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.

Aren’t you putting words into his mouth there?

Mrs Toast – I respect your view though obviously my example was for the purposes of demonstrating different circumstances surrounding rape rather than the specific trauma potentially caused by specific circs.

(3)A man also commits rape if he induces a married woman to have sexual intercourse with him by impersonating her husband.

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.

Do you mean that you think Clarke holds this view or do you mean that it reminds you of what was once a widely held view?

Perhaps the interviewer was a bit aggressive, but he went on the show, bandying his ideas about. Showing his naivety, and the interviewer went for him. It wasn’t really her fault, he was asking for it. What does he expect going around with that attitude on display like that. He can’t complain about it afterwards, he was quite happy giving it all that before she went for him.

Three points (after having been disgusted by the misinformed rage of the anti-rape campaigner on TV just now):

Firstly, what a terrible shame that a fuss is being made over what people think he said as opposed to what he actually said. And what he actually said wasn’t really an opinion of his, but his recollection of how the courts sentence. It would be a very simple matter to test the accuracy of his memory.

Secondly, to suggest a violent rape is on the same level with a rape where one participant can’t consent due to being under the age of consent (but participated willingly) is absurd. We should have an IQ test before people are allowed to express the views publicly.

And on the subject of comparing violent stranger rape with ‘date-rape’, has anyone actually asked a violent rape victim if they consider that a ‘date-rape’ is equally serious? I have, but as I was warned for daring to suggest that in nature animals mate when both are sexually mature and hence humans also doing so is certainly not ’unnatural’ (as often touted) on another thread, I wouldn’t dare enlighten you.

grum – Member

Oh dear, I guess it makes me an evil **** that I laughed at that phrase? Did he really say that?

He spent the rest of the show talking about lower sentencing for diet rape.

TruckerUK if what he said was OK why is he rowing back from it faster Redgrave on speed and saying that what he said was a very poor choice of words?

Diet rape? I knew there was a good reason for me never fancying going to weight watchers! 😉

I heard his Radio 5 interview in which he sought to clarify without apologising for what people might have thought he meant. Does anybody seriously believe he did MEAN to suggest any rape per se was less serious – he was clearly trying to explain that sentencing was proportionate for different categories of rape as previosuly referred to on here. Those trying to make mileage out of his clumsy wording really need to focus on more important issues as it’s that reaction which makes all our politicians so guarded and ‘robotic’.

Those trying to make mileage out of his clumsy wording really need to focus on more important issues as it’s that reaction which makes all our politicians so guarded and ‘robotic’.

Well put. Clarke, like Field, Hooey and a pitifully few others is not a robot and that’s to be encouraged.

I agree. Ken Clarke is not a stupid man and what he said has been ‘journalised’ for the sake of a headline; don’t complain about dumbing down if you fall for this rubbish.

deepreddave – well put and that was my take on it too.

It is very easy to make a mistake as proved by the BBC News presenter tonight who said that the ‘rape victim’ was audibly upset on the Radio interview. To my recollection she said she was a victim of attempted rape, so proves how easy it is for an error to occur.

I’m with deepreddave – I heard the 5 Live interview and he was being brow beaten by an increasingly aggressive interviewer, got his wording a bit clumsy and that has been jumped on by the opportunistic halfwits in the press and the opposition.

He was trying to explain the difficulties in proportionate sentencing that judges are expected to deal with, using his own legal experience, to encourage a debate of a wider point that is out for consultation. Damning endictment of the idiot press and desperate Milliband that they are screaming so loudly. If we cannot have a rational discussion about sentencing policy without such hysterics, it will soon go down with immigration as being an elephant in the room.

fwiw, I understand the point he was trying to make, not sure how keen I am to allow rapists out early on a plea bargain. Or murderers, violent offenders, terrorists….all of whom would be affected by this proposal that is in consultation, but that point has got rather overlooked

Do you mean that you think Clarke holds this view or do you mean that it reminds you of what was once a widely held view?

Kind of a mixture of both – when someone pointed out that rapists normally serve around 5 years so would be out in 15 months with the new guidelines, Clarke defended the short average sentence by saying it was skewed by “date rape, 17-year-olds having intercourse with 15 year olds…

“A serious rape with violence and an unwilling woman – the tariff is longer than that.”

By saying that, he’s saying that date rape isn’t ‘serious’. He’s also inferring that victims of date rape are somehow willing by putting them in the same category as consensual teenage sex, and in a different category to ‘violent’ rape against ‘unwilling’ women.

Which does sound a bit like he’d class John Worboys’ crimes as not being serious, because the women got into the taxi of their own accord and accepted drinks (which were spiked), and were knocked out therefore not needing violence to rape them. I mean, women, accepting drinks from strangers – they’re asking for it aren’t they? And most of them were unconscious and can’t actually remember what happened, so no harm, no foul, eh?

Maybe it’s ‘putting words into his mouth’, but Clarke should really think about the words coming out of his mouth if he doesn’t want them to be so easily misconstrued – if they are being miscontrued. At worst he does belittle ‘date rape’. At best he’s a moron.

1)It is a sad indictment of politics that Milliband used this as an opportunity to score points rather than deal with a difficult area of law, whatever you think about KC , Millibands comments are just as destructive, and he knows it.
2) A pal of mine 3 years ago was “done” for statuatory rape, he was 16 and 4 months, girlfriend was 14 and 11 months, her father was well placed in the legal system (I’m not saying any more as many of you will have read about this) and to my mind used his position to mitigate his inabilty to accept his daughters inevitable progress in life. The lad has a prison sentence, criminal record and is on the register, because he was as much in love as any of us were when we were 16. Legally he is a rapist, morally he is a boy who has been raped by the system.

He’s also inferring that victims of date rape are somehow willing by putting them in the same category as consensual teenage sex,

[quote]Maybe it’s ‘putting words into his mouth’,[/quote]

He was using the point, rather clumsily under duress, to illustrate the differential in severity and circumstances. I would say you are putting words in his mouth as he quite clearly stated his view on the seriousness of the crime.

Toys – I sympathise as I also know of someone in very similar circumstances who is now on the register. He was 17 when he met his ‘girlfriend’ in a pub. He too was a victim of ‘Father intervention’ when he discovered they were sexually active. She had lied about her age so he was totally unaware she was only 15 at the time.

ken is one of the few torries politicians who i actually respect
i think his ideas on justice reform have been reasoned and free from media hype
iirc rape has one of the lowest reoffending rates of all crimes and if the sentencing reductions target those guilty of ‘statutory’ and possibly date rape i would speculate that these rates are even lower and that ken knows this

ken also knows that unless he explains his argument as clearly and simply as possible on a platform as reactionary as a talk radio station hes gonna get jumped on
and that in anyway inmplying that date rape is not a ‘serious’ rape he is being very naive

while millibands crawing about it is extremely unpleasant and the sensationalist headlines all too predictable and tragic

but to tar the leftie press or any politician alone with that brush is also naive
just look at the jo yates landlord trial in the largely torry press
or the deeply personal character assassination of gordon brown
and if anyone saw See You in Court last night on the bbc as Murdoch group and the hate mail pushed a blatantly racist story they knew to be false beyond the means of any normal person to fight them http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011dl62

ken should know that todays politics & the press is a dirty game
im sure he will get past this and i hope that he is able to press on with his reforms

Mrs Toast – Member

“A serious rape with violence and an unwilling woman – the tariff is longer than that.”

By saying that, he’s saying that date rape isn’t ‘serious’. He’s also inferring that victims of date rape are somehow willing by putting them in the same category as consensual teenage sex, and in a different category to ‘violent’ rape against ‘unwilling’ women.

No he wasn’t. That’s the problem, there’s just a bit too much reaching and interpretation going on with this.

What he was sayinmg is all rape is serious but the impact of the rape on the ‘victim’ can vary depending on the circumstances (” ” because sometimes the ‘victim’ is a willing particpiant).

If he’s guilty of anything it’s suggesting stranger rape has more impact on the victim than date rape and that has more impact than under age sex (AKA rape).

“A serious rape with violence and an unwilling woman – the tariff is longer than that.”

When discussing this with mrs leffe we concluded that that single word ‘serious’ is what caused the problem today and that if he had simply left it out there wouldn’t have been anything like the trouble. The problem is that having a longer tariff implies some gradation but that using a word to express it isn’t allowed because that implies some forms of rape are less serious. Does anyone have a form of words that would have worked here?

Classic example of all the brains in the world, common sense of a tree stump.

Of course he has reactionary ideas – he is an old tory. Why are rape conviction rates so low? because of these attitudes that are all over society as expressed by him. he is not alone in these reprehensible attitudes

Dinosaur ( if usually an entertaining one)

I find myself agreeing with TJ here. Date rape, marital rape, violent stranger rape, I don’t really see a difference. As for reducing jail terms for a guilty plea, what a joke. Given the impact on the victim (yes I did know a victim of rape) lets set a minimum tariff of say 30 years. Plead guilty, reduced to 29.

Coyote – Member

As for reducing jail terms for a guilty plea, what a joke

It’s a pretty good idea. Culprit pleads out, no need for protracted trial, which is obviously very much in the victim’s favour. And it needs to be a worthwhile difference to make it in the culprit’s interest to go for it.

