

I think he confused the terminology of date rape/statutory rape, which doesn't inspire any confidence.

But his response to Derbyshire's 'with respect, rape is rape' - 'no, no it isn't'....... fucking hell!

Yes Abr1de, so they get charged with rape plus offences against children etc.

He has "clarified" his remarks, according to the BBC:

"He later admitted he had confused "date rape" with sex with a willing but underage girl." Link

'Yes Abr1de, so they get charged with rape plus offences against children etc. '

Thanks for clarifying.

He actually, in my opinion came across much worse in the initial follow up interview with BBC News 24 -with Matthew and Jane Hill. He had a chance to amend his terminology and apologise but he came across as arrogant and indignant and pompous and woolly - I could go on..

I know this has been said by kungfupanda and others time and time again, but just for clarity:

Over 13 and under 16 and it is consensual sex, the offence is "sexual activity with a child". If there is no consent, then it is rape. Under 13 - consent is off the legal table as in it doesn't matter whether a girl consents or not, it is still rape.

We do not have the term "statutory rape" in this country, although that is what the "Under 13" element is, in effect. And if two people in the 13-16 age bracket have consensual sex, the offence is "sexual activity with a child" and is rarely prosecuted. It's all here

That KC does not understand this is an abomination.

full transcript of the interview

Anyone who thinks he was talking sense really needs to read it.

A (woman) barrister friend of mine prosecuted a rape last year. The case collapsed because the "victim" admitted, under really hostile questioning from defence counsel, that she had fabricated her story. And she had.
The case got huge coverage in the local press and in her opinion "there'll be no rape convictions in that city for ages". The bar for reasonable doubt has been raised.