Ken Clarke differentiates date rape from 'serious rape'

[NotFromConcentrate]

AIBU to think it's time he went?

LeninGrad - OK, so if rape is rape and they're all the same, what would you have advised my 16-year-old self to do in the situation I described in my previous post?

inappa No, the act of rape is the same, the accompanying violence might differ but rape is being penetrated by a penis without consent, there is no variation in the seriousness of the actual act.

Anyway, I suppose we have covered all the angles. But I dont think we have come up with an idea for getting more alleged rapists into court and tried.

scousy, I dont think that was the aim of the thread... :)

He may have been arguing in the way you have told me. However he was wrong for the reasons I and others have told you. If you are unclear then simply look up the sexual offences act 2003.

This is a serious subject and deserves better than the random soundbite approach.

so instead of looking at how women (and men) can report, give evidence in court and hopefully get a conviction with as little stress as possible for the victim they have decided that if the criminal admits he is guilty his sentenced is cut -with less than 10% of reported rapes a jail sentence is given this is jsut utter madness

very little compassion and unable to show empathy something you would think is essential in dealing with such a sensitive issue i very much doubt he will have to resign though

He clearly has no idea that what makes rape rape is an unwilling woman, no matter what the circumstances. What he did is to imply that rapes that are not stranger rapes, in the woods, etc., involve women who are on some level willing, therefore not in fact rape. Rare = sex with an unwilling woman.

YANBU and he should be turfed out on his ear in utter disgrace.

I sincerely hope this can become a teachable moment for him and people who think like him.

kungfupannda
What I should have said is the perpetrator can claim innocence right up until their first day in court and still get the maximum discount of 1/3.

So they can play the system. It's only when it starts inconveniencing the courts the discount starts getting cut.

Nevertheless, the idea an offender can offer the police 'no comment', sit on their hands to see if the CPS can get some DNA evidence, then still get a maximum guilty plea discount is just wrong.

lubberlich let's deal with one at a time...

Anonymous reporting would be a great idea. I never reported my rape as I knew it wouldnt even get to trial. Even my (former) best friend who was at the party was under the impression I wanted it. And it would have been my word against the three of them, drunk, at a party, in a short skirt :(

al square...it has to be the aim of HMG and the politicians. Logic suggests you cannot sentence people who have not been charged...ask a copper....shoplifting is easy...aquaintence rapevery difficult.

I will tell you about a bizarre case later

Nail on the head there, Lenin, and that is why KC should be publicly dropped like a hot potato.

You should not be allowed to hold a personal opinion on rape that goes contrary to what the law of the land says it is.

I am not sure what is so offensive about saying there are degrees of rape; why does saying so trivialise the crime? In most criminal systems there are degrees of murder and/or manslaughter. Does that trivialise the crime of taking a life? There are some interesting ideas with respect to plea bargaining, especially for a crime like rape. Sparing someone from giving evidence and reliving an ordeal is surely a worthy aim and something has to be offered in return. Otherwise, who would admit to a crime? The tariffs are debatable (15 months of actual time seems rather short for any rape) but closing off the discussion serves no-one, least of all the victims.

I think a lot of the press misquoted him rather disgracefully by implying that he said date rape was not a serious crime, rather than what he said, which was a lot more nuanced. Maybe he came across as insensitive but I cannot believe he would be made to resign over it.

Mrsbethel - that is no different for any other offence. The first day of court is the first time an accused gets sight of any sort of summary of the case against him and it is the first time he is asked to say whether he is guilty or not guilty. The police station interview can sometimes be pretty speculative and there are very good reasons why someone might be advised to make no comment, including vulnerability issues or poor verbal skills.

Our system says that everyone has a right to know what exactly they are accused of doing before entering a plea. You don't always know exactly what is being said at the police station stage. Credit is for pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity, namely the first time the charge is read out in court.

Apart from anything else, the defendant may well admit to some sort of wrong-doing at interview but be advised that it does not in fact amount to the offence charged. Or the opposite might apply - someone might deny the allegation, receive legal advice and be told that, yes, they are in fact saying they are guilty of an offence.

You have to remember that not all defendants who come before the court are equally able to understand and deal with the charges they face.

Yes it does trivialise the taking of a life Larry. And plea bargaining makes a mockery of the law.

I disagree that there should be anything offered in return for sparing a victim the ordeal of testifying. Murder victims are spared the ordeal of testifying yet plea bargains happen in murder cases too.

I am personally opposed to preserving anonymity for rape victims as that perpetuates the idea that there is some shame attached to being a rape victim, some sullying of your character, or damaging of you as goods involved in rape, and I think what is needed instead of the horrible sparing from the ordeal of testimony is better support services for victims and better rules to make sure they do not feel they are the ones being prosecuted for the crime of wearing a short skirt or walking outdoors late at night, or wearing a short skirt while drunk.

But there are degrees of killing. You can intend to kill. You can intend to hurt and go too far and end up killing. You can accidentally kill with no ill intent.

You can't intend to assault and accidentally push your penis into a woman. You can't fall over and stick your penis into a woman.

Lenin - I'm sorry that happened to you too.

But would you really have advised my teenage self to go to the police? It honestly didn't occur to me at the time, and even now I don't know that that would have been appropriate as the situation was so ambiguous in my case.

As it was I just concluded I'd been taken advantage of and that I should learn my lesson and move on. My earlier point was that if there were some kind of separate category of 'nonconsensual with known partner' or similar I might well have taken it further - but as it was I just sucked it up and got on with my life. And like you I'm still angry.

So ultimately my feeling is that it's not necessarily a bad thing to acknowledge that there are nuances to rape, and that taking a black-and-white view isn't necessarily going to help teenagers in the situation I was in to come forward and bring opportunistic toerags like that to justice.

Math - not much plea bargaining goes on re: murder. It is murder or nothing generally - you do get some cases dropped down to manslaughter but that is a tricky agreement to reach because of the fundamental differences in intent for the two offences.

Murder attracts life imprisonment. You can't get a third or a half off life and the tarrif isn't dealt with in the same way.

Funny - I was about to type "and what Lenin and Math said"