You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
From the Guardian...
But it was his statement that no-one convicted of a "serious rape" would be released as quickly as those guilty of some "date rapes"
Nice 🙁
you have to remember that KC, even as a Wet, is still a Tory, and probably on the same side as Pickles J.
If you look at what he said in full (rather than the guardian extract) you'll see what he was trying to say. As an ex-lawyer he has some experience of rape cases in court, and sentancing is a function of severity of the crime. His crap wording was intending to make the distinction between cases with many aggravating sentancing considerations and those with fewer aggravating features.
He was also alluding to "lesser" rapes as in those that fell under statutory rape classifications where sentancing mitigation has the effect of bringing down the average sentance length for them - such as 17yr olds guilty of having sex with 15 yr olds.
If we had automatic sentancing for all rape cases regardless of aggravation/mitigation then there would be no impact on early releases. As it is we have statute that provides for proportionate sentancing in the hands of judges, THAT is what Ken was referring to when Milli**** was banging on about 15 month sentances across "rape" cases.
Again, I think he was probably getting all un-pc in his naming convention when trying to refer to cases that would have received mitigated sentances in the first place when compared to out-and-out violent attacks/kidnap in the park kind of cases.
You are kind-hearted and generous of spirit
I like ken. But it's a bit like watching your dad try and dance sometimes.
statutory rape
No such thing in English law. And he knows that.
I like ken. But it's a bit like watching your dad try and dance sometimes.
While a shouty interviewer refuses to understand what he's saying and he's placed opposite a victim of rape, with whom he can't exactly argue.
CharlieMungus - Member
Though he did underplay 'date rape'
which he arguably corrected explaining that in his (old) experience as a barrister that date rape cases were complex and needed to be decided upon by the judge based on the evidence
the view that an arbitary reduction in sentence as a reward for admitting a crime early is distasteful to victims (and me), he does have a point though that incentivising early guilty plea's will reduce the ordeal of court and increase convictions, additionally victim statements allow the victim to get across in open court the impact of the crime on their lives
OMITN is this out of date then?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/02/99/e-cyclopedia/437789.stm
He gets a lot of stick for saying sensible stuff in a way that other politicians have forgotten how to (i.e. phrases that often involve common sense or the truth).
Having listened to the radio interview watched him on BBC News, with a very hostile interviewer in both instances, the best I can say is that he did not explain his position very well and definitely hadn't done enough homework or been properly briefed. I don't think for one second that he was defending rapists or inferring that some rapes weren't traumatic, but that there are different scales of rape and widely differing circumstances which can and should attract different sentences.
TBH he didn't look or sound as sharp as he used to be. Maybe an off day or perhaps he should be thinking of retirement!
As for the reaction and resignation calls from Milliband 🙄
It is Millibands reaction that is (IMO) embodies a lot of what is wrong in modern politics. Demanding a resignation, jumping on the smallest negative, horrible stuff.
What ever happened to championing what you are doing right instead of what the other guy is doing wrong?!
prize mili****tery indeed.
Yep, I agree with your analysis of dear ol' ken 'hushpuppy' clarke.
The leftie meeeja were out for blood on this one, regardless of the confuddled common sense of what he was saying. Its annoying that they can set the agenda like that.
Its annoying that they can set the agenda like that.
Is that the mdeia in general or just the left wing parts?
I haven't hear the interview but what I read on on the BBC website it seems like what he was saying was fairly sensible. I'm sure plenty of people will disagree with him, but calls for resignation seem way over the top.
BBC story headers:
Sack rape row Clarke - Miliband
Ken Clarke should not remain as justice secretary following his remarks about rape on BBC Radio 5 live, Labour leader Ed Miliband has said.Clarke challenged on sentences
Listen Hidden costs to crime victims
All about the left mis representing what his intentions were, not about the reality of the subject matter which is really what ought to be under discussion.
"OMITN is this out of date then?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/02/99/e-cyclopedia/437789.stm
"
Yes see the sexual offences act 2003.
As I understand it, the only change proposed is that the sentence reduction for a guilty plea will change from 1/3 to 1/2. Is that correct?
cranky - was the effect of 2003 to remove all aspects of statutory rape based on age?
That is my understanding too - if the rapist admits the offence early on and doesn't drag the victim through all the proceedings right up to the court appearance.
Ken Clarke is actually one of the few Justice secretaries we have ever had who has ever understood the reality of his departments work and who actually holds a reasoned and principled view as to what he should do.
Hence his unpopularity with the left who saw justice as a political tool and the right who pander to the tabloid mentality.
