Ken Clarke differentiates date rape from 'serious rape'

[NotFromConcentrate]

AIBU to think it's time he went?

The rape cases that actually make it to court have a reasonable conviction rate, comparable with other crimes. Over 50% I think. The difficulty is that the CPS only send the most "cut and dried" cases to court.

I do not see how this change from 1/3 reduction to 50% will help anything.

ksal "He did draw a distinction between statutory rape and other kinds of rape in that the victim is unable to legally consent even if they were willing. In fact my understanding of what he was saying was that those particular cases were skewing the sentencing figures (not date rape as suggested above). "

Statutory rape is sex with a child under 12. I am not sure what he was getting at with this.

That first bit was in response to luvvinlifes 13.48 post.

YABU. Taken from the Guardian - his quote

"Date rape can be as serious as the worst rapes, but date rapes, in my very old experience of being in trials, vary extraordinarily one from another and in the end the judge has to decide on the circumstances"

I don't think it is reasonable to disagree. Rape is clealy a serious crime, and no one suggests otherwise. However, aggravating factors can make individual cases more serious and worthy of longer sentences. There are therefore some rapes which are more "serious" than others, just as there are murders which are more "serious" than others.

The real issue here is the proposal that a guilty plea should attract a 50% disount in some cases. I think this is a good idea for two reasons:

• Rape victims are particularly vulnerable witness and suffer at trial
• Rape cases are inherently difficult to prove when there are no witnesses

Any measure which increases conviction rates and avoids a full trial is good IMO

"Serious rape, I don?t think many judges give five years for a forcible rape, frankly, the tariff is longer for that and a serious rape where there?s violence and an unwilling woman, the tariff?s much longer than that.
Victoria Darbyshire of FiveLive challenged him on that, saying: ?Rape is rape?.
Mr Clarke replied: ?No, it?s not.?
Later, on Sky News, Mr Clarke went on to draw his distinction again, using terms like ?proper rape? and even ?classic rape?."

I think you're mixed up there Sardine , statutory rape is sex between a consenting adult and a minor above puberty, but below the legal age of consent. anyone under 12 would be child molestation.

"Again pressed on the fact rapists could be out in 15 months: "I must stop you repeating this total nonsense that - assuming you and I are talking about rape in the ordinary conversational sense, some man has forcefully with a bit of violence..."

When BBC interviewer Victoria Derbyshire interrupted to say "Rape is rape, with respect" Mr Clarke replied: "No it's not, 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... What you and I are talking about is we are talking about a man forcibly having sex with a woman and she doesn't want to - a serious crime."

How many 18yo are in prison for having consensual sex with 15yo? I am willing to bet the answer is none, or a handful. Certainly not enough to skew the sentencing figures in the way he has stated that they will.

In the quote that I read he was differentiating between actual rape and consensual sex between a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old - which is also counted as rape.

This is from the BBC website:

"He [Clarke] dismissed suggestions rapists could be out in 15 months as "total nonsense".

On being told that the sentence for rape was five years on average, according to the Council of Circuit Judges, Mr Clarke said: "That includes date rape, 17-year-olds having intercourse with 15 year olds.."

"Serious rape - I don't think many judges give five years for a forcible rape frankly, the tariff is longer than that. A serious rape with violence and an unwilling woman - the tariff is longer than that."

When BBC interviewer Victoria Derbyshire interrupted to say "Rape is rape, with respect" Mr Clarke replied: "No it's not, 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... What you and I are talking about is we are talking about a man forcibly having sex with a woman and she doesn't want to - a serious crime."

Allsquare - Sardine is not mixed up. We don't have statutory rape - the US do.

"Sexual activity with a child" covers sex involving an under-16.

"Rape of a child under 13" is a separate offence again.

So actually, when you think about it logically, the "statutory rape" offences can't be skewing the rape figures as they are not classed as rape in the UK.

I didn't think of that - it looks like he is very ill-informed.

I don't think offering rapists shorter sentences should ever be an option. In my mind, that seems like they're downgrading the seriousness of it.
Has anyone read Robert Crampton's column in the Times supplement today? When talking Strauss-Kahn, accused of rape, he write " at $3000 a night for his suite, was he feeling short-changed?" Obviously we don't know what happened for sure, but it's outrageous that an alleged rape is now used for a jokey column.

Hi All - I have posted this tale on here before. Many years ago when I was young free and single, I was out clubbing, been drinking, picked a guy up, took him home, we had sex. It was crap. Fell asleep. Woke up, he was starting again. I demurred. He carried on. Felt vulnerable (ie - naked in bed in my flat) but not scared, and decided the easiest thing to do was to let him carry on. I even moved about a bit and he actually pulled away from me and said "And now tell me that you are not enjoying it" ffs! When he had finished and fell asleep I got up, bathed, got dressed and made a celery and peanut soup (had friends coming round for lunch). When he woke, he was perfectly pleasant, said it was a shame as I was up and dressed as we could have had some more 'fun' . I told him I had people coming round and I even gave him a lift to the tube station. Now, was that rape? And if you think it was, is it the same 'level' of rape as a woman being dragged into an alley and scared shitless. Or a girl being gangraped. Or an old woman being raped by an intruder into her home? I don't think it is. But now as I type this I wonder what I should have done? Will someone say that I should have reported him as he might go on to do worse things? Also - two drunk people, have sex, the next day the woman says she did not consent?

I genuinely believe that there are different 'levels' of rape. They are all wrong, but some are possible worse than others.......

knickers from bbc

"The rules

The age at which girls can lawfully have sex is 16, but there are extra rules applying to the under-13s.

The law presumes that when a girl is under 13 she is not mature enough to consent to sex. So even if a 12-year-old girl willingly has intercourse, as far as the law is concerned, she has not "consented" to it because legally she is not able to.

(This concept is similar to the age of criminal intent, which assumes that children under 10 cannot commit crimes because they do not understand what crimes are.)

The implication of the rule is that anyone who has sex with a girl under 13 is committing what is termed "statutory rape". There is no defence to this charge - even if a boy says the girl was willing or that he thought she was older than she was, it would not matter."

Its an old article but the law still applies. The term "statutory rape" is actually I think a US import and isnt actually something defined in UK law. What we have is sex with under 13 = always rape and no defence, sex with under 16 but over 13 = sex with a minor and can be looked at differently depending on the circs.

exitpursuedbyakitten. Did you report this man and did he go to prison? If not, then I don't see how your story has a bearing on what mr clarke said when talking about convicted rapists and the sentences they receive.

my understanding was that statutory rape was under the age of consent.

also he quite clearly said that there was a wide variation in date rape and that they could be as bad as the most serious rapes

when i double checked the definition, that didnt register!

so basically our secrrtary of state i claiming that rape conviction figures are skewed by something that isnt even a crime in this country (well, not under the name hes given it)!!!

He's lumping two sorts of offence together - easy enough to do - I always have to double check the sexual offences legislation because it changed a few years ago - but really not what you would expect from someone standing up and making controversial comments in parliament!

Such a small percentage of rape cases make it to court, so the fact that he appears to think that some of these aren't really 'serious' rapes makes me very . I am very glad I don't have a DS, now I just have to make sure my DS knows that no means no, rather than worrying if every boy my DD meets knows that.

Yes. And he is claiming that the figures are skewed by the people in prison for this offence. But people who are 18 don't get sent to prison for having consensual sex with 15yo, so they cant be skewing the stats.

Bottom line is he is talking out of his arse. He is spouting rape myths, rather than facts.

Meant, don't have a DD!

Honestly, this is beyond splitting hairs and semantics.

Shouting all rape is rape.Period. takes us back 30 years and look where that has got us so far.

Sending out a lynch mob to a man that is honestly trying to deal with this is a disgrace. Unless you want a dangerous and ridiculous change in the law you are innocent until proven guilty regardless of the crime. Because of the type of crime it is unless there is severe violence it is very difficult to prove a consent with no other witnesses. I didn't make this up, its the facts.

What Clarke is suggesting would mean a person convicted would in fact serve double the sentence to what they would have served if they had pleaded guilty and trelble if they plead not guilty. For arguements sake say a rape crime has a tarriff of 9 years.

Plead not guilty, get found guilty get 9 years and serve 2/3rds = 6 years

If you currently plead guilty you might get 6 years with discount and serve 2/3rds = 4 years

50% reduction = 4 1/2 years and serve 2/3rds = 2 years.

Its not insignificant and if it gets more convictions with less women going through the hell of court then why are people going bonkers ? He has (in this example) increased the offenders not guilty gamble from serving 6 or 2 years instead of the current 6 or 4 1/2.

SardineQueen - I simply related the story as when I have done so in the past, posters on here have said that yes it was rape. And to explain why, if that was rape, I believe that there are different degrees for which different sentences could apply.

Exit, I thought your post was interesting.

Sentencing guidelines:

Starting point 5 years.

Then 8 years with any aggravating factors.

15 years for repeated rapes.

Extra time if victim is under 16 or under 13.

So, yes, Victoria Derbyshire was correct. With a 50% discount, a rapist will get 2.5 years.

When I was 16, I was seeing an older man (26) for a short while. One day we were in bed together, and he had sex with me despite my saying 'no'. Perhaps I didn't say it loudly or forcefully enough, but I did say it and he did it anyway.

I was a virgin at the time. He didn't use a condom. I had to go get the morning after pill, and felt pretty rotten about the whole thing.

Looking back, I have realised it affected pretty much all my sexual relations since. It was a damaging experience. I knew he'd done it without my consent. But was it rape? I don't know. At the time, I wouldn't have felt it was right to go to the police and claim 'rape', as after all I was in his bed and not wearing many clothes. It just didn't seem like I had much of a case. But if there had been a crime called 'nonconsensual sex with known partner' or something like that I might well have done.

In a nutshell I think it's a controversial topic, but I don't think Ken Clarke should be sacked for recognising the existence of nuances in situations where nonconsensual or ambiguously consensual sex happens.

It's not much is it? I am always deeply shocked by the sentencing in rape cases .

exit, I was raped at a party under vaguely similar circumstances, and to an extent I agree with you. but surely you agree that lumping all "date rapes" together as non violent is just ridiculous?
you could be violently assaulted and raped by someone you know in your or their home, just as someone could grab you from a dark alley (while you totter along in your mini skirt and high heels) and threaten but not assault you?