Whether the overall sentencing tariff is appropriate is another question though

Given the impact on the victim (yes I did know a victim of rape) lets set a minimum tariff of say 30 years. Plead guilty, reduced to 29.

This is not far off the three strikes and its life idea in the late eighties, it was generally agreed it was a bad idea as rapists would just eliminate any witnesses (ie the victim) as it would be the same tariff as murder.

Brownbacks – you are right in general but on this one its a clear throwback to the attitudes of decades ago IMO. On other stuff with judicial policy he does talk sense.

Why are rape conviction rates so low? because of these attitudes that are all over society as expressed by him

That’s all there is to it? Well clearly the solution to rape is to get everybody on political correctness courses – by such measures the conviction rate will doubtless increase by a huge amount, making the world a much safer place. I’m amazed nobody’s thought of that before.

Of course he has reactionary ideas – he is an old tory. Why are rape conviction rates so low? because of these attitudes that are all over society as expressed by him. he is not alone in these reprehensible attitudes

Ignoring the suggestion that old tories are somehow less anti-rape than than those champions of justice in the Labour party …………do the reprehensible attitudes you talk of pervade juries, the Police, judicial system? Is it not the fact that it is very often one persons word against another, with no witnesses, the major over-riding factor in these low rates?

Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of British justice. How would suggest that this figure was improved without an increase in wrongful convictions?

Yes those attitudes pervade the whole judicial systemand is a major factor in low conviction rates

Woody – Member

do the reprehensible attitudes you talk of pervade juries, the Police, judicial system

Also friends, parents, workmates, husbands…

Is it not the fact that it is very often one persons word against another, with no witnesses, the major over-riding factor in these low rates?

Don’t be silly. It’s all because the judiciary aren’t PC.

Researchers tracking 3,500 court cases found “sceptical” prosecutors and police often did not believe victims.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4296433.stm

Lots of other data and reports on this but there are such obstacles placed in the way of victims and such very exaggerate risk of false complaints.

Its all out there if you want to see it. 6% conviction rate.

Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of British justice. How would suggest that this figure was improved without an increase in wrongful convictions?

The government estimates that as many as 95% of rapes are never reported to the police at all. Of the rapes that were reported from 2007 to 2008, only 6.5% resulted in a conviction, compared with 34% of criminal cases in general. The majority of convictions for rape resulted from an admission of guilt by the defendant, whereas less than one quarter of all those charged* with rape were convicted following a successful trial.

these figures are waht we should be morally outraged about.
I am not sure more convitions would lead to more worngful convictions. as a an awful lot of people are getting away with rape.

* I assume that means a 1/4 of those convicted were due to a succesful trial it is from the guardian so no surprise of the error/mistype.

Defendants were also far more likely in rape case to claim the victim consented to the alleged attack

I wonder why they don’t claim that for other crimes? 🙄

In the absence of any forensic evidence proving force, how exactly do you prove beyond reasonable doubt that consent wasn’t given – or are you suggesting that the burden of proof should be decreased for rape?

Dont think anyone has a simple solution but I assume no one is happy with that conviction rate either.

I agree entirely – the trouble is some Englishmen living in Scotland people do seem to think there is (or ought to be) a simple solution.

Interesting link TJ – without belittling or disagreeing with the findings in principal, I find using terms such as
“some evidence of poor investigation and understanding of the law”
“Researchers tracking 3,500 court cases found “sceptical” prosecutors and police often did not believe victims”
“An overestimation of the scale of false allegations among some officials led to victims losing confidence in the system”
in amongst the statisitics of successful prosecution very annoying and smacks of journalism and/or the research body justifying their existence and funding by making the report as sensational and damning as possible.

I imagine it would be very easy to find ‘sceptical prosecutors’ and ‘police who did not believe victims’ in amongst 3,500 cases. How difficult would have been to say for example that 25% of prosecutors were sceptical, or 30% of police did not believe the victims? Could it have been the figures were so low they wouldn’t have made good reading? Actual numbers would make it far easier to assess the extent of the problem and bring measures to combat and change attitudes.

There is no denying that steps need to be taken to improve the reporting and successful prosecution rate, which is quite appalling whichever way you look at it. I find it very depressing that women are evidently still reluctant to come forward and pursue cases due to failures within the Police and CPS etc.

Maybe the fuss kicked up due to Mr Clarke will highlight this and bring about some much needed change in procedures and attitudes.

Well clearly the solution to rape is to get everybody on political correctness courses – by such measures the conviction rate will doubtless increase by a huge amount

The way people use language has a huge impact on lots of things in society.

aracer – and where did I say there was a simple solution? I merely stated that attitudes such as Clarkes that downplay the seriousness of the crime are all to prevalent in the judicail system and hamper effective prosecution

Are you saying, TJ, that all rape should attract the same sentence?