Politician causes outrage over "rape" comments

[BringBackBuck]

As a politician, Justice minister at that, he should really have chosen his words better.

He's absolutely right of course. There are many degrees of severity for not only rape but every other crime. This is why penalties for almost all crimes are given in a range. Breaking into someone's house at raping them at knifepoint is worse than sex on a date where both parties were drunk, consent was implicit rather than explicit... actually I don't really know were I am going with this. I find it pretty difficult to illustrate an example of a "better" rape. Seriously it is an awful crime, and I pity the poor judges who have to sit down and decide exactly how one crime is more horrific than another crime and try to quantify human suffering and turn the result into a number of years in jail for the offender. I am glad I am neither a judge or a Justice Minister.

 

[Mikaze]

Let's face it, there is definitely something different between having sex with 15 year old, "consenting" girl - and physically attacking, hurting and psychologically damaging a women.

Firstly: I would argue rape can occur to men, despite the letter of the law.

Second: coercing a fifteen-year-old (and it is coercing) to have sex with you (rape them) might be less physically damaging, but I don't like the general feel of this OP. I know you're not saying it's okay - in fact you are saying it isn't, it's just lesser - it just rubs me the wrong way.

More on topic: there is a reason there are many, many, many different rape charges and greatly varying sentences.

*faceplam at this one*

I don't know where the OP is from, but the age of consent here in Australia is 16, so theoretically a 16 or 17 year old having 'consentual' sex with their still-underage partner is legally a form of rape and, if pursued, will be treated as such. Now excuse me while I go off on a bit of a mental tangent and curse the stupidity of arbitrary ages for things.

You speak the truth, mostly; it's 16 for boys and 17 for girls. Or 15 for boys and 16 fir girls... One or the other - I know girls have an extra year.

Also, those ages aren't arbitrary; there has to be a clear line drawn with no grey area, or every rape case would be a legal nightmare.

They're completely arbitrary, legally important no doubt, but still arbitrary. This applies to many things besides consentual sex however, my mother is part of our local Rotary Club and had an exchange student (aged 18, legally allowed to drink in Australia) sent home in disgrace from America because he was caught doing exactly what he does with his friends here.

 

[Thaluikhain]

You speak the truth, mostly; it's 16 for boys and 17 for girls. Or 15 for boys and 16 fir girls... One or the other - I know girls have an extra year.

Also, those ages aren't arbitrary; there has to be a clear line drawn with no grey area, or every rape case would be a legal nightmare.

No, it's the same age for both genders, though certain states set the age at 17 instead of 16. For heterosexual sex at least.

And yes, I agree there has to be a line drawn.

 

[Mikaze]

They're completely arbitrary, legally important no doubt, but still arbitrary. This applies to many things besides consentual sex however, my mother is part of our local Rotary Club and had an exchange student (aged 18, legally allowed to drink in Australia) sent home in disgrace from America because he was caught doing exactly what he does with his friends here.

The doctors and psychologists of different places will always have differing views and it is them who advise us and our elected government of the ideal age when one is ready for certain things. They are no more arbitrary than the age at which we reach puberty - there is simply less debate about the latter.

I understand the reasoning behind it, but it just rubs me the wrong way trying to compartmentalise a large number of people into a neat little box for bueracratic ease.

 

[Tips_of_Fingers]

As a politician, Justice minister at that, he should really have chosen his words better.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Many politicians find it hard when they have to improvise, though...

 

[Terminal Blue]

The point is that he is clearly utterly ignorant on the issue.

The average sentence for rape is 5 years.

He said that a judge would not give a 5 year sentence for forcible rape.

Therefore, he implied that the vast majority of rape in this country is not forcible.

Also ignoring the fact that less than 10% of reported rape results in conviction. Meaning the 10% from which the 5 year average is drawn are only the most clear cut cases where there is significant evidence.

And for there to even be a trial the victim has to press charges. While the parents of underage children can press charges for them, how often do you think this happens in the case of consensual statutory rape, given that they'd need the testimony of the girl in question to have any hope of securing a conviction anyway?

This is what the problem is. It's not some theoretical debate about whether rape is rape, it's the fact that the minister responsible for making important decisions in this area doesn't have a damn clue what he is talking about and is using irrelevant arguments to vindicate a legal change which will result in rapists getting shorter sentences.

Also.. the figures are 'skewed by date rape'. Does the guy even know what date rape is?

 

[gellert1984]

While I don't entirely disagree with Ken Clarke I dont entirely agree either. When a person is tried for violent rape, they're also tried for other acts commited, such as assault, bodily harm and false imprisonment/kidnapping. So while you get a maximum of 25 years (in the UK) for rape, you get more on top for the other crimes as well. In effect, if you commit nice and friendly rape (if such a thing truly exists, I can see situations in which it may occur but I'm not sure such things happen IRL) your getting a reduced sentence as is. Factor in time reduced for good behaviour and parole...

As one woman put it her violent rapist was sent to jail, was out on parole in 4 years, then reoffended.

I do think we need longer sentences for pre-meditation, buying a date rape drug or stalking are obviously pre-meditated crimes. Going home with a drunk girl and her shouting rape the next day isn't.

I don't like rape laws in the UK, they define rape as the assailent penetrating the victim, which obviously favours women.

 

[ShakyFiend]

I see your point but what your attacking is more overarching problem with the justice system; it is exceedingly difficult to take a situationist/relativist approach to every case. It takes up a huge amount of time to judge every case completely fairly, hence the guy in the article arguing for black and white laws, its not really that ethical, moral, or intelligent to have things work like this, but its the only really practical way of doing things.

 

[RobCoxxy]

However this is exactly why under English law the 17 year old would not be charged with Rape but an entirely separate crime, namely unlawful sex with a minor (I think)

Statutory Rape. My old housemate went down for that.

 

[iLikeHippos]

Well, if you do broadcast something in line with controversy, I seriously doubt NOTHING would happen afterwards.
There's a lot of people and if but 1% of the mass complains, you'll still have a huge bunch of people, no matter what country it is.

He should stand up and defend himself, knowing that the rest 99% either don't give a shit, haven't heard of his news or simply agree whole-heartedly.

Also, I lol'd when I read "15 year old girls don't want to have sex! EVER!"
I beg to differ from my experiences...

 

[funguy2121]

snip

The children, the children! People love to self-affirm by thinking of the goddamn children. When I was 15 I wanted to fuck everything that moves, and y'know what I've realized since then? We have a lot more in common with women than not.

Lucky for me, I'm no longer attracted to a woman younger than 19 once she opens her mouth. But I don't think a 19-year-old consummating his relationship with his 16-year-old girlfriend should even be considered comparable to a 40-year-old getting touchy with a 10-year-old, or a date rapist, or a rape rapist.

So, to all the puritanical moralists out there: if we don't understand the crime, how are we to go about preventing it? Do we really want to view date rape, forcible rape, pedophilia and ephebophilia through the same lense?

Hey, ephebophilia ain't in the DSM-IV. Know why? Because every man on this planet looked with allure upon Hayden Panettiere, even before she turned 18. That doesn't make us weird, it makes us men.

Edited for grammar: my tongue is an asshole

 

[Realitycrash]

Let's face it, there is definitely something different between having sex with 15 year old, "consenting" girl - and physically attacking, hurting and psychologically damaging a women.

Firstly: I would argue rape can occur to men, despite the letter of the law.

Second: coercing a fifteen-year-old (and it is coercing) to have sex with you (rape them) might be less physically damaging, but I don't like the general feel of this OP. I know you're not saying it's okay - in fact you are saying it isn't, it's just lesser - it just rubs me the wrong way.

More on topic: there is a reason there are many, many, many different rape charges and greatly varying sentences.

*faceplam at this one*

Isn't there one law in the states for "having sex with a minor" and one law for "rape"? We got them over here, anyway.

 

[gh0ti]

I'm actually quite annoyed by the furore kicked up by this, chiefly by the BBC who I think are trying to stand by Victoria Derbyshire - who I think behaved quite porrly by completely forgetting her objectivity during the interview. Rather than letting him clarify the point he was trying to make, she hounded him by repeating the same misleading information over and over.

What Ken Clarke was trying to say was that some rapes deserve to be punished more severely than others, and that the criminal justice system already does this. Not very controversial. I don't mean to belittle rape by comparing it to other crimes, but some types of theft get tougher punishments, as do assaults, possession of illegal substances, and just about every other crime we prosecute.

The fact that had Victoria Derbyshire riled was that some sentences could be reduced by plea bargain to as little as 15 months. Ken Clarke got himself in a tangle trying to say that that figure would only apply to a small number of cases where the courts had already decided that the crime did not warrant a more severe punishment.

As for "date rape", again this is a large blanket term. There are instances where it is a very calculated, clear-cut case of a man deliberately circumventing a woman's consent and others where the situation is more confused - perhaps a misreading of body language and verbal cues combined with alcohol, making it more difficult to know whether consent was given or not. These are factors that the judge would take into account when sentencing.

In short, this is a semantic gaff, not a philosophical one. Of course, all rape is a serious matter, and just because the amount of intent may vary does not mean the amount of harm caused does.

 

[awesomeClaw]

And this is why age of consent should be lowered to 13. I´m still annoyed that I can´t make my own descision just because I´m 2 years younger then a 15 year old.

I can get some things (Not driving a car, not being able to have my own house etc) but why sex? I am physically ready to have sex. It is up to me, AND ONLY ME to decide if I´m ready mentally. Not some goverment prick.

But we need to have some limits. A 12 year old is likely not physically ready to have sex. Therefor, they may not.

 

[Hector Haddow]

he was not talking about underage sex he was talking about what he termed 'serious rape' (in other words assault rape/violent rape/aggravated rape) compared to 'date rape' which varies greatly from case to case (with date rape the victim could be drunk/drudged/coerced the suspect could also have been drunk so determining the consequentiality for instance you are both so drunk you end up in bed together is that consensual sex or not) while maintaining that all rape is serous crime but some rapes are more serous than others

 

[Tips_of_Fingers]

snip

The children, the children! People love to self-affirm by thinking of the goddamn children. When I was 15 I wanted to fuck everything that moves, and y'know what I've realized since then? We have a lot more in common with women than not.

Lucky for me, I'm no longer attracted to a woman younger than 19 once she opens her mouth. But I don't think a 19-year-old consummating his relationship with his 16-year-old girlfriend should even be considered comparable to a 40-year-old getting touchy with a 10-year-old, or a date rapist, or a rape rapist.

So, to all the puritanical moralists out there: if we don't understand the crime, how are we to go about preventing it? Do we really want to view date rape, forcible rape, pedophilia and ephebophilia through the same lense?

Hey, ephebophilia ain't in the DSM-IV. Know why? Because every man on this planet looked with allure upon Hayden Panettiere, even before she turned 18. That doesn't make us weird, it makes us men.

Edited for grammar: my tongue is an asshole

The most humorous reply so far. And it actually makes a damn good point. *applaudes*

 

[Russian_Assassin]

So... a situation in which person that is not 18 having sex with another person that is not 18 is considered rape? Man... everyone I know, including my self, used to be a rapist! And not only did they rape, they were being raped AT THE SAME TIME as well! My mind is officially blown.

And honestly the idea that 15 year olds can not have consensual sex boggles my mind! I would actually dare someone to make this sound logical, but I'm afraid that it would start a flame war or something, so I'll leave it at that.

Still though, if people under the age of 18 are considered retards who can't wipe their asses by themselves, then why let them out of the house? Why not keep your children locked up in an airtight vault until they are considered (that's right, CONSIDERED) adults?