Politician causes outrage over "rape" comments

[Anaklusmos]

And that's exactly what rape is; a highly contentious issue. No one likes to talk about it because it is such an abhorrent crime, but 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.

This is what I focused on. If you are 17 year old male, and you have sexual intercourse with a 15 year old consenting female who is NOT under the influence of drugs alcohol or unconscious, you will be charged with 'Unlawful Intercourse with a Minor'. From what I can gather you are not charged with the same sort of offense you would get if you was to actually rape someone.

I don't see how rape could come in different forms. If I was to slit someones throat with a knife I would be charged with murder. If I was to smash a mans head in with a hammer and kill him I would be charged with murder. If I was to force vaginal penetration upon a woman I would be charged with rape. If I was to force a woman to perform oral sex on me I would be charged with rape.

In both murder cases I am ultimately killing someone. In both rape cases I am ultimately forcing someone to perform a sexual act upon me for sexual gratification without consent. I don't see why they should differ when it comes to charges.

 

[KyoraSan]

Murder comes in different flavors and shapes, why can't rape? I don't see how any feminist could be against this.
However...I do want to point out that saying "This rapist should get better treatment then THAT rapist" is exactly like saying "that murderer should get better treatment then that murderer."
It pays to be pessimistic in this situation.

What I'm saying is we shouldn't view this as letting criminals off the hook for lesser crimes, but as making the punishment worse for worse offenders.

I have so much to say on this, but I have neither the time nor the will, as I can't really put those thoughts into coherent, not-crazy words.

 

[Soylent Dave]

The other thing Ken Clarke claimed on the radio was that 'date rape' and 'serious rape' were different crimes; because 'serious rape' is a 'violent attack' and 'that's what we're really talking about when we talk about rape'.

Anyone going to weigh in on that one?

If she says 'No', it's rape, period.

I think this shows a far more serious misunderstanding of public opinion by Ken Clarke than the statutory rape bit, though.

(although in either case, Tory voters (i.e. Daily Mail readers) will be building a wicker man for him)

 

[mjc0961]

I also agee that men can be raped; it's always bothered me that the dictionary definition of a rapist is: a man who commits rape.

Since when is that that the definition of rapist? Last time I knew, it was a person who commits rape. Gender doesn't matter: women can be rapists too, and yes they can rape either men or women just like men can rape either men or women. And yeah, men get raped too. One thing that drives me nuts whenever a rape discussion comes up is that lots of women start getting super defensive and acting like rape is done only by men and done only to women.

Well let me say this. As a man who could unfortunately become the victim of rape just as much as any other person, I think that politician is absolutely right. Furthermore, I think anyone who disagrees needs to take a step off their soapbox for a minute and look at it logically. There's various degrees of rape charges exactly because not every rape is the same. Statutory rape is not the same as rape in the second degree. That's why they're two separate charges.

So again, as a human who can be raped, I see nothing wrong with that guy's statements and think everyone needs to get off his back.

Statutory rape (and it is rape) is a very serious offense. I see no problem with someone being forced onto the sex offenders registry for committing a sex crime.

Not sure if serious...

A 17 year old, who is not yet an adult, having sex with his/her 15 year old girlfriend/boyfriend who is also not yet an adult, should not have his/her life ruined over consensual sex. It's a complete waste of taxpayer money to pursue such "crimes" when there are real predators out there to worry about.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

Which isn't a problem because teenagers don't stay on the sex offenders register for life, they stay on it until they become adults.
So if you're an 18 year old who just has to sleep with his 15 year old girlfriend, then you'll end up on the register - but you're already a bit too creepy for me to want you working with vulnerable kids anyway, so that's probably a good thing.

Well, i can't speak to British law, but in the US (at least in most states), it is for life. There has been much talk over the past few years of changing it, since there are thousands of guys around the country who can never get a job or a home because they committed the unforgivable crime of getting it on with their girlfriends when they were 16.

 

[Nanaki316]

And that's exactly what rape is; a highly contentious issue. No one likes to talk about it because it is such an abhorrent crime, but 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.

You have basically just summed up my feeling on a lot of situations. I have been a victim and what happened to me was the latter. This I would never ever condone anyone doing to anyone.
However, I don't believe that someone who has sex with a minor (consenting) should be charged for rape. It's a completely different thing,
Rape isn't about sex, it's about control, physically hurting and abusing someone.
Consenting sex is just totally totally different. If the older person is aware of the younger persons age though, I do believe there should be perhaps a warning or they should think twice before doing it - but it still isn't rape.

EDIT: Sorry just to clarify, I mean minor as in literally the 15 year old you used in your example.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Slightly disingenuous news article and original post. The real issue is not just over his comments, but over the fact that he is using his views in order to try and justify a change in the law that will basically put most cases of rape down on the level of a burglary or mugging, two years maximum sentence with most out in a year for good behaviour.

His views are essentially correct, and I think there is a great difference between say a forty year old raping an eight year old and two drunken twenty somethings of whom the woman is too drunk to fully consent but then the guy is off his head as well, but what the new laws are aiming to do is something very different.

Of course, the big thing that needs to happen for rape is for the acknowledgement of the rape of men becoming more widespread. It is very possible for men to be raped, even/especially by women, and often it won't get reported, either because the men are too embarassed or because the cops won't believe they could have been raped.

 

[ryo02]

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.

I wouldnt call it rape its not really right but its not rape

rape is a terrible crime against someone unwilling and frankly anyone who commited it should be put into a giant slow meat grinder.(assuming they were not falsely accused)

 

[MrA]

Ok, so my girlfriend is underage where I live. I'm only a year older than her and in fact she becomes legal tomorrow! but anyway, she's underage. Now we're on pretty good terms but if she was so inclined she could go to the police, tell them we'd had sex and I would get charged with rape even if the sex was consensual. Why should I get charged the same as someone who pins a non consensual woman down and forcibly rapes her? It's absurd. Rape is a hard topic but as OP said it's not all black and white.

 

[MrA]

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.

I wouldnt call it rape its not really right but its not rape

rape is a terrible crime against someone unwilling and frankly anyone who commited it should be put into a giant slow meat grinder.(assuming they were falsey accused)

According to British law, it's rape.

 

[KyoraSan]

Yeah I'm with you on this. I've always found the way many crimes are all pidgeon holed into one senticing structure to be silly and your examples above are good ones. Obviously serious offenses should be dealt with harshly, but the lact of flexibility to those who do relatively minor versions of the offense does irritate me.

Technically tea-bagging counts as rape but I don't see people getting 5 years for that shit.

Actually, it doesn't.

Any unwanted sexual act forced on another is, at least where I'm from, not rape. Not legally, anyway. The legal definition of rape (again where I'm from, and the definition of rape varies VERY widely depending on who you ask), is the force act of ACTUAL sexual intercourse. Meaning it does'nt count as rape unless someone actually fucks someone. Everything else is covered under sexual assault. This is important in the context here, because if where this politician is trying to change the law shares or has a similar definition, he's basically saying "there's different levels of sticking a dick in someone."

 

[razer17]

If there is no concrete line, where does it end? 'But officer, she is 15 in a day/a week/two weeks/a month/a year/four years/eight years.'

You see? There must be a line that is not open for negotiation or people will abuse it. Remember, a lot of people a lot smarter than myself that know a lot more about law and psychology have chosen the age for a reason.

Yes, and psychologists are infallible. For one thing, if it were that easy to decide every country would have the same age of consent. Spanish kids will be able to deal with sex at 13, but Americans can't handle it till they're 18? That doesn't really make much sense.

An arbitrary age doesn't make sense, at all. Going to prison and being put on the sex offenders registrar for life? For having sex with someone who could technically be in your year group in school? I find that awfully distasteful.

There needs to be flexibility. Someone earlier in the thread stated the system in his country, which seems a decent way to go about it, where 14-17 year olds can sleep with each other, and people over 18 can only sleep with people of 16 years and over. As I've said, in a perfect world it would be judged by some form of psychometric test that shows how ready you are to handle sex.