Ken Clarke makes a mess over "different types of rape"

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13444770

aaaaand

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13436429

[Cain]

Actually, the law is on Ken Clarke's side here.  There are different scales of rape as far as the courts are concerned, and a violent rapist will serve longer than a date rapist.  He seems to be confused about statutory rape, where courts have previously determined that those under 16 can have the capacity to consent in certain circumstances.  Only those under 13 have no capacity whatsoever.

Clarke fucked up badly and seems to have panicked on the radio (especially by conflating date rape and statutory rape arguments) but while all rape is serious, there are definitely differing scales and aggravating factors at play in sentencing.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You know what? I completely agree with him. Some rapes are worse than others. "Rape is rape", claiming that all rapes are equally traumatising, is a lot like saying that assault is assault. It's assault when someone pushes your shoulder, and it's assault when someone takes a fireplace poker and beats you with it until every bone in your face is smashed and you have brain damage.

Saying that "rape is rape" equates my experience of being drugged and date-raped at 15 to being dragged into an alley and raped at knifepoint, or hogtied by your husband and subjected to ongoing cruelty, and is utterly ridiculous. Or, being completely willing and not realizing that the fact you're seventeen and your boyfriend is 20 makes him a felon.

All rape is not equal, and should not be treated equally under the law. AND, a rapist who pleads guilty should receive lighter sentencing IMO. There needs to be incentive for pleading guilty. We should view it as a penalty for NOT pleading guilty, rather than as a discount for pleading guilty.

Ken Clarke makes a very, VERY valid point about not dragging the victim through the trial process. The more that can be avoided, the better.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

You know what? I completely agree with him. Some rapes are worse than others. "Rape is rape", claiming that all rapes are equally traumatising, is a lot like saying that assault is assault. It's assault when someone pushes your shoulder, and it's assault when someone takes a fireplace poker and beats you with it until every bone in your face is smashed and you have brain damage.

Saying that "rape is rape" equates my experience of being drugged and date-raped at 15 to being dragged into an alley and raped at knifepoint, or hogtied by your husband and subjected to ongoing cruelty, and is utterly ridiculous. Or, being completely willing and not realizing that the fact you're seventeen and your boyfriend is 20 makes him a felon.

All rape is not equal, and should not be treated equally under the law. AND, a rapist who pleads guilty should receive lighter sentencing IMO. There needs to be incentive for pleading guilty. We should view it as a penalty for NOT pleading guilty, rather than as a discount for pleading guilty.

Ken Clarke makes a very, VERY valid point about not dragging the victim through the trial process. The more that can be avoided, the better.

Well said, Nigel.