http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/18/david-cameron-urged-sack-kenneth-clarke-rape

Ed Miliband urges prime minister to sack justice secretary for suggesting 'date rape' is not as serious as other kinds of rape

 

Kenneth Clarke, who appeared to suggest that 'date rape' is not a serious offence. Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian

 

Kenneth Clarke has become embroiled in a major row over sentences for rape after he appeared to suggest that "date rape" did not count as a serious offence, prompting calls for David Cameron to sack his justice secretary.

 

Clarke took to the airwaves this morning in the face of a fierce reaction to the disclosure on Tuesday that he intends to increase the discount for an early guilty plea for rapists from 33% to 50%.

 

But instead of calming the row, the justice secretary's media appearances and explanations have only served to fuel the controversy. A rape victim broke down in tears after confronting Clarke when he appeared on the BBC Radio 5 Live, telling him his sentence discount plan was a disaster.

 

During other television interviews Clarke appeared to claim that campaigners had only singled out rape because it injected a degree of "sexual excitement" into the argument over discounts for early guilty pleas.

 

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" that sparked a political furore with the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, challenging David Cameron over the matter at prime minister's question time.

 

More details soon...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13441172

Audio of Clarke discussing it

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/may/18/houseofcommons-pmqs

 

Taken from the Guardian live blog

 

3.04pm: Kenneth Clarke has just spoken to Sky News to say how seriously he takes rape. This is supposed to be the "clarification" offered earlier.

 

But he refused to apologise for what he said earlier.

 

He also dug himself into a deeper hole, saying that he would have to check to see whether consensual sex with a girl aged 15 was rape. It is definitely an offence, he says, but he is not sure that it is actually rape.

 

This is not encouraging. He is the justice secretary.

 

According to Wikipedia, in Scotland having consensual sex with a girl over the age of 13 but below the age of 16 is not rape but an offence called "having intercourse with an older child". Wikipedia implies it is rape in England and Wales, but it is not clear.

 

Are there any readers who know more about the law than the justice secretary who can clear this up?

 

I'll post the full quotes from the interview shortly.

He also dug himself into a deeper hole, saying that he would have to check to see whether consensual sex with a girl aged 15 was rape. It is definitely an offence, he says, but he is not sure that it is actually rape.

 

WTF, I imagine it would be statutory?

 

WTF, I imagine it would be statutory?

 

According to the live blog on the Guardian site: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/may/18/houseofcommons-pmqs

 

3.39pm: Heresiarch should be justice secretary. He or she has posted a comment on the blog clearing up the law on consensual sex with children under the age of 16. (See 3.04pm and 3.14pm.)

 

While the age of consent in the UK is 16, non-coercive sex in which one (or both) partners is 15 that age is not rape. It is unlawful sexual intercourse. Under s9 of the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, if one party is over 18 - the situation Ken Clarke described - it is defined as "sexual activity with a child". Under s5 it IS rape if the child is under thirteen.

ahh good ole' Kenneth Clarke, what on Earth would we do without him.

 

Anyone?

Here is how I see it and it's a touchy subject so I expect dissenters.

 

Firstly, I have absolutely no idea if I'm talking for this man because his views on the matter have been confusing, and with the chance to clear things up he hasn't done. Any response now could be down to a number of things - either he realises he said something he didn't believe and tripped over his own words since he was speaking under pressure, he does believe exactly what he said but he will try and cover it up for the sake of his career and his party, or he isn't sure on the topic and was just talking crap which he hadn't thought through properly. Either way, it doesn't look good as the Justice Secretary. Whether or not he deserves to be sacked is another matter which I doubt I'll address in this post.

 

So it all came about because Conservatives are looking into halving sentences of rapists if they plead guilty from the start. This incentive is used in other crimes. The reason they are looking in to doing this is because apart from the admin side of things where it will save a lot of time and money if they do plead guilty from the start. On top of this, the victim will not have to go through the courts and constantly relive the event and be cross examined and told they are lying. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that as it stands a defendant can plead guilty at the last possible moment in order to get a more lenient punishment (around a third off the sentence), even after dragging the case through the courts. It is hoped that because of this more women (it says women, but I think it should say people) will come forward and more prosecutions will take place. That is the reasoning behind why they are looking into these new proposals.

 

In an interview where he was defending this proposal, the interviewer (see my second post in the thread) asked him if he thought this was really fair on the victim that the offender could be out on the streets in 15 months (she used 5 years as the average sentence for a rapist). This is where Clarke messed up, whether it was simply because he was saying what he believed or if he buckled to the pressure and stumbled over his words without realising.

 

Clarke said that the average was 5 years because it took into account different types of rape and that some are more serious than others (this seems to be something he definitely believes as he has since said it again now this whole thing has taken off). He said that there is a difference between a 16 year old having sex with a 15 year old, both willing and in a relationship, when compared to man who rapes a stranger with the threat of violence from a weapon, or using violence etc. This, to me is a fair statement. Those two extremes are very different. But whilst he was talking about this, for some bizarre reason he mentioned date rape (where you spike a persons drink, or drug them, and then rape them whilst they are unconscious, or only semi conscious). This is what seems to be the crux of the problem, as he then went on to use some interesting language to describe the differences between the different rapes.

 

Now, here is me saying what my opinion on the matter is, and personally hoping that this is what the Justice Secretary meant when he said all this. Rape is rape. It's as simple as that. I do believe there should be different sentences for different cases. But this should not be down to the rape side of the crime. I believe it should be down to the assault side of the case. If somebody holds a stranger up with a knife and rape them then they should get more than if two people are in a relationship and one is drunk and has sex with the other person but the other person doesn't really want to have sex and it is out of character for the defendant to behave like this and they have certain mitigating circumstances - say they were an alcoholic and were drunk and didn't realise the other person didn't want it as they are into bondage and he is usually forceful, except this time he misreads the signs.

 

Both of these are ridiculously awful I hasten to add, and I am not suggesting that one of these events isn't rape. They indeed should both be punished as rapists if the case is brought to trial and they are found guilty, but I do think there should be a distinction between these crimes. That distinction should not be made between the rapes though, it should be made between other aspects of the crime.

 

I hope I made this clear, because this could look pretty fucking awful if I haven't.

 

As I have said, rape is rape. To punish all rape the same doesn't make sense though.