I agree with you wholeheartedly. Many politicians find it hard when they have to improvise, though...BringBackBuck said:
Politician causes outrage over "rape" comments
- Thread starter Tips_of_Fingers
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The point is that he is clearly utterly ignorant on the issue.
The average sentence for rape is 5 years.
He said that a judge would not give a 5 year sentence for forcible rape.
Therefore, he implied that the vast majority of rape in this country is not forcible.
Also ignoring the fact that less than 10% of reported rape results in conviction. Meaning the 10% from which the 5 year average is drawn are only the most clear cut cases where there is significant evidence.
And for there to even be a trial the victim has to press charges. While the parents of underage children can press charges for them, how often do you think this happens in the case of consensual statutory rape, given that they'd need the testimony of the girl in question to have any hope of securing a conviction anyway?
This is what the problem is. It's not some theoretical debate about whether rape is rape, it's the fact that the minister responsible for making important decisions in this area doesn't have a damn clue what he is talking about and is using irrelevant arguments to vindicate a legal change which will result in rapists getting shorter sentences.
Also.. the figures are 'skewed by date rape'. Does the guy even know what date rape is?
The average sentence for rape is 5 years.
He said that a judge would not give a 5 year sentence for forcible rape.
Therefore, he implied that the vast majority of rape in this country is not forcible.
Also ignoring the fact that less than 10% of reported rape results in conviction. Meaning the 10% from which the 5 year average is drawn are only the most clear cut cases where there is significant evidence.
And for there to even be a trial the victim has to press charges. While the parents of underage children can press charges for them, how often do you think this happens in the case of consensual statutory rape, given that they'd need the testimony of the girl in question to have any hope of securing a conviction anyway?
This is what the problem is. It's not some theoretical debate about whether rape is rape, it's the fact that the minister responsible for making important decisions in this area doesn't have a damn clue what he is talking about and is using irrelevant arguments to vindicate a legal change which will result in rapists getting shorter sentences.
Also.. the figures are 'skewed by date rape'. Does the guy even know what date rape is?
While I don't entirely disagree with Ken Clarke I dont entirely agree either. When a person is tried for violent rape, they're also tried for other acts commited, such as assault, bodily harm and false imprisonment/kidnapping. So while you get a maximum of 25 years (in the UK) for rape, you get more on top for the other crimes as well. In effect, if you commit nice and friendly rape (if such a thing truly exists, I can see situations in which it may occur but I'm not sure such things happen IRL) your getting a reduced sentence as is. Factor in time reduced for good behaviour and parole...
As one woman put it her violent rapist was sent to jail, was out on parole in 4 years, then reoffended.
I do think we need longer sentences for pre-meditation, buying a date rape drug or stalking are obviously pre-meditated crimes. Going home with a drunk girl and her shouting rape the next day isn't.
I don't like rape laws in the UK, they define rape as the assailent penetrating the victim, which obviously favours women.
As one woman put it her violent rapist was sent to jail, was out on parole in 4 years, then reoffended.
I do think we need longer sentences for pre-meditation, buying a date rape drug or stalking are obviously pre-meditated crimes. Going home with a drunk girl and her shouting rape the next day isn't.
I don't like rape laws in the UK, they define rape as the assailent penetrating the victim, which obviously favours women.
I see your point but what your attacking is more overarching problem with the justice system; it is exceedingly difficult to take a situationist/relativist approach to every case. It takes up a huge amount of time to judge every case completely fairly, hence the guy in the article arguing for black and white laws, its not really that ethical, moral, or intelligent to have things work like this, but its the only really practical way of doing things.
Well, if you do broadcast something in line with controversy, I seriously doubt NOTHING would happen afterwards.
There's a lot of people and if but 1% of the mass complains, you'll still have a huge bunch of people, no matter what country it is.
He should stand up and defend himself, knowing that the rest 99% either don't give a shit, haven't heard of his news or simply agree whole-heartedly.
Also, I lol'd when I read "15 year old girls don't want to have sex! EVER!"
I beg to differ from my experiences...
There's a lot of people and if but 1% of the mass complains, you'll still have a huge bunch of people, no matter what country it is.
