"Levels of rape"

[Chunkofcoal]

Cheerful thread I know. Anyway, apparently there's some row between Ed Miliband and Ken Clarke over a radio interview that's ended up with Miliband crying for Clarke's resignation. The quote he apprently read out was:



to which Miliband replied:



Personally I see this as more of a "oh jump on another party member" thing than serious actual offence at what was said but reading around the internet there are quite a few people who are upset at this and I cannot understand why? Rape's a serious offence, I'm not going to downplay it, and its up there with peadophilia in crimes that are pretty much guaranteed to instantly illciit pleads for the death penalty and/or torture, but honestly I think he's right. There's differences between things like date rape and a gang breaking into a home and assualting the occupants but both are serious, however I can't put them anywhere near the same category as his example of a 17 year old having sex with a minor, not least because if the whole "kids are maturing earlier debate."


EDIT: Ah apparently the bbc do have an article on it so some other quotes of what was actually said:

That looks like they cut part of the quote out which is annoying but I can't find a reason to hate on him for saying that.

Again true, from the tiny bit I've heard about this date rape cases can be very hard to get a sure decision on and I'm sure I've heard somewhere, probably the mail, that there is a problem with women claiming rape. Also reminds me of a thread a little while back about this but I can't remember the specifics.

So is this just another political thing where people read a headline and make a decision or is the outrage at Clarke's comments genuinely what the majority of people feel? I honestly can't see a problem in saying there are levels of rape and cases need to be judged dispassionately case by case rather than the usual "He's a rapist! castrate him!" response the word always seem to get. It still seems to be a very taboo thing to talk about.

[anastasiaa]

I think most blokes in the country would be guilty of rape then. I know I am, The fact that it was consentual and i stayed with her for eight years and had two children is obviously irrelevant.

[angel_megzi]

I had sex with a miner once.
Kept bashing me in the back of the head with the light on his hard-hat.

Now I know it doesn't add to the debate but I couldn't help myself. Please delete, after having a sly giggle at it, so the proper debate can continue.

[Boston]

OK I giggled

Problem is people clam up when you try to point that out. If by some miracle I ended up sleeping with a 15 year old over the weekend and it somehow ended up in court I doubt I'd get a prison sentence over it but I'm still going to be on the register

[sctrojnvirus]

I fully understand the purpose of enforcing the age of consent from the persepctive that it's not there to criminalise young people but to remind adults that it is their duty not to even so much as seek consent from an underage person.

The two big reasons for this, as I see it, are:

1. It's easy for an adult to manipulate a young person into giving consent. I don't necessarily mean saying "yes" but meaning "no" - I mean convincing a teenager that it's what they want. People do it all the time ("Hey, why not take a chance? You seem like a strong, independent woman. Society can't tell you what to do, you're your own woman, am I right?") - and I don't mean to underage people, I mean any guys who exploit a position of power or are just good with chat-up lines.

2. Sorry to any teenagers here, but teenagers are poor decision-makers. They engage in risky behaviour and are bad at monitoring their own goals and priorities. You cannot necessarily trust a teenager to make the best decision for their own welfare. For that reason, we take the decision out of their hands.

Having said that, it's not the same as someone forcing themselves on someone else and I'm sure that if you looked at the penalties courts give out for each category, it would reflect that.

[DAt]

Boy, this is a can with a huge heaping helping of worms. I have 23 women who work for me. At dinner tonight I threw this topic out and it was quite a hot conversation. Basically it was going well down the lines of two threads; rape between say, a 30 year old man and an unwilling 25 year old woman YES they screamed, thats rape. A 17 year old guy and a consensual 15 year old girl? NOOOOOOOO they said, thats not rape, shouldn't even be registered. Then I threw out a 30 year old guy and a consensual 15 year old girl, THROW HIM IN JAIL!!!!! I said in the eyes of the law why should a 17 year old and a 30 year old be any different???? Seems like their picking the rules to suit their purpose to me.

I'm still looking for bruises, but its technically the same thing in my state.

[BethB]

D:

It's hurtful as it is truthful. Most of my friends make decisions which are completely wrong in so many ways.

[supersaiyan]

most kids i know go by the two year rule. i.e. if your 17 get it on anyone two years older or younger than you.
i know a 18 year old kid who claims to have had sex with a 13/14 year old at my skool.
the short story - he walks with a limp

[Chimchar]

All rapes are serious crimes. No-one, including Kenneth Clarke, disputes that. But as with many offences, the definition of the crime covers a wide range of scenarios. Mr Clarke was simply pointing out, in response to the argument that rape sentences are too low, that the mean average sentence for rape is a misleading statistic, as it is pulled down by crimes which do not quite fit the ultra-violent image most of us have in our minds when we think of rape. His only error was in failing to anticipate how easily his words would be distorted, and I imagine more offence will arise from the headlines surrounding the incident than from the Today programme itself. I seriously hope he doesn't resign as in my view he has been the first cabinet minister for decades to break the cycle of "tough" posturing and without him the Tories will be back to their old hang 'em and flog 'em ways.

The problem is, anything involving rape or paedophilia provokes such a powerful emotional response in people that they don't always listen. Jumping the gun the minute someone is accused of a serious offence is exactly the kind of thinking that a responsible criminal justice system in a liberal society exists to oppose.

[Guppy]

I'm realistic enough that even if I was lifting heavy weights full time I would still be 'the weaker sex'. So with that said, on consent it is more than awkward if you say no and they go ahead anyway, how much violence there is in it could depend on the individuals involved and how much resistance before and during it. I've been in that situation, it changed my opinion on consent. I've also been a juror on a rape case more than 10 years ago, it changed my opinion on courts and justice