Article from BBC News.
He’s right that there are different levels of how serious a rape is. They shouldn’t all be considered identical.
Doesn’t the UK criminal code feature varying degrees of rape, with varying penalties?
“Rape is rape” is a dim thing to say. It’s like saying “killing is killing” in a discussion about violent crime. Yes, clearly someone who accidentally runs someone over with a car should be given exactly the same punishment as someone who deliberately shoots someone in the head because “killing is killing”. :rolleyes:
The justice secretary’s point seems to have been that the statistics on jail terms for rape appear low because they include what in the United States is called “statutory rape” – consensual sex with an underage teen. While society shouldn’t be *encouraging *18-year-olds to have sex with 15-year-olds, it seems ludicrous to treat such an occurrence as comparable to a violent crime where a women is forced against her will to have sex because “rape is rape”.
No. This “controversy” is ridiculous.
Except according to the article, he’s wrong that people who have sex with 15 year olds are charged with rape in the UK. Apparently sex with minors over 14 is a separate, lesser, crime, and so wouldn’t be represented in the prison term length statistics they’re discussing.
So if nothing else, he doesn’t seem like a very good Justice Secretary.
Ah, well. that’s different. If he doesn’t know details that are important to his job, then he’s an idiot. But the idea that circumstances and intent shouldn’t be taken in account in rape cases (as they are with other crimes) is still silly.
Here’s the Crown Prosecution Service sentencing guidelines (applies to England and Wales only, Ken Clarke isn’t Justice Minister for Scotland or Northern Ireland)
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s1_rape/
I’m not sure what a “Justice Secretary” is. I get the impression that it is somewhat similar to the U.S. Attorney General–a senior government official whose actual duties are supervisory/administrative/executive type stuff. This guy is not a front line troop out there trying criminal cases. Knowing the details of the various rape/statutory rape/sex assault statutes isn’t really his job.
Lawyers, even those in general practice, are not expected to know everything about every law on the books. We have pretty specific knowledge in our main practice areas, and a general overview of most other areas. We also know how to find out more about laws that may apply to a particular case, how to analyze a situation to determine what types of research should be conducted, that sort of thing.
Sure, I can sit down right now and dictate a complaint for divorce, or a petition for protective order off the top of my head. That kind of thing is right in my wheelhouse. Routine things I do often. If you ask me something about how to set up a PLLC, I know that there are certain forms to fill out and file, and I know some of the characteristics of that type of legal entity, but I’d have to look up the details. If you ask me anything about the Rule Against Perpetuities, I’m probably going to scream, tear my hair, throw things at you, and refer you to someone else.
There may, however, be a problem with separating out date rape from “serious rape”. Date rape is not, to my knowledge, a defined term in law, but colloquially can mean anything from the woman deciding the next morning that she wasn’t really in the mood to the guy drugging her into unconsciousness and dragging her body to a motel room. The former isn’t even a crime, but the latter is “serious rape” by any sane standard, and there’s a continuum of cases in between.
According to the utterly clueless interviewer an 18 year old who has sex with his 15 year ten months year old girlfriend is just as bad as a man who has imprisoned his daughter and has raped her continuously and fathered children with her.
What an idiot.
What’s his position on handshakes?
While I’ve rarely seen the former definition, I’ve never seen it treated with any respect: it’s either used by seriously lunatic women (or, in a recent Dan Savage column, a seriously lunatic man) who wants revenge against a former lover, or, more often, by folks who mistrust feminists and who want to belittle the severity of rape.
Date rape in its most common usage seems to refer to a rape that happens as part of a date: one person on the date wants the evening to end in sex, one person doesn’t, and the first person doesn’t care about the second person’s desires. And that kind of rape is about as serious as it gets.
Two teens fucking consensually can in some jurisdictions be rape. (Double rape?). That isn’t nearly the same thing as holding a knife to a stranger’s throat and raping the stranger.
I’m okay with what the JM said and think the interviewer is an idiot with an idiocy agenda.
“Statutory Rape”, which is a bit of a misnomer since even in most common law countries, rape has been placed on a statutory footing, even if it simply restates the old common law.
You made me spit-take!
Yes, but how strong was each person’s feelings on the matter, and how well were those feelings communicated? There are, at least potentially, shades of gray here. Consider, for instance:
He said: Well, she came home with me, and she never said “no”, so I figured she was willing.
She said: My friends had already left, and I didn’t want to have to call a cab, so what other choice did I have? But he should have been able to tell I wasn’t interested in sex.
Is this rape? Maybe. But it certainly isn’t in the same category as knife-to-the-throat fuck me or I’ll kill you (or, for that matter, slipping a roofie into her drink).
Or another gray area: The law in most places says that a person can be sufficiently intoxicated (by alcohol or some other drug) to be incapable of informed consent. Just how intoxicated is that? I imagine that a significant proportion of consensual sex involves one or both of the parties drinking beforehand-- How much is too much? Surely, you don’t go straight from “no crime” to one drop of beer later “throw the book at 'em and throw away the key”.
This is as technically correct as correctly pointing out that there is technically no such thing as a sunrise or sunset.
Secretary of the Ministry of Justice, eg what Hillary is to the State Department.
In a Parliamentary system, most laws are introduced by Cabinet Ministers, so it is kind of important that they know what the laws in place are.
On the substantive issue, clearly there is a difference in seriousness between “statutory rape” (as in consensual sex involving an underage teenager) and non-statutory rape. The outrage that I’m seeing is not about that part of Clarke’s statement but the “date rape” part. It’s the suggestion that being forced to have sex by someone you know is less traumatic than being forced to have sex by a stranger. There’s no basis for that suggestion and it is something that women who have been forced to have sex by an acquaintance would strongly contest.
I think the Justice Secretary had a legitimate point that there are different levels of crime and some are worse than others. And that doesn’t make the less serious ones non-crimes.
Too many people seem to feel that you need to make every problem the worst possible thing - otherwise you’re not taking it seriously enough.
It is true that Clarke was apparently unfamiliar with the exact terms of the law and maybe he’s disqualified for his office on that basis. But that’s not what he’s being accused of.