Ken Clarke differentiates date rape from 'serious rape'

[NotFromConcentrate]

AIBU to think it's time he went?

email.number10.gov.uk/Contact.aspx

Let's let number 10 know exactly how we feel. Get this idiot out of government.

MrsBethel - they don't get a 1/3 off if they play the system and wait till the day of trial. There is a reducing scale from "earliest opportunity for a plea" to "at the court door". It's not an exact science, but the rule of thumb is 10% for such a late plea.

Well, I listened live to Ken Clarke's interview. I thought he made sense (or raised interesting points for a consultation) and I took no offence whatsoever. And I'm not a Tory.

That would be a convicted rapist MrsB.

I personally find it more offensive that they would be unlikely to be convicted in the first place and the trauma the poor woman has to endure.

Amateurish, what this is about is Clarke's comments rather than actual lengths of sentences. Although I would say that if they are offering 50% sentence discounts to rapists and murderers it's not going to go down awfully well with many people.

Are people generally not aware of the existing discount for guilty pleas then?

The top legal types and parliament has be struggling with the problem of getting alleged rapists into court for many years They have not cracked it.

The cps will only prosecute if they have a 60 per cent chance of conviction

In date rapes, so-called, the man says you consented..the woman says I did not.

A judge in such a trial with no other evidence would probably sum up thus: It is tricky when it is only one persons claim against another.

The jury may well interpret that as "not guily" I dont think I would, because I have seen cases where I believed the woman..

Do you see the problem of the system , which no one can seem to solve.

Got a solution?

I am not sure why he is being slammed. He made a distinction between statutory rape on grounds of being underage and other kinds of rape where there are issues of consent (i.e. a 15-year-old can not be considered to have consented legally but a 16-year-old could have consented legally and therefore that question needs to be asked).

A judge might well make the "it is tricky" comment, but that would not be the extent of his summing up and you know it, Gabby.

It would be likely to be something along the lines of "you have a difficult task....tricky when one person says one thing and the other says another......what the two parties say is evidence just as much as if there was forensic evidence or CCTV. It is for you to decide what weight you put upon the evidence you have heard........if after weighing up the evidence you are sure that he committed the offence, you will convict".

He would also highlight any issues surrounding the evidence of the two parties - previous inconsistent statements, a different account given in interview etc.

No judge would stay on the bench if his summing up was basically "meh, who knows".

Boffinmum - a 15 year-old can consent. If the consent of a 15 year-old is in issue then the charge would be rape. If not, it would be sexual activity with a child.

omg i can't believe he sai that or thinks that what a twat

he needs to go asap

I rather thought that too, BoffinMum, to a point.

Making the distinction between "statutory rape" (if such a thing exists - I have to defer to legal types there) and other rape is one thing - but he also appeared to lump statutory rape together with date rape, in order to distinguish them from "serious" rape.

At best, it was clumsy.

statutory rape I learn today is about a person under 16 in NOT allowed to give consent.

You have sex with a 15 year old who has consented, say you are 18, you have committed RAPE

Are you happy with that law?

With people under age

www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sexual_offences_unlawful_sexual_intercourse/

This is what it actually is. Unlawful sexual intercourse

And now rape:

www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sexual_offences_rape/

elephants the discussion really ought to be about the 50% reduction thing, and only then as part of the wider green paper of sentencing of offender. Prison overcrowding is a serious problem. As is rehabilitation of offenders.

It's ridiculous to focus all the attention on this statement by Clarke which is effectively, some rapes are more serious than others. Which is clearly a legitimate statement.

A lot of young men reading this will be a little worried about statutory rape?

He must go. Of all the crimes to underrate, this is the big one.

ScousyFogarty Wed 18-May-11 15:28:07
statutory rape I learn today is about a person under 16 in NOT allowed to give consent.

You have sex with a 15 year old who has consented, say you are 18, you have committed RAPE
Are you happy with that law?

No no no. For the umpteenth time. You have not. You have committed sexual activity with a child. Not rape. Look it up.

luvvinlife - the unlawful sexual intercourse is to cover offences that would not be sexual activity with a child but were committed before the legislation changed and are charged under the old regime. No new offences can be committed under that piece of legislation.

sorry - would NOW be sexual activity with a child, not NOT.

Surely there must be various degrees of rape though. Rapes which involve the use of knives for example are more serious then rapes that don't.

Kung Ken clarke was arguing on the radio in the way I have told you. Then He may have got it wrong. ( or he may be trying to back track on his words.)

I think Minister of Justice will be getting an earwigging from Dave |Camerooney now.

But I would be suprised if he was sacked.

I am in a kind hearted mood, so tried to look at his comments from a neutral, dispassionate POV. The best case scenario I can come up with for his statement is that when he lumped 'statutory' rape together with date rape, he was specifically thinking of the stereotypical 'as seen on tv' date rape of a rapist using GHB to spike his victims drink so that she was physically unable to say no. The only possible way I can see of someone linking the 2 'types' of rape together in the way he seems to have done, is if he was thinking of cases where it is a question of the victims ability to refuse consent, be it by virtue of being under age and not mature enough to make that decision or being blacked out somewhere.

I can kind of follow the train of thought if that is what he was referring to, but still think he is a massive, misogynistic twat for thinking that not saying no is anywhere near the same as actively saying yes.

moodymama
"Let's let number 10 know exactly how we feel. Get this idiot out of government."

But which particular one - so many idiots to chose from.

JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar