Forum menu
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