Ken Clarke - Good rape and bad rape

[brodski]

One of the examples Clarke gave was a 17 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year old. There's no need for inverted commas, because whether it's genuinely consensual or not makes no difference in the eyes of the law.

Yes it does. In the UK if it is consensual then it is not rape, it is unlawful sexual intercourse a much less serious offence than rape.

 

[richardm]

Yes it does. In the UK if it is consensual then it is not rape, it is unlawful sexual intercourse a much less serious offence than rape.

So when our Justice Secretary says

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

... he is wrong? Perhaps he should resign since he clearly has no idea what it's talking about It was very much one of the examples he had in mind as a "less serious" instance, since he's mentioned it more than once.

 

[Mark6]

So when our Justice Secretary says



... he is wrong? Perhaps he should resign since he clearly has no idea what it's talking about It was very much one of the examples he had in mind as a "less serious" instance, since he's mentioned it more than once.

Yes.

What are qualifications for becoming Justice Secretary?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I believe rape is rape and should be treated as such and it's all an abomination.

I disagree somewhat. All rape is criminal and pretty heinous, but some rapes are MUCH more heinous than others, and I think it's important that the law be able to recognize it.

For example, there are several types of statutory rape that involve consensual sex. I think this type is generally less heinous than rapes involving non-consensual acts.

I don't know about UK law, but here in the U.S., criminal torture (not the kind of torture described in the Convention Against Torture that only involves agents of the government) isn't always seen as a crime on its own but merely an aggravating factor in the commission of other crimes, like rape. I'd want someone who tortured rape victims to received a stiffer sentence than someone who didn't.

 

[richardm]

Yes.

... and in fact the article I linked to explains why, had I just read a bit further

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

From the victims' perspective rape is rape

Yes but since when do we legislate based on how the victim perceives the crime?

There IS a lot of difference between remorse after a drunken liaison and being beaten and sodomized as you walk home. Just like there's a difference between being punched or 3 guys taking baseball bats to you.

I think the problem is the language. Rape is used as a catch all word, and every case is treated with equal gravitas. Is there another type of crime that's so black and white?

 

[brodski]

So when our Justice Secretary says



... he is wrong? Perhaps he should resign since he clearly has no idea what it's talking about It was very much one of the examples he had in mind as a "less serious" instance, since he's mentioned it more than once.

Either the Minsiter was very abdly briefed or he failed to udnerstand his briefing- in either case there will be some very red faces on Victoria Street at the moment.

 

[The Don]

Yes but since when do we legislate based on how the victim perceives the crime?

IMO regularly, at least here in the UK. New crimes are added, tariffs are tinkered with and in some cases sentences are changed through the direct intervention of politicians who are grandstanding. At least in part this is in response to lobbying by victims groups.

There IS a lot of difference between remorse after a drunken liaison and being beaten and sodomized as you walk home. Just like there's a difference between being punched or 3 guys taking baseball bats to you.

Yes, and listening to some people who had suffered from the former they felt that the betrayal of trust from someone who they thought loved them was worse than being attacked by a stranger.

I don't believe they had suffered both kinds of rape however so I don't think they could provide an accurate back-to-back comparison.

I have never been the victim (or for that matter perpetrator) of rape but I can imagine having someone belittle your suffering by telling you that the rape you had suffered was "not that bad" because it wasn't gang-rape or because explicit violence wasn't involved will only add to the anguish and trauma.

I realise that isn't a rational response but victims don't always respond rationally to traumatic events

I think the problem is the language. Rape is used as a catch all word, and every case is treated with equal gravitas. Is there another type of crime that's so black and white?

In some countries there is murder and manslaughter but no degrees within murder. I think that's analogous to rape and sexual assault but with no gradations within rape.

In the UK, differentiation is provided by the sentence, not by the charge. That's why I was querying the need for separate charges for different classifications of rape.

 

[JAStewart]

The Clarke thing has obviously been blown out of proportion. People made it seem like he was condoning rape or something which is obviously nonsense. The difficult thing with rape is trying to get victims to come forward... perhaps advancements in medical science will aid rape prosecutors in the future - well, hopefully anyway. It's an awful, awful crime.

