Ken Clarke differentiates date rape from 'serious rape'

[NotFromConcentrate]

AIBU to think it's time he went?

But surely that's just the nomenclature?

While I agree it would be pointless to try to define sub-categories, I think it is worthwhile to recognise that the term covers a wide variety of cases that attract an equally wide variety of sentences.

Rape is slightly different from other crimes since what defines it is the lack of consent of the victim, and that alone, to the acts of the attacker. The intentions or degrees of intentionality of the attacker (as in murder, manslaughter, unlawful killing, etc) don't matter, or shouldn't.

"While I agree it would be pointless to try to define sub-categories, I think it is worthwhile to recognise that the term covers a wide variety of cases that attract an equally wide variety of sentences"

Absolutely agree, I dont think saying rape isn't always rape, is diminishing it, for the reason above.

I dont want to read all the thread, haven't got time. but agree with this comment.

GoFullForce - it is only considered rape if the girl is under 13, otherwise it's sex with a minor and rarely prosecuted.

Can I encourage those of you who are interested in this subject to complete the survey I've done (and yes I know it's a bit crap) on rape and sexual assault?

www.surveymonkey.com/s/35NYW3W

I would like to send some of the data to Ken Clarke (all replies are anonymous)

I think I may need to take a break from this as I now want to cry. I am sick of people saying my rape wasn't traumatic.. Please read the thread first digest the information given in it before making your decisions.

If you still feel I deserved it, it wasn't traumatic or even feel that it didn't count as rape then at least it is an informed opinion. If you do form any of the opinions above then I would appreciate it if you would tell me directly and explain why I am so wrong I would be interested to know. If you are intent on holding your opinion without considering everything first the quite frankly you can fuck off.

Good grief - is the statutory rape argument still going? I don't think I, SardineQueen, Ayerobot, Xstitch and the others who have made this point can actually repeat ourselves many more times without entirely losing the plot but, and for the absolutely last time from me....

Consensual sex with an under 16 is not rape - it is sexual activity with a child, or, if committed before 2004, unlawful sexual intercourse.

Non-consensual sex with an under 16 is rape and is prosecuted under the normal rape legislation

Consensual sex with an under 13 is rape as a child of that age cannot legally give consent.

What I think is an interesting point to consider is the purpose behind Ken Clarke's comments. Presumably he was trying to defend the justice system under his government and refute the suggestion that rapists are treated leniently by sentencing judges. This was surely the purpose behind his comments on sentencing statistics being skewed by the inclusion of "sex with a minor" sentences.

Now either the statistics he is citing do NOT include "sex with a minor" because it isn't rape, or he is citing some very bizarre and pointless statistics that include those offences for some random reason. Either way, he is trying to say "my government takes this seriously - look what sentences rapists get". He is either deliberately misleading people in order to make the statistics look better, or he is so poorly-briefed that he genuinely thinks that rapists get treated more harshly than they do. Either way, this does not say to me "I take this issue seriously and am thinking about what I can do about it".

xstitch - you have done a sterling job on this thread and no-one would blame you for being sick to death of it. But I am pretty sure you have made some people, at least, think about their views.

My last post was directed at people who feel the need to suggest we are talking rubbish without reading the thread and therefore not actually knowing what we said.

Hope I did the underage sex explanation justice don't have your legal background but have read the thread

Leningrad - I wouldn't have thought it was that high to be honest, but I am not a sex offence specialist so I haven't read detailed recent statistics. Most of the stuff I pick up on a day to day basis is from sitting waiting for my case to be called on and hearing other cases being sentenced, or from lawyers chatting at court.

He might be right but bearing in mind one of our recent cases led to a 6 year sentence for quite a nasty, prolonged attack on a woman who was acquainted with the rapist but not in a relationship with him, involving her being imprisoned in his flat for more than a day, 8 years as an average seems high.

So this is what ken clarke's comments have done.

They have injected into society the following ideas:

• That 18yo males are committing rape if they have consensual sex with their 15yo girlfriends (this is not true)
• And that they often go to prison for it (this is not true)
• People are (rightly) saying that it is wrong that an 18yo should go to prison for rape, for having consensual sex with his 15yo girlfriend
• Thus (the conversation goes) the rape laws are wrong, and it is definitely a fact that not all rape is really rape, as demonstrated by the above example
• It's terrible something needs to be done to protect these poor boys

Can anyone tell me how this helps rape victims in any way whatsover? I have heard this conversation at length about 4 times on the TV and radio in the last 4 days. After a brief nod to "yes rape is bad" it swiftly moves onto how terrible it is for all these 18 year olds to be done for rape.