He should stand up and defend himself, knowing that the rest 99% either don't give a shit, haven't heard of his news or simply agree whole-heartedly.
Also, I lol'd when I read "15 year old girls don't want to have sex! EVER!"
I beg to differ from my experiences...
The children, the children! People love to self-affirm by thinking of the goddamn children. When I was 15 I wanted to fuck everything that moves, and y'know what I've realized since then? We have a lot more in common with women than not.Tips_of_Fingers said:
Lucky for me, I'm no longer attracted to a woman younger than 19 once she opens her mouth. But I don't think a 19-year-old consummating his relationship with his 16-year-old girlfriend should even be considered comparable to a 40-year-old getting touchy with a 10-year-old, or a date rapist, or a rape rapist.
So, to all the puritanical moralists out there: if we don't understand the crime, how are we to go about preventing it? Do we really want to view date rape, forcible rape, pedophilia and ephebophilia through the same lense?
Hey, ephebophilia ain't in the DSM-IV. Know why? Because every man on this planet looked with allure upon Hayden Panettiere, even before she turned 18. That doesn't make us weird, it makes us men.
Edited for grammar: my tongue is an asshole
Isn't there one law in the states for "having sex with a minor" and one law for "rape"? We got them over here, anyway.Dulcinea said:
I'm actually quite annoyed by the furore kicked up by this, chiefly by the BBC who I think are trying to stand by Victoria Derbyshire - who I think behaved quite porrly by completely forgetting her objectivity during the interview. Rather than letting him clarify the point he was trying to make, she hounded him by repeating the same misleading information over and over.
What Ken Clarke was trying to say was that some rapes deserve to be punished more severely than others, and that the criminal justice system already does this. Not very controversial. I don't mean to belittle rape by comparing it to other crimes, but some types of theft get tougher punishments, as do assaults, possession of illegal substances, and just about every other crime we prosecute.
The fact that had Victoria Derbyshire riled was that some sentences could be reduced by plea bargain to as little as 15 months. Ken Clarke got himself in a tangle trying to say that that figure would only apply to a small number of cases where the courts had already decided that the crime did not warrant a more severe punishment.
As for "date rape", again this is a large blanket term. There are instances where it is a very calculated, clear-cut case of a man deliberately circumventing a woman's consent and others where the situation is more confused - perhaps a misreading of body language and verbal cues combined with alcohol, making it more difficult to know whether consent was given or not. These are factors that the judge would take into account when sentencing.
In short, this is a semantic gaff, not a philosophical one. Of course, all rape is a serious matter, and just because the amount of intent may vary does not mean the amount of harm caused does.
What Ken Clarke was trying to say was that some rapes deserve to be punished more severely than others, and that the criminal justice system already does this. Not very controversial. I don't mean to belittle rape by comparing it to other crimes, but some types of theft get tougher punishments, as do assaults, possession of illegal substances, and just about every other crime we prosecute.
The fact that had Victoria Derbyshire riled was that some sentences could be reduced by plea bargain to as little as 15 months. Ken Clarke got himself in a tangle trying to say that that figure would only apply to a small number of cases where the courts had already decided that the crime did not warrant a more severe punishment.
As for "date rape", again this is a large blanket term. There are instances where it is a very calculated, clear-cut case of a man deliberately circumventing a woman's consent and others where the situation is more confused - perhaps a misreading of body language and verbal cues combined with alcohol, making it more difficult to know whether consent was given or not. These are factors that the judge would take into account when sentencing.
In short, this is a semantic gaff, not a philosophical one. Of course, all rape is a serious matter, and just because the amount of intent may vary does not mean the amount of harm caused does.
And this is why age of consent should be lowered to 13. I´m still annoyed that I can´t make my own descision just because I´m 2 years younger then a 15 year old.
I can get some things (Not driving a car, not being able to have my own house etc) but why sex? I am physically ready to have sex. It is up to me, AND ONLY ME to decide if I´m ready mentally. Not some goverment prick.
But we need to have some limits. A 12 year old is likely not physically ready to have sex. Therefor, they may not.
I can get some things (Not driving a car, not being able to have my own house etc) but why sex? I am physically ready to have sex. It is up to me, AND ONLY ME to decide if I´m ready mentally. Not some goverment prick.
But we need to have some limits. A 12 year old is likely not physically ready to have sex. Therefor, they may not.
he was not talking about underage sex he was talking about what he termed 'serious rape' (in other words assault rape/violent rape/aggravated rape) compared to 'date rape' which varies greatly from case to case (with date rape the victim could be drunk/drudged/coerced the suspect could also have been drunk so determining the consequentiality for instance you are both so drunk you end up in bed together is that consensual sex or not) while maintaining that all rape is serous crime but some rapes are more serous than others
The most humorous reply so far. And it actually makes a damn good point. *applaudes*funguy2121 said:The children, the children! People love to self-affirm by thinking of the goddamn children. When I was 15 I wanted to fuck everything that moves, and y'know what I've realized since then? We have a lot more in common with women than not.Tips_of_Fingers said:
Lucky for me, I'm no longer attracted to a woman younger than 19 once she opens her mouth. But I don't think a 19-year-old consummating his relationship with his 16-year-old girlfriend should even be considered comparable to a 40-year-old getting touchy with a 10-year-old, or a date rapist, or a rape rapist.
So, to all the puritanical moralists out there: if we don't understand the crime, how are we to go about preventing it? Do we really want to view date rape, forcible rape, pedophilia and ephebophilia through the same lense?
Hey, ephebophilia ain't in the DSM-IV. Know why? Because every man on this planet looked with allure upon Hayden Panettiere, even before she turned 18. That doesn't make us weird, it makes us men.
Edited for grammar: my tongue is an asshole
So... a situation in which person that is not 18 having sex with another person that is not 18 is considered rape? Man... everyone I know, including my self, used to be a rapist! And not only did they rape, they were being raped AT THE SAME TIME as well! My mind is officially blown.
And honestly the idea that 15 year olds can not have consensual sex boggles my mind! I would actually dare someone to make this sound logical, but I'm afraid that it would start a flame war or something, so I'll leave it at that.
Still though, if people under the age of 18 are considered retards who can't wipe their asses by themselves, then why let them out of the house? Why not keep your children locked up in an airtight vault until they are considered (that's right, CONSIDERED) adults?
And honestly the idea that 15 year olds can not have consensual sex boggles my mind! I would actually dare someone to make this sound logical, but I'm afraid that it would start a flame war or something, so I'll leave it at that.
Still though, if people under the age of 18 are considered retards who can't wipe their asses by themselves, then why let them out of the house? Why not keep your children locked up in an airtight vault until they are considered (that's right, CONSIDERED) adults?
"Ignorance is a curse that the gods themselves struggle with in vain" - Friedrich Schiller
So what they are saying is a paedophilia rape is equal to that of a grown man/woman being raped?
Both cases are severe, but Paedophilia is basically destroying or heavily damaging a life before it really sets off, there by causing huge amounts of suffering over a prolonged period, this much we all know, but the difference is, one is more damaging then the other, the grown adult can understand what happened better and in the most cynical sense has already had a life, the child on the other hand has neither benefits (Well maybe not the cynical reason, that's hardly a benefit).
So basically, one is more severe then the other and should be seen as such and punished as such.
So what they are saying is a paedophilia rape is equal to that of a grown man/woman being raped?
Both cases are severe, but Paedophilia is basically destroying or heavily damaging a life before it really sets off, there by causing huge amounts of suffering over a prolonged period, this much we all know, but the difference is, one is more damaging then the other, the grown adult can understand what happened better and in the most cynical sense has already had a life, the child on the other hand has neither benefits (Well maybe not the cynical reason, that's hardly a benefit).
So basically, one is more severe then the other and should be seen as such and punished as such.
Breaking News: British Politician says something to get themselves in the shit!BringBackBuck said:
I think although the law is the same for all rape crimes judges and juries tend to be a little more lenient on people who are pulled up on some technicality than for violent sexual abuse crimes. I think at the end of the day what he's saying is still right, but it could have been phrased much better.
Still better than Nadine Dorries though.
The funny thