Rape sentencing etc being discussed on PMQs now

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Justice Secretary made some stupid remarks this morning, apparently.

I know, juggling.

Otherwise it's called "sex".

Sorry that's not clear. Mr Clarke was saying that the 5yo average tariff was skewed. With people who had committed a "proper rape" getting much longer, and the average was watered down by lots of people getting shorter terms for "not really rape rape".

What the fuck is he on? The figures I am sure will show that the men who are in prison for rape are there for crimes that even mr clarke would recognise as rape. The idea that droves of 18 yo are being sent to prison for consensual sex with 15yo and this is skewing the stats is just so incredible I can't believe he said it.

Webchat?

Agree it is in everybodies interest to get a rapist to confess, to save the time and money of the judicial system and also to spare the victims more distress.

So why don't we double the sentence if the accussed maintain their innocence and are later found guity.

Rape is rape, and we don't need varying degrees of it. If a rape includes abduction or very extreme violence, then the charge is rape, grevious bodily harm and abduction. Quite simple really.

From the daily Mail, no less!

"I don't see how admiting guilt makes a crime less severe."

Sums it up for me.

Imagine, "I just wacked you round the face with a bat, sorry, I'm guilty, now I get half the sentence"!

We should be coming down HARDER on people that plead not guilty, then are found out to be, not the other way round!

KEN CLARKE ON BBC 2 SHORTLY BEING INTERVIEWED ON

And what is this 'violent rape' being worse business. For a start, my genitals are fairly tricky to get to without my concent so it would be impossible to rape me without using violence. However, even if it were the case that i could be raped without violence being used, the rape would still have happened, and this would be the crime.

so why dont they have a sentance for the rape itself, and then a sentence for other phyisical damage.. They don't. To say violent rape is worse, is to completely disregad the rape itself and focus on the other injuries. Unforgivable.

I'd rather have my fingers cut off than be raped.

just saw annapollys post, which was mine but with more eloquency!

Speechless. But yes, he needs to come in for a webchat and a bit of education.
Still speechless.

I think David Cameron has got to sack him.

Yes they're talking about it now on BBC2, if you can stomach Andrew Neill and Nick Robinson.

Woman on there noting that the PM didn't defend him. I'm sure he won't get the sack though

Webchat, hilarious.

Ha they recorded an interview with him defending himself.

the argument about 'serious' rape carrying longer sentences I presume are for the aggravating factors, but then rape is rape and would probably be 'stand alone' charge with additional charges

the point age of consent is not particularly well made
he hasn't mentioned general ability to consent either, for example when involving SN

I recall a case when the judge said the 30's something woman with SN was not that innocent and knew what she was doing, in my book the support worker involved raped her from the point of view of her being unable to give informed consent

if the prosecution had gone for a minor charge of 'sex with a mental defective' it would have carried a mandatory sentence, but much lower and likely to get away with probation only

I fell slightly ill

He looks scared though, tbh.

Did HE say that they've singled out rape to give the story "sexual excitement", as Robinson mentioned? Or was that someone else?

If someone pleads guilty then the victim doesn't have to turn up to court, and the trial is very straight forward. I have agreed with a lot of what Ken Clarke has said about sentences of less than a year being ineffective, but I can't agree with him here at all.

I guess what he is trying to achieve is more rape convictions and more rapists going to prison, albeit for a shorter time- but as so many rapists are repeat offenders and because it treats the crime far too lightly I completely disagree.

I tend to think rape cases should be decided by three judges rather than by a jury, given the statistics in the Amnesty survey about the percentage of the public who think a woman's dress sense makes her partially to blame. Rape should have a minimal ten year sentence, meaning ten years are actually served, not that they get out in five or three. For each rape you are guilty of you get ten years. Murder (with no partial defences) should be life meaning life.

I have an idea, instead of letting men plead guilty and therefore reduce their sentence to save women having to go to trial and having to face cross examination re their sexual behaviour, how about we stop letting defence team from badgering and harrassing women who do take the stand.

It's okay SQ, you haven't defamed KC by calling him a "stupid, callous, bastard" - or at least, you've got a good defence, should you need it (!)
"Fair comment based on fact".

And for the record, I'm willing to stand up and say I totally agree with you.

completely agree wigglesrock, the way women are treated in court is outrageous and that should be the real cause

This is disgusting.

We already know that women who are raped often feel horribly guilty that they didn't fight back 'enough' (whatever 'enough' would be), and he's saying what's really important is that we distinguish between those women who really got beaten up and those who 'only' got a penis shoved into them without their consent? Isn't that just like saying 'hey, if you want to rape someone, just make sure you don't leave any bruises where they can be seen'? Which, come to think, is pretty much exactly what they used to say to men who beat their wives.

This is making me shudder - what a foul excuse for a man.

Clarke: '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.'

I'm not sure this is true, is it? I thought there was a separate law in force for these situations and that the offence was sexual assault, or sexual activity with a minor.

One might expect the justice secretary to know this