Ken Clarke differentiates date rape from 'serious rape'

[NotFromConcentrate]

AIBU to think it's time he went?

Luvvinlife - your calculations are completely wrong.

If the tarrif is 9 years this is how it works:

Plead not guilty - sentenced to 9 years - serve HALF (unless something triggers the removal of the half-way release point in which case serve two-thirds - unusual) - out after 4 1/2 years

Plead guilty - sentenced to 6 years - serve HALF (with the same proviso as before) - out after 3 years.

Proposed change - plead guilty - sentenced to 4 1/2 years - serve HALF - out after 2 1/4 years.

So the proposed change knocks your serving time down by about 9 months - someone would be gambling with a 2 1/4 year reduction rather than a 1 1/2 year reduction.

Not so massive in the eyes of many facing that decision - and the lower the sentence, the smaller the difference.

Exit. I had a v.similar experience to you but I was afraid to post it for fear of being flamed. I would say that my experience was different to being dragged off the street by a complete stranger. Not knowing whether my life was in danger. Both instances are rape but I was not fearful in my instance. I just resolved myself to it happening.

surely its irrelevant though? NORMAL men dont rape, and no sane, normal man will think, "Oh I'll only be in prison for 2.25 years, I might as well rape her..."

There seems to be still a lot of this kind of attitude around. I remember around the time of the general election campaign, someone quoted from the BNP website something along the lines of: "All women like chocolate cake, and all women like sex. So raping a woman is no worse than forcing her to eat chocolate cake." Unbelievable! And some people on MN were still proposing to vote BNP! I wonder how many men out there (secretly) agree with this. I'm not saying Ken Clarke does, but there is a continuum that ends at the BNP attitude.

As rape is seen in the most part as a crime against women and children it will never attract the type of sentencing it deserves, this "grading" of rape illustrates this perfectly.
How about the 40 year old that sleeps with the 15 year old???
Now go out and rob a bank at night, steal millions of bits of paper, and the law will get serious.

I'm personally not overly fond of chocolate cake...

All rape is violent by it's very definition.
The problem is with the justice system. It doesn't treat the victims of rape well, although it has improved. It still puts them of positions of extreme stress. It still puts the victim at a disadvantage in a position where they are still having to prove they have been raped. The law has changed over the years but whether it works in practice is arguable. The right balance has still not been found.
To have a Justice Minister who is also an experienced politician to make such a staggering statement is almost unbelievable. Where does he see rape in a DV situation, in an established relationship? Or is that not really an issue because the couple have had consensual sex many times before?
Whatever side of the political fence you are on, a person in Ken Clarke's position should have realised that what he was saying was incredibly offensive, inappropriate and wrong, not just to rape victims but to society as a whole.

Mr Clarke will argue he is being misunderstood, that we are at fault, again.

If he argues that he is being misunderstood then he really should have it pointed out to him that his comments are wide open to misunderstanding and, as an experienced politician, he really should express himself better!

I was listening to the piece on the radio at the time so have heard it in context. I don't think what he said was wrong. He was explaining the average jail terms for rape. It is right that a young man (e.g. our own sons) who is convicted of rape for having a consensual relationship with a 15 year old gets a lower term than someone who drags a woman off the street at knife-point.

Many juries will not convict a man of rape if it does not fit the mould of stranger-rape so rape by degrees will get some justice where at the moment there is no justice.

I think Mr Clarke's words are being twisted here.

Even though I agree with you, I think I might support slightly different definitions of rape as I think it could help conviction rates and that is the biggest problem - each time the jury are effectively having to re-define rape whilst the defence lawyer points out things the defendant didn't do (no violence, for example). I know it has been defined and should be simple, but it isn't proving to be.

It isn't saying it is more serious in one form, any more than saying GBH is more serious if you lose an eye than a hand, but it would make things very clear for juries. There is a premeditated part to some rapes (breaking in, spiking drink), which doesn't change how it affects the victim, but might make the person more likely to rape again and, like murder, that should be reflected. Such definitions would help profilers and research and any such information is useful when we are looking at such low conviction rates.

If there was a category of "domestic rape" say, where someone rapes their partner, it would help convict the rapist if this was not at all open to debate as a crime, and if they could show evidence of other misogynistic behaviour that fitted the profile of a domestic rapist. No comment on relative serious-ness compared to other crimes but a way to gain more evidence than one word against another.

Allsquare - no - I would not lump all date rape together, in fact, I don't really like the term (and nor do I like chocolate cake particularly). Someone else has used the word 'nuances' and I think that is the word I was looking for. By definition all rape is 'violent' in that it violates, but again, there are many degrees of violence.

It is a very difficult and emotive subject but I suppose my experience makes me slightly agree with Ken Clarke - there are different degrees of rape for which different sentences should apply. But the starting point should be a considerable sentence.

cross post with Nosey who just said the same thing as me in about 10% of the words!

What kungfupannda says.

Far be it from me to defend a Coservative politician, but I really expected more from Ken Clarke. He was always one of the good guys. I hope he's been misunderstood, but the only thing to blame for that is his clumsy way of expressing himself.

And good greif he comes across as ill informed about his own Department (although that's pretty normal for the rest of them so I shouldn't be surprised)

It is probably a differant sentence if you come out of the bushes with a balaclava and a knife to rape after a night on the piss with a lady

the two lads were bawling at each other in parliament today

I would be suprised if Ken C got the boot but he could

I agree with NosyNooNoo. I have jsut listened to the interview and it seems the only thing KC was excluding from 'rape' and describing as non-violent was the situation where a young adult has consenting sex with an under 16 year old which is technically rape (and so is included in the sentencing figues Victoria Derbyshire was quoting) but is not what most people think of as rape.

He dad at one point mention that in the same breath as date rape but this was very quick and 'off the cuff' and nothing esle he said indicates that that's how he sees date rape. If he doesn indeed see date rape as non-violent then I agree that he is wrong and out of touch but there is no evidence that he does.

Has everybody commenting actually listened to the interview?

I do see the irony in my accusing Ken Clarke of expressing himself clumsily btw

Er sorry, Nosy, if "our own sons" have a sexual relationship with someone near them in age but under 16 it is HIGHLY unlikely that they will be prosecuted, and even if they were if would be for "Sexual Activity With A Child" rather than rape, so Mr Clarke was talking through his hind half.

KFP - I understood you serve 2/3rds for good behaviour, but even taking your example you would serve 4 1/2 years for pleading not guilty as opposed to 2 1/4 yrs for guilty, so it is still double the sentence and therefore a much bigger gamble and surely a step in the right direction.

I agree 100% NoseyNN

If you are going to fundamentally change the law^ to have different levels of rape then you should ensure that all the sentences are high, with still higher ones for more violence, rather than giving people a sentencing discount for "only" raping people they know, or raping people when drunk, or being good enough not to threaten with a knife.

Ken Clarke is a fat tory twat.

Its not relevant if rapists never get to court

Thes proposals (50% reduction for early guilty plea) apply to all criminal offences. Why should rape be treated any differently?

I agree CordeliaCatkin.

I find the idea that a rapist is due 9 years, but would only serve 3 years incredibly offensive.

Under the current system, a defendant can claim innocence right up until the day of the trial, and wait to see if the CPS are able to put a decent case together. Then they look at the evidence and if there happens to be irrefutable forensics they simply plead not guilty on the first day in court and, hey presto, they get 1/3 off their sentence. What's left is then halved under the early release scheme. So: due 9 years, serve 3.

The system is broken.

This idea of having a bigger discount for an earlier guilty plea is not the way to fix it. It should be the opposite:
If the guilty plea comes in just before trial, the discount is lower.
If there is very strong evidence, there is no discount.

And the early release scheme shouldn't apply at all to sentences for violent crime like rape.

Indeed, lubberlich - but there are degrees of twattery. I never had him down as being guilty of "serious" twattery.

Perhaps just statutory twattery.