Loki Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 At first glance he appeared to have mixed up a valid point (consensual sex with somebody under the age of consent is not the same as literally non-consensual sex) with an invalid one (date rape and alley stranger rape are legally different.)Â However, it turns out that legally consensual sex with somebody aged 13-16 isn't classed as rape, so he's kinda shit outta luck in looking for a defense to his comments. Â It's classified as statutory rape, with the potential for the same sentencing, if I understand it correctly. What he was also saying is that where a rape case revolves around non-consensual sex between 2 people who have also had consensual sex, it becomes a lot trickier to both prove and therefore secure convictions for. If you clarify the law you might improve conviction rates for date rape, as the judge will have more guidelines and more flexibility in sentencing. Â At least, I think that's what he was saying. It's hard to tell, as the media are only replaying two lines from the interview rather than actually playing the larger point he was trying to make. Â Ken is a great politician and a really good minister. He shouldn't get the boot for choosing his words badly, and nor will he. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Loki, that's nonsense, he has to go. What he said, and it wasn't taken out of context or anything, showed a complete lack of understanding around rape. He called predatory attacks "Classic rape" when in fact this is the least common form of rape. He was making out that some rapes are less serious and violent than others and that is terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted May 19, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted May 19, 2011 The applicable law, the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, breaks it down by age: Â Have sex with a 13 year old or younger and it's rape no matter what. Â Have sex with a 13-16 year old with their permission and it's "causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity." There are similar offences for touching them up or wanking in front of them. If you do any of these but you are under 18, it's still an offence but the sentence is reduced (and in reality you probably won't be prosecuted.) Â Have sex with a 13-16 year old without their permission and it's rape. Â Have sex with a 16 year old or older and it's fine with permission, rape without. Â Â The confusion is that the age of consent determines whether or nor sex is legal, not necessarily whether its classed as rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Loki, that's nonsense, he has to go. What he said, and it wasn't taken out of context or anything, showed a complete lack of understanding around rape. He called predatory attacks "Classic rape" when in fact this is the least common form of rape. He was making out that some rapes are less serious and violent than others and that is terrible. Â I don't know that that's fair. His phraseology was clumsy as all hell, but in the heat of an argument things sometimes come out wrong. It is absolutely the case that some rapes are less violent than others. Some rapes involve brutal assualt while some involve no physical violence at all. There are some where the question of consent is blurred. There are cases like the sainted Julian Assange, which arguably wouldn't even be classed as rape in this country, but is classed as such in Sweden. Other countries already classify rape into different categories. For example, I think it's France that has three different crimes - "violent rape" (where the sexual assault is combined with some form of physical assault), "standard rape" (non-consensual sex without physical assault) and another, I think called something like "non-consensual intercourse" (wherein someone gives consent but perhaps under pressure, like a boss pressuring an employee, or someone using emotional blackmail of some kind). All are wrong, but it's not at all unreasonable to look at the differences in sentencing for different types of crime. Very few people would say there's a problem with having different tarriffs for murder, manslaughter and causing death by dangerous driving, despite the fact that the outcome is identical for victims of all three. Also, I think that given the horrendously low conviction rate for rape, it's worth looking at anything that might make it easier to build and prosecute a case. Â Finally, I don't think the term "classic rape" is particularly nice, but I think most people would understand what he meant. It's the image most people have of rape, even though it's pretty rare. "Date rape" is a pretty horrible term, but it's one that's used by plenty of people without question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Some rapes involve brutal assualt while some involve no physical violence at all. Everyrape contains physical violence, saying some rapes contain no physical violence is just wrong. I agree that there are varying degrees of assault but there is always an assault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 You know what I was saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Dammer Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) Loki, that's nonsense, he has to go. What he said, and it wasn't taken out of context or anything, showed a complete lack of understanding around rape. He called predatory attacks "Classic rape" when in fact this is the least common form of rape. He was making out that some rapes are less serious and violent than others and that is terrible. Â Whilst I agree that all rapes are terrible, there is a clear difference between somebody being raped on a drunken walk home and someone being beaten up, a knife held to their throat and then mugged afterwards. Just ask Gatso Edited May 19, 2011 by Van Dammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Whilst I agree that all rapes are terrible, there is a clear difference between somebody being raped on a drunken walk home and someone being beaten up, a knife held to their throat and then mugged afterwards. There really isn't much of a distinction between those two instances at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Dammer Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Whilst I agree that all rapes are terrible, there is a clear difference between somebody being raped on a drunken walk home and someone being beaten up, a knife held to their throat and then mugged afterwards. There really isn't much of a distinction between those two instances at all. Â You dont think? I dont think theres a massive difference but I think there is a difference there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Psygnosis Posted May 19, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) Despite being somewhat critical of Ken Clarke, he handled himself quite well on QT - we need Gatso's point of view  Melanie Phillips on the other hand, is she the panto villain? Edited May 19, 2011 by Psygnosis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Melanie Phillips was amazing. We all want to help destitute, starving people abroad blah blah blah, so lets completely stop helping them in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dingo Warrior Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 It makes me laugh that the only way Ed Millaband can attack the government is by jumping on band wagons. Â Typical Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 20, 2011 Author Share Posted May 20, 2011 Did anyone see Sunday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dingo Warrior Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Did anyone see Sunday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted May 20, 2011 Author Share Posted May 20, 2011 Did anyone see Sunday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts