Kenneth Clarke, Justice Secretary, rejects suggestion that "rape is rape".

[removeduser_487563287433]

On Five Live yesterday Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke caused widespread criticism by rejecting the suggestion that "rape is rape". Clarke responded, "No it's not, 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. What you and I are talking about is we are talking about a man forcibly having sex with a woman and she doesn't want to - a serious crime."

Following this Labour leader Ed Miliband used Prime Minister's Question Time to demand that Kenneth Clarke resign. It was unlikely that Cameron would request Clarke's resignation for this, but Miliband demanding it made it certain he would stay. This was a move to taint Cameron and the Tories as a whole with any fallout from the event, by forcing them to actively support him.

Firstly, it's worth noting that Clarke is incorrect: sex with a minor under 13 years old age is always rape, but 13-15 is a lesser offence if there is consent. But most importantly here we appear to have the suggestion that the Justice Secretary believes that there's rape, and then there are less important crimes. This is a view that must be quashed: personally I believe rape is one of the most serious crimes and in the UK we are very behind in delivering justice for the issue: although reporting rape, a huge problem in most countries, is better in the UK, our conviction rates are then very poor, around the lowest in the EU.

Clarke has not apologised for his remarks, although has sought to apologise to a phone in listener on the show and a victim of rape, writing "I have always believed that all rape is extremely serious, and must be treated as such, I am sorry if my comments gave you any other impression or upset you."

Overall - I do feel Clarke's positioning on the seriousness of the matter is appropriate although his words in this case were incredibly foolish, and I do not necessarily believe that his apology is sufficient - he should leave no room for confusion on the Government's policy. Currently the Government says they are still discussing the proposed policy on reducing sentences by 50% in return for an early guilty-plea (the Ministry of Justice being under pressure, like all departments, to cut budgets). It's worth noting that this is a discretionary not a static figure - for example in a case where the evidence was overwhelming the defendant would receive little or no reduction for an immediate guilty plea.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13450618

You can also listen to the interview (if you are based in the UK) here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...oins_Victoria/

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

He came of pretty insensitive in the inteview on 5 live, still, the whole issue is complicated/devalude by the tabloids shreeking about reduced sentences for guilty pleas.

[removeduser_487563287433]

He came of pretty insensitive in the inteview on 5 live, still, the whole issue is complicated/devalude by the tabloids shreeking about reduced sentences for guilty pleas.

I think insensitive is the most accurate word. But I question whether, despite it obviously being insensitive, whether that should be the focus of the matter. We live in a world where we have a media that demands that Ministers be that sensitive, and in the same breath complain about the "culture of political correctness".

Although insensitive - I do not believe Clarke's views are inappropriate, ignorant or ill-informed (with the exception of him being incorrect about under-age sex). I think we can believe what he meant to say, although what he actually said was deeply offensive.

Pretty much what Ferrets said. I do take issue with two things, though. Firstly, Clarke may have been insensitive, true but the tabloid hysteria and spin which followed has confirmed just how small an average British brain really is. Secondly, from his progressive attitude towards the justice system, Ed Milliband is now shifting to a more reactionary, tough-love stance which has already been tested to death in this country and proven to be ineffective. It is, however, successful in populist terms and indicates not only the desperation of Milliband to finally score some points but also suggests what kind of leadership values we can expect from the man. God forbid he ever gets elected.

Miliband's reaction was purely opportunistic and cynical. It came off as that, too, and will have damaged him.

[Plan C]

Pretty much what Ferrets said. I do take issue with two things, though. Firstly, Clarke may have been insensitive, true but the tabloid hysteria and spin which followed has confirmed just how small an average British brain really is. Secondly, from his progressive attitude towards the justice system, Ed Milliband is now shifting to a more reactionary, tough-love stance which has already been tested to death in this country and proven to be ineffective. It is, however, successful in populist terms and indicates not only the desperation of Milliband to finally score some points but also suggests what kind of leadership values we can expect from the man. God forbid he ever gets elected.

[vampiric_canniba]

France shows the world how to have a good rape scandal. This is just quibbling over words. Literally, it is only rape if it is not consensual, or they are too damn young to know otherwise. A 15 year old and an 18 year olds business is their owns and probably their parents, not the laws.

Edit: damn, DOUBLE ninja'd

[removeduser_487563287433]

France shows the world how to have a good rape scandal. This is just quibbling over words.

Do you mean to say you feel that discussing the policy that would see rape sentences reduced as much as half as "quibbling over words"?

[Rolling Thunder]

Do you mean to say you feel that discussing the policy that would see rape sentences reduced as much as half as "quibbling over words"?

Frankly, if a 15 year old had consensual sex with an 18 year old, I'd like to see their sentences reduced 100%. There's absolutely no need for the arbitrary line in the sand - it's quite clear when a person is capable of giving consent and when they are not.

You still don't understand. The issue is he appeared to be suggesting that certain types of rape were less serious crimes than others.

No Ferrets, you are misinterpreting what Mr Fox said. His argument is that "There is forced/non-consensual sexual assault" - a severe, heinous and barbarous crime - and then there is consensual sex between two people who are clearly capable of consent but the flawed criminal justice system screws them over because we're too stupid to be able to establish whether a person is capable of giving informed consent or not. Apparently.

[Menelik_I]

Frankly, if a 15 year old had consensual sex with an 18 year old, I'd like to see their sentences reduced 100%. There's absolutely no need for the arbitrary line in the sand - it's quite clear when a person is capable of giving consent and when they are not.

You sir are insensitive and bigoted ... we all know how a 16 boy having sex with 18/19 years old babe is utterly traumatizing and painful

It is not like He could enjoy it

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Sarcasm.

The Law is indeed more complicated than cheesy Arnold one-liners like ''Rape is rape''

[removeduser_487563287433]

No Ferrets, you are misinterpreting what Mr Fox said. His argument is that "There is forced/non-consensual sexual assault" - a severe, heinous and barbarous crime - and then there is consensual sex between two people who are clearly capable of consent but the flawed criminal justice system screws them over because we're too stupid to be able to establish whether a person is capable of giving informed consent or not. Apparently.

Mr Clarke, and no I'm not, I am explaining why the reaction is more serious than just "manufactured rage".

[Plan C]

I think the whole concept behind the propsed change is rather good. Current conviction rate for rape crimes hovers around 6% mark which is shameful. This, bear in mind, with a "3rd off" incentive already in place. Clarke's proposal merely extends it to 50%. Tearful phone-ins should not divert attention form the fact that it's better to have a perp serve even 40 months in jail than get off scot free altogether. Then again I'm probably just as insensitive as Clarke.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I think it is perhaps a good idea to add it as a tool for prosecutors and judges. But it is not a trivial decision - it is a very serious crime that deserves serious punishment.

Edit: I think it's very worth anybody who wants an opinion on the matter to listen to the Five Live episode if they can. Kenneth Clarke does put his words across much worse than I think I have been able to explain, and the woman who called in, although emotional, nonetheless puts forward an exceptionally strong and rational argument.

[removeduser_487563287433]

A fact checking group has posted an article correcting the BBC interviewer Derbsyshire, who claimed the average sentence for rape is 5 years, which Clarke denied.

It vindicates Clarke. For the most recent year of data the average sentence was 8 years.

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/ken_c...ce_length-2716

[Adar]

I really don't understand the conflict. Sentences differ depending on the circumstances of a particular rape which I think is perfectly understandable.

I think the dangerous people are the ones trying to dilute rape by turning sexual abuse into the same crime as rape. In Sweden this failed completely since people who would have been convicted for sexual abuse now walks free since it is impossible to prove that they forced someone to conduct sexual actions.

[Menelik_I]

Cheap politics and someone playing ''Gotcha!'' with the Minister ... a mud match between Milliban and Cameron would be a more useful use of time.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Cheap politics and someone playing ''Gotcha!'' with the Minister ... a mud match between Milliban and Cameron would be a more useful use of time.

I think the situation has confused you. This was not cheap politics nor was the BBC interviewer trying to lay any trap as you are implying. What Clarke said, if they actually reflected his views or his policy, would have been grossly inappropriate on top of foolishly insensitive and would have been ample justification for his resignation.

I really don't understand the conflict. Sentences differ depending on the circumstances of a particular rape which I think is perfectly understandable.

In the interview Clarke appears to be saying that date rape should receive a lesser sentence than violent rape on the basis of it being a different sort of rape.

[Hotspur]

In the interview Clarke appears to be saying that date rape should receive a lesser sentence than violent rape on the basis of it being a different sort of rape.

Under-aged but consensual sex isn't date rape. I also think he's right in that sexual assault should be treated differently than under-aged sex.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Under-aged but consensual sex isn't date rape.

...

I know.

[Hotspur]

Clarke responded, "No it's not, 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. What you and I are talking about is we are talking about a man forcibly having sex with a woman and she doesn't want to - a serious crime."

In the interview Clarke appears to be saying that date rape should receive a lesser sentence than violent rape on the basis of it being a different sort of rape.

Under-aged but consensual sex isn't date rape. I also think he's right in that sexual assault should be treated differently than under-aged sex.

...

I know.

Is there a part in the interview that you didn't quote in which he said date rape should receive a lesser sentence?

[Menelik_I]

would have been grossly inappropriate on top of foolishly insensitive and would have been ample justification for his resignation.

Here is what He said.

No it's not, 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. What you and I are talking about is we are talking about a man forcibly having sex with a woman and she doesn't want to - a serious crime."

You simply cannot reduce the law to ''Rape is Rape'' especially if the question is mixed with Agent of consent matters ... things aren't that simple. Also I see nothing insensitive has they are talking hypothetical and not a specific rape case.

What Clarke said, if they actually reflected his views or his policy

Which is were I wish this thread was about a mud match between female Labour and Conservative MPs.

It is unlikely that the Minister himself would decide a rape case and he isn't going to be the only setting policy, his staff and an army of lawyers will do it, plus the law enforcement and Justice staff will carry individual cases. This is why I don't see the fuss with this minor lapse in an interview.

Introduce the ''Rape is not rape Act'' and maybe it would be worthy.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Here is what He said.


You simply cannot reduce the law to ''Rape is Rape'' especially if the question is mixed with Agent of consent matters ... things aren't that simple. Also I see nothing insensitive has they are talking hypothetical and not a specific rape case.



Which is were I wish this thread was about a mud match between female Labour and Conservative MPs.

It is unlikely that the Minister himself would decide a rape case and he isn't going to be the only setting policy, his staff and an army of lawyers will do it, plus the law enforcement and Justice staff will carry individual cases. This is why I don't see the fuss with this minor lapse in an interview.

Introduce the ''Rape is not rape Act'' and maybe it would be worthy.

You've managed to completely misunderstand the situation and why there has been widespread upset and the Minister himself has sought to clarify his statements.

I thought that was standard practice on all crime in most western nations. Otherwise we wouldn't really need to have things like 10-lifetime as the punishment bracket for murder.

You still don't understand. The issue is he appeared to be suggesting that certain types of rape were less serious crimes than others.