Ken Clarke differentiates date rape from 'serious rape'

[NotFromConcentrate]

AIBU to think it's time he went?

I think there has been a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to this, because we are all rightfully angry about the shamefully low rape conviction rates. But if you listen carefully to what he actually said, he doesn't in any way diminish the seriousness of 'date rape'. He correctly pointed out that underage consensual sex is still classed as rape, which is ridiculous - it should be called 'unlawful sex'. As someone who has supported a friend through a rape trial, I can see the huge benefit of persuading rapists to plead guilty. Even after a successful conviction, my friend said she wished she hadn't been persuaded to go to court, as the whole experience was so devastating. Halving the sentence sounds a bit drastic, though. Perhaps Ken should have proposed lengthening the sentence for rapists who DON'T plead guilty and therefore put their victims through the second ordeal of a trial.
And although rape is rape, of course there are huge differences in the circumstances, and this is reflected in the severity of the sentence.

Oh xstitch. I am so sorry to hear you had this experience, on top of everything. I bet you didn't feel like complaining after all that.

"He correctly pointed out that underage consensual sex is still classed as rape, which is ridiculous"

no it's not.

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

Sorry peanut didn't answer your question. No right of appeal and I did visit another lawyer as well. Apparently as there has been no error made on a point of law based on the evidence she was allowed to see (apparently it is irrelevant that my lawyer refused to submit the evidence) there is no right for appeal and I must accept the judgement.

If there is a significant change in circumstances or another incident I can raise a new case that would at least ask for some of the restrictions placed on me bay the old case to be lifted. I know that's confusing.

I think you may be right lady It is a psychological self defence mechanism as no woman wants to believe that they could be a victim of rape (understandably who would?) they see a woman in the witness box who is essentially like them. To say that the accused is guilty is to admit to themselves that they could potentially be a victim. It is not something they can bring themselves to admit. sadly their action (if the man is guilty obviously) only serves to increase the chance of rape as a rapist is free and yet another piece of evidence is there that you will get away with rape.

Not bad considering I have done no psychology since I was a student last century and even then not my main subject.

Scousy you miss my point. I'm not talking about proof here, I'm talking about the utter fucking cheek and insensitivity of some posters in effectively telling women who have been raped that it could have been worse, or that other rapes are more serious, damagaing etc... This is amazing to me as we have women here who have been raped by people they know well, barely know and complete strangers ALL telling us that each type of rape was horrific and damaging and all hardly being imagine how awful it must have been for other women who were raped in different circumstances. There is no sliding scale here, there can't be.

NotADudeExactly
Some rapes deserve a longer sentence than others. Whether the phrases "more serious" and "less serious" are appropriate to convey this idea is debatable.

I'd say it's a poor choice of words. Quite an offensive choice of words, actually.

By all means let's criticise him for his poor language skills. But let's distinguish that from his intended meaning which, if couched in more sensitive language, would not be in the news at all.

xstitch, that is truly shocking. Your lawyer was supposed to be defending you...

The thing is mrsbethel If a rape victim having just being raped say yesterday listens to his ill thought words on the radio. That could be enough to stop her reporting it, to stop her asking for help. That is why words like these can be so dangerous and why it is important that people in Kenneth Clarke's position need to realise the potential impact of their words.

IMO someone with his level of education, experience in both law and politics should understand the power of words and moderate their language appropriately.

No my lawyer was meant to be earning his firm money, I mean fuck all.

Oh lady that's another point about improving conviction rates. Get rid of lawyers like mine or at least get them to do a proper job.

xstitch
Fair point.

Some rapes deserve a longer sentence than others. Whether the phrases "more serious" and "less serious" are appropriate to convey this idea is debatable

... which raises an interesting question IMHO: what are the factors that determine this?

• damage done to the victim of a crime?
• damage done / threat posed to society as a whole resulting from the fact that an indivudual refuses to adhere to the norms of acceptable behaviour?
• motive?
• a perpetrator's awareness of having done wrong / remorse?
• other?

And what if one or several of these factors are in blatant conflict with one another?

If the argument is that all rape is not the same surely there would have to be official criteria against which to measure a given incident?

Ladythompson - I am slightly confused about your point about HCAs. You say that you were referring to HCAs defending in rape trials but the post in which you discuss this you talk about what you would want if you were raped, and about the quality of the representation victims receive and its impact on the low conviction rates.

Defence advocates obviously don't represent the victim - they represent the defendant. So surely poor quality defence advocates would actually increase the rape conviction rate rather than decrease it.

Or are you referring to another post?

Very good point about the power of words, xstitch. Either he was offensive in his views or he was offensive in the careless way he expressed them.

Either way, he needs to be apologising and making his position clear.

woahthere Thu 19-May-11 12:10:57 - you are so right. You wrote what I would have liked to write but never found the words.

Something similar happened to me when I was 17/18. I blamed myself, and still do (similar thing about getting myself in a risky situation) and I very rarely drink alcohol as a result. The smell of alcohol, especially on people's breath, bring back very bad memories.

Kungfupanda - I have looked back on what I said and you are absolutely right, I did not say what I actually intended to say! (And what I did say was rather garbled, a la KC). Apologies. But I think you get the general thrust of my point re: quality of representation. It's crucial, as per Xstitch's dreadful experience.

X-stitch will correct me if I am wrong but I think she is talking about representation in the family court, rather than as a victim going through the crown court.

Is that right, x-stitch?

Clearly quality of representation is crucial in the family court, but the situation is slightly different. In the Crown Court the prosecutor is not just speaking for the complainant - he or she is trying to present the case in the best way to secure a conviction and, to a great extent, needs to be seen to maintain an element of distance from the complainant. The prosecutor is not the victim's advocate in the same way that the defence lawyer is the defendant's advocate. In the family court the lawyer should be much closer to his/her client and you would expect them to be focussed on her needs in a way that might not always come across in criminal proceedings.

just to check, did he actually use the words "'serious rape?"

Yes I am talking about family court. It is enough to make me not trust the system though.

Also even if they are not the advocate for the complainant they should be standing up for robust evidence. An witness for the defence should not be considered sufficiently accurate on a point of 'fact' where there is easily obtainable non biased evidence that prove or disprove that fact. Or am I completely misunderstanding the law. Furthermore disproving and checking out such a specific point would go a long way to determining the reliability of the witness would it not?

The purpose of the interview was to defend the bill he is trying to get through to ensure that rape is properly managed in the courts. Currently the sentances are all over the place and incorrectly applied by judges due to confusion over cases classified as rape which may not be what we feel is a text book definition of rape - i.e. a 15 year old having sex with a 17 year old. I think he probably has an idea in his head of what date rape is and that clearly isnt what we feel it is.

Not ready to chuck him on the bonfire yet, not when he does appear to be trying to sort sentancing out. The bill will probably now fail on the basis of the media furore and that is not a good thing.

I am not expert in matters of the family court, first let me say that. However, regardless of that, it appears that Xstitch was poorly served by her legal representative, wouldn't you agree? However, I am not privy to the full facts, of course.

Piglet: He did indeed.

He also said that "date rapes were included in the figures adding: "Date rape can be as serious as the worst rapes but date rapes... in my very old experience of being in trials [from his time as a practising lawyer]... they do vary extraordinarily one from another, and in the end the judge has to decide on the circumstances."" BBC

Scared to think of what a trial with this guy involved might feel like!

piglet

the transcript is here

yes he refers to "serious rape"

"Clarke: The rapist is going to be?.very light sentence for a?a year and a bit?

Derbyshire: Yes. A rapist gets five years.

Clarke: Rapists don't get? rapists get more than that.

Derbyshire: Hang on a minute. Five years on average, yes they do Mr Clarke, yes they do.

Clarke: That includes date rape, 17-year-olds having intercourse with 15-year-olds.

Derbyshire: So if they plead guilty early that is taken down to two-and-a-half. They're released. They're released after half their sentence, that's the norm, that's pretty much automatic so that takes it down to just over a year.

Clarke: No

Derbyshire: Yes

Clarke: Serious rape, I don't think many judges give five years for a forcible rape, the tariff is longer than that. And a serious rape where, you know, violence and an unwilling woman, the tariff's much longer than that. "

As opposed to all the rape where a man puts his penis in her vagina in a non forcible way , or all of the rape cases where the woman is willing

he is a vulgar and coarse oik who knows nothing. When I look at him I see an ignorant philistine who drinks too much port and smokes too many fags and who probably thinks that if a female was wearing anything less than a burq'a then she was probably 'asking for it'.

He shoudl fuck off back under his right wing, misogynistic, nasty little stone

he very famously ISNT right wing.

If he went his replacement prob would be though