While we're discussing rape charges... can we have equal sentencing for someone who is found to falsely claim to have been raped (note: a trial that can't be decided one way or the other would not be evidence that the individual falsely claimed)? OR at the very, very, very least make it so that if someone is accused of rape, their name is not public unless they are convicted?

It strikes me as unfair that someone completely innocent can have their entire reputation destroyed because someone else accused them of something. It's particularly true where I live. There's about 22,000 people on my remote island. If someone is accused of any crime their life is a living hell they can't really escape from.

 

[The Don]

Yes it does. In the UK if it is consensual then it is not rape, it is unlawful sexual intercourse a much less serious offence than rape.

I didn't realise that we don't have statutory rape here in the UK.

Another case of learning at JREF.

 

[brodski]

If both persons got themselves drunk, aren't they then both responsible for whatever stupid thing they did together? Just because one of them is slightly less drunk than the other, doesn't make him solely responsible for both.

Under English and Welsh law women can't commit rape.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Under English and Welsh law women can't commit rape.

They can:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1225124.stm

(I know that's not exactly what you were talking about, but...)

 

[Darat]

Under English and Welsh law women can't commit rape.

Are you sure I've certainly read cases of women being charged with the offence of rape and I wouldn't have thought they'd do that if they can't be convicted for that?

 

[brodski]

They can:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1225124.stm

(I know that's not exactly what you were talking about, but...)

That took place in 2001, back when women could rape. The 2003 Sexual Offences act redefined rape:

Rape


(1)
A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)
he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)
B does not consent to the penetration, and


(c)
A does not reasonably believe that B consents.


(2)
Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3)
Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4)
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

This chanegs was due to Baroness Noakes who tabled her amendment as "Clause 1 line 22... Remove 'genitals, insert 'penis.'" because to certain people Like Baroness Noakes, sexual assault is to be laughed at and/or dismissed if it's not male on female.

(rereading the story she could be convicted for rape these days as well under joint venture provisions or whatever we call them now)

 

[Professor Yaffle]

If both persons got themselves drunk, aren't they then both responsible for whatever stupid thing they did together? Just because one of them is slightly less drunk than the other, doesn't make him solely responsible for both.

Everyone knows alcohol reduces inhibitions. Don't get drunk in a situation where you might regret losing them. Otherwise whatever you allow to happen in your intoxicated state is your own responsibility.

The laws about intoxication, (in my country as far as I understand them) are not about being so intoxicated that you make stupid decisions and actively participate in sex. They apply in times when the victim was too intoxicated to even know what the hell was going on, or to be able to resist. This is a misconception that I come across over and over again and I really think this should be made clearer.

 

[Ian Osborne]

can we have equal sentencing for someone who is found to falsely claim to have been raped (note: a trial that can't be decided one way or the other would not be evidence that the individual falsely claimed)?

Quite. There's an interesting blog on just this subject from a serving police officer here.

OR at the very, very, very least make it so that if someone is accused of rape, their name is not public unless they are convicted?

Agree here too. The usual argument against this is that those arrested for other crimes such as burglary are named. But the innocent person arrested for burglary doesn't have his private life plastered across the newspapers, and the victim of the burglary isn't kept anonymous.

 

[JAStewart]

Agree here too. The usual argument against this is that those arrested for other crimes such as burglary are named. But the innocent person arrested for burglary doesn't have his private life plastered across the newspapers, and the victim of the burglary isn't kept anonymous.

And rape, in my own interpretation, is a crime of a different nature to most (along with murder/anything with kids etc). Furthermore, it's a crime with loads connotations outwith just 'a crime'. Sexuality is already something which confuses/pleases/excites/annoys/mixes up/scares people, so anything criminally related to it is pretty much life destroying. "No smoke without fire", right?

 

[Puppycow]

I would never say that there's good rape, but I'm fine with saying that there's bad rape and worse rape. There's bad theft and worse theft. There's bad reckless driving and worse reckless driving. There's bad murder and worse murder. Etc.