Good result? For people keen to propogate rape myths, yes. For rape victims, no. It's a terrible result.

Sorry - just saw your second question. 5 years is the starting point in the sentencing guidelines for a single offence.

last 2 days that should be

There are some interesting stats on sentencing here: fullfact.org/factchecks/ken_clarke_average_rape_prison_sentence_length-2716

Now either the statistics he is citing do NOT include "sex with a minor" because it isn't rape, or he is citing some very bizarre and pointless statistics that include those offences for some random reason.

He didn't cite the statistics - Victoria Derbyshire did. I don't know what offences are bundled together in those statistics. But:

• the starting point in the sentencing guidelines is 5 years, so I don't see how the average can be five years;
• he claims the average for rape is 8 years;
• no Labour MPs/journos have picked him up on this point.

What he said was that the low average sentence for rape (whether she got the right number or not) was due to the inclusion of date rape and sex between teens.

Which implies that he thinks date rape is not very serious, hence the low sentence
And that he seriously thinks that teenagers get sent to prison for having consensual sex

Date rapes do not always have attract a low sentence. Some of them are punished with very long sentences. Life imprisonment is an option. It depends on the specific circumstances of each individual case.

However, it is entirely possible that 'date rapes' (however that might be precisely defined) do bring down the average sentence.

Ken Clarke's problem is that rather than refer to some crimes attracting a longer sentence, he lazily said some were 'worse' or 'more serious'. It's lazy language, and it can actually be quite offensive.

The fact is, some rapes are punished with a five year sentence, some with a life sentence.
Are the latter cases 'worse'? Are they 'more serious'?
I'm not sure its a debate that's possible without offending. Probably best to avoid using such potentially emotiove words that imply a value judgement is being made.
I bet Ken Clarke wishes he'd used more sensitive language.

The rapes are all rapes.
The sentencing is affected by other factors such as violence, grooming, coercion, threats, breach of trust, vulnerable victim, murder and so on.

Rape is rape - non consensual penetration with a penis
Crimes involving rape have a wide range of circumstances that naturally affect sentencing.

KC implied that date rapes do not attract a low sentence and then went on to talk about "serious" rapes.

He made it clear what he thinks of the type of situations described as "date rape". He thinks the same as much of the rest of the population ie it's not as bad.

I was thinking about this earlier.

Say a woman is on a business trip, and goes for a few drinks with a colleague, back to his/her room for a couple more to end the night and he rapes her.

The reaction from a lot of people is: what was she wearing? was she flirting? has she got off with him or had sex with him before? How drunk was she? how drunk was he? why did she go there? what was she thinking? she should have known what he would think... And on and on and on and on

Then, say a heterosexual man goes on a business trip, and goes for a few drinks with a colleague, back to his room for a couple more to end the night and he rapes him.

The reaction from most people would be: What a violation, that is appalling, absolutely appalling, that poor man, how can he get past that?

The difference in reaction shows up the difficulty that we have with rape. That for whatever reason it seems to be accepted by vast numbers of rational people, that women must expect men to force themselves on them, and must take steps to prevent it, and if it happens then really what did they expect. It's a bad state of affairs and with comments like Ken's bolstering rape myths in the minds of the public I don't see how we are ever going to get anywhere.

I come back to this thread every evening and still can't get over the fact that there are still people reading it who are citing the whole 17 year old having sex with a consenting 15 year old thing and still think it's statutory rape!

for the record, another poster here who has been interviewed by Victoria Derbyshire - for about 25 mins on the radio. She isn't a 'pressuring' interviewer' at all - au contraire mon ami - polite and engaging, though the subject matter was v. controversial at the time.
Clarke was the one who pressurised Clarke through his foolery.

sorry for being thick, if a 17 boy has "consensual" sex with a 15 yo girl friend what is that termed?

Sexual activity with a child/sex with a minor.
It's only automatically rape for children under 13 who are deemed in law unable to consent to sexual activity.
17yo boys are not guilty of rape if they have consensual sex with their 15yo girlfriend. They are breaking the law, strictly speaking, but this crime is not generally prosecuted and I'd be surprised if there were any 17 yo in prison for this. The age of consent (16) is in place to protect the vulnerable, the long arm of the law is not interested in prosecuting normal healthy teenage relationships.