To be honest anybody how cannot see a distinction between the drunken buffoon who thinks that a woman who comes back to his room is consenting to sex and so has sex with her when she falls asleep and the Black Panther or Yorkshire Ripper is being disingenuous and to argue that all rapes are equally serious does the reality of the offence no favours.
That is my understanding too - if the rapist admits the offence early on and doesn't drag the victim through all the proceedings right up to the court appearance.
Thought so.
And is it all crimes, not just rape?
Crankboy, don't come round here with your well reasoned and logical arguments. The frothing hordes won't like that one bit. 🙂
To be honest anybody how cannot see a distinction between the drunken buffoon who thinks that a woman who comes back to his room is consenting to sex and so has sex with her when she falls asleep and the Black Panther or Yorkshire Ripper is being disingenuous and to argue that all rapes are equally serious does the reality of the offence no favours.
Or a 16-year-old sleeping with his 15-year-old girlfriend.
Or a 16-year-old sleeping with his 15-year-old girlfriend.
although OMITN says thats no longer an automatic crime.
mili****tery - and you want to talk about misrepresenting things 🙄
you dont think it was perhaps illjudged by clarke and spectacularily badly expressed?i listen to it and thought he did really poorly tbh.
Rantign at milliband seems a bit OTT I cant se ewhy the right are annoyed by this useless ****er leading the opposition tbh
To be honest anybody how cannot see a distinction between the drunken buffoon who thinks that a woman who comes back to his room is consenting to sex and so has sex with her when she falls asleep and the Black Panther or Yorkshire Ripper is being disingenuous and to argue that all rapes are equally serious does the reality of the offence no favours
I am sure that would be an immense comfort to the sleeping victim and would make you feel much better were you the father or husband of said victim. Thank god it was not a bad rape -- that is the view peope find unpalatable
Crimes may be exacerbated/mitigated by certain behaviour but all rape is bad there is not a lesser form of it for most non legal bods
good government needs effective opposition. at the moment its really just a collection of jackasses on all three sides with the exception of a couple of credible MPs like clarke
a badly expressed policy is not the same as an ill-judged one. What do you think is ill-judged about the policy?
Or a 16-year-old sleeping with his 15-year-old girlfriend.
although OMITN says thats no longer an automatic crime
No he didn't, he said it wasn't statutory rape. Incidently neither did the article that you linked to.
I don't think for one second that he was defending rapists or inferring that some rapes weren't traumatic
Ok, implying, but you can't have that and this.
He was also alluding to "lesser" rapes as in those that fell under statutory rape classifications where sentancing mitigation has the effect of bringing down the average sentance length for them - such as 17yr olds guilty of having sex with 15 yr olds
it was referring to statutory rape in the text of the article.
Stoner no, but it is well complex now and i would never try to explain it generally in a post. We never spoke about statutory rape in this country the offence was unlawful sexual intercourse USI in the jargon.
Basically now if the victim is under 13 the offence is rape of a child if the victim is over 13 and under 16 and the offender is over 18 and knows the victim is under 16 and reasonably believes the victim consents the offence is sexual activity with a child.
Edit For offenders under 18 the definitons of the principle offences are the same but the sanctions are les serious so 15 year old boy having consensual sex with underage girlfriend is still a crime but not rape unless she is under 13
it was referring to statutory rape in the text of the article.
...which only applied to girls under the age of 13.
CM - you can. The distinction of "lesser" Im using is in the setancing that has gone with the conviction where a judge has made a judgement on severity of the case in respect to the sentancing it requires. Not the effect on the victim.
Listening to Ken debate used to be a wonder to behold, but I think he's well past his sell-by.
Honourable retirement, I reckon.
He should just ensconce himself in a corner of Ronnie's, enjoy his favourite tipple and luxuriate in his favourite music....
What about if the boy is 14? Its not going to have the same level of sentancing as a crimew with a wide age difference is it? A sentance is going to be "lesser" one. No?Basically now if the victim is under 13 the offence is rape of a child
gonefishin - fair enough, i didnt realise there was a further distinction.
Hate to say it but I agree with Stoner. I think Ken Clarke is one of the few decent Tories and he just didn't explain himself very well.
steady now grum. French campsites in common is one thing, but this....
Stoner -
The word is "sent[b]e[/b]nce". Now, write that out a hundred times until you get it right.
French campsites in common
Eh? 😕
sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence sentence
hmmm. that was easy. Doesnt have the same kind of penance that doing it with four biros once did, alternating the colours of each letter...
I don't think for one second that he was defending rapists or inferring that some rapes weren't traumatic
so you think he was saying that a 15 year old girl who had had sex with her 16 year old boyfriend would have had a traumatic experience?
sorry grum. mistaken online identity. oops
It's "penance". FFS, get a grip man! 😉
15 year old girl who had had sex with her 16 year old boyfriend
is that a rape? serious Qu, I dont know whether it would come under rape law or not now.
Im lost without my chrome spellcheck. 🙁
Try and take the silly party politics out of the equation (go on, pretend you can for a second).
As 'someone in charge', what KC said is eminently sensible. There is a difference between some poor lass being jumped in the park at 2am, a horny schoolboy 'doing' his willing girlfriend and a pissed up bloke not understanding 'no' from the lass he picked up in 'La Scala' after the last dance.
Legally they may even all be defined as 'rape' (not entirely sure of that...) but from execution and impact perspectives, they are different.
That was his message.
is that a rape? serious Qu, I dont know whether it would come under rape law or not now.
Statutory rape I think, if under the age of consent. but he referred to it in those terms.
I think he made lot's of ill-judged statements, he's pretty far out of touch. Later on SKY he said
classic rape, where someone jumps out from behind a bush
I dont care who said it [clarke, blair , ghandi ]but this type of sentiment
Legally they may even all be defined as 'rape' (not entirely sure of that...) but from execution and impact perspectives, they are different.
bollox and quite offensive. As if rape victims dont have to suffer enough now some of them have lesser rapes than others oh FFS have athink about what rape actually is and think about it will you. Will the people affected get any comfort from the difference or wil they all be as affected by the crime
Given the awful convictions rates of rapist, the trauma on the person, the stigma attached we should be advocating the simple line that NO MEANS NO whatever the precursor and motives to said event may be.
Legally they may even all be defined as 'rape' (not entirely sure of that...) but from execution and impact perspectives, they are different.
Makes sense to me in comparing a willing under age girl to the typical victim.
Makes sense to me in comparing a willing under age girl to the typical victim
What if she was 7? Too young to be willing? Would that be rape?
And do tell me what they typical victim is
although boblo, I think you'll find there's plenty on the "wimmin" side of argument who'd argue very noisily that there is NO distinction between them in terms of victim trauma (including domestic rape in that one)
If we ignore the 15yr old girl/17yr old boy diversion for a second, all the other cases are based on there being no explicit or implicit consent. As a society there's probably a case for looking at whether the absolute crime is sex without consent and that can not be further aggravated nor mitigated.
classic rape
Oh dear, I guess it makes me an evil **** that I laughed at that phrase? Did he really say that?
CharlieMungus - Member
Makes sense to me in comparing a willing under age girl to the typical victim
What if she was 7? Too young to be willing? Would that be rape?
And do tell me what they typical victim is
🙄
Do you pc types miss any opportunity to pint the finger? This must be how TJ feels 😉
OK let's say 15 year old girl vs. victim who says "no".
.
No, you miss the point, 7 is clearly too young and would constitute rape, yet you appear to think 15 is ok? I was wondering what you considered to be the threshold age and if it differed from the legal code in the UK.
I'm not pointing a finger, and i use a Mac. I'm only asking you some questions.
Genuine question here:
For it to be 'rape' in the legal sense, does the victim have to show that they denied consent or just that consent wasn't given?
I think this has been debated before, both here, in the media, legally etc, so I am guessing that it's already clarified.
GT I always thought it was lack of consent was the important one - hence sleep drunk sex crime.
CharlieMungus - Member
No, you miss the point, 7 is clearly too young and would constitute rape, yet you appear to think 15 is ok? I was wondering what you considered to be the threshold age and if it differed from the legal code in the UK.
Ah OK, sorry, Up here in God's own Country (twinned with NI) we have statutory rape for girls undeer 16 (well you know what I mean).
So a consenting girl of 15 is way different IMO to a 7-year old, sas teh former would be closer to having ht ecapacity to consent.
Intersting, consent to medical procedures is attained graudally up to the age of 16, rather than only on the 16th birthday. Seems logical that a similar principle could be applied to rape.
Consent is the key, I can't remember what the deal is if the woman is asleep or silent - law different in England, where until the 80s a subjective belief that a woman did consent was a full defence o:
Junky, you're getting yourself all excited for no reason.
There is a difference between the circumstances of someone being jumped from behind in a dark place by a masked man and being forced at knifepoint to perform 'despicable acts' and a victim too pissed to express her 'no' effectively to her long term partner.
Though these may both constitute rape from a legal perspective, in the first example, the aggravated nature of the offence and the impact on the victim will be quite different from the latter.
Perhaps the way to look at it is they both attract the same base sentence (both being rape) and the aggravated nature of the former example attracts an additional penalty.
Rape is indeed rape but some circumstance put the victim through more trauma than others as with any crime.
<edit> And sorry, confusion could occur as 'no' doesn't always mean 'no'. It sometime means 'not yet but I don't want to appear easy so carry on a bit with your very convincing fiddling about and I could change my mind'.... Mixed messages and all that...
Well that would make sense and it's how it should be.
But it does suggest there is going to be a difference in the victim's experience of rape. If they are semi-conscious and cannot give consent because of this, then it is still clearly 'rape' but that's a different level of trauma to a rape committed using extreme violence, where the victim's life is threatened or they believe it to be threatened, or where there is more than one perpetrator.
Or maybe not?
It seems like there are actually two questions here:
Does it matter how the crime was committed versus what is the degree to which the victim experienced trauma.
In other crimes, for example assault, I believe that what the person who was assualted believed is key to the nature of the conviction and certainly the degree to which their use of force to protect themselves can be justified. Ergo, it doesn't matter how much force they used, it only matters what they can demonstrate they feared was going to happen to them in order to justify that use of force.
I cite the example to illustrate the fact that it is what the individual 'experienced' that sometimes changes the nature of a crime.
Stoner/GT - I think technically, its "lack of reasonable belief in consent"
ZE I think you are right - to an objective person though.
z11 - sounds like thats probably where half the problems come from then eh?
Everyone is getting excited because rape is very emotive crime. From a legal perspective, it's just another serious crime with degrees of aggravation and impact on the victim.
Seems the Milliband wannabees/Daily Mailers have taken over the forum.
Everyone is getting excited because rape is very emotive crime
That and the fact that it's often used in gender politics to pursue a political agenda.
Cynic-al / Stoner
Yeah - so, for example, touching up your wife in her sleep, would [b]likely[/b] be treated very differently from touching up a girl who you had just met in a pub and was in your bed, which in turn would be very different from climbing in through a window of a stranger and doing it.
Anyone who cannot see the differences in severity of those crimes, both in sentence and impact, is either being disingenuous or downright silly!
ZE - Amen to that.
Wow, thread closed in a rash of unanimity, consensus and well explored arguments!
That almost never happens!
Right now about these religious types......
Famous case I referred to above. squaddie tells mate "you should havea go with my wife, she'll pretend to fight you off, but really she'll be loving it, just carry on".
Mate got off! (pun not intended).
z11 is right the consent issue is that the complainant did not consent and the defendant did not reasonably believe that she did consent. So the defendant has to subjectively believe that she did consent and that belief has to be objectively reasonable, for him to be acquitted. Note the standard of proof though the defendant simply has to raise the issue and the crown have to disprove it so the jury are sure.
cynic-al your famous case is the old law where a genuine but unreasonable belief in consent was a defence the drafters of the new law hoped that that scenario would now result in a conviction.
Good to see common sense prevail (those who disagree try separating out the various factors as advised above if that makes you feel better). All crimes are crimes but each have their own mitigating or extenuating circumstances etc. I know as a bloke I'd rather be forced to have sex with my partner than a complete stranger ALTHOUGH clearly both would be rape. The two would certainly have a different impact on me.
Fwiw I'm more concerned about the REAL purpose behind the proposal being to avoid overcrowding/save money as opposed to saving victims distress etc. Build more prisons, longer sentences and less of this 2/3rds off for 'good' behaviour tosh - you serve your sentence and get longer if you misbehave - simple. Not enough protecting the victims/future victims and too much 'as long as it's NIMBY'.
Anyone who cannot see the differences in severity of those crimes, both in sentence and impact, is either being disingenuous or downright silly!
Oh dear lord now I find myself agreeing with Zulu-Eleven on something. Worrying 😐
As an ex-lawyer he
should know the ****ing meaning of his words and use the correct ones to not cause offence the stupid ****.
anagallis - agree he was maybe clumsy with his words but the intent seemed pretty clear and reasonable in the contaxt to me. It's a poor do when the true meaning of what's said is a distant second to trying to find something to extract and moan about or to enable someone to shout for a resignation blah blah. Tired old politics. More straight talking and common sense listening (is there such a thing?) would be way better!
true, but do you think this very experienced politician doesnt know the meaning of his words or choose them carefully to gain support with his voters?
I know as a bloke I'd rather be forced to have sex with my partner than a complete stranger ALTHOUGH clearly both would be rape. The two would certainly have a different impact on me.
I don't know about that - if I was in a situation where my partner raped me I'd find it more traumatic, because it'd mean that I didn't really know the person that I thought I loved and trusted. I'd have that to deal with on top of the rape.
I think Clarke's betrayed a pretty old school mindset that unless a woman has been threatened with violence and fought back, it's not 'proper' rape.
I'm sure he does but don't think this is such an occasion. It's a tricky subject at the best of times - as some comments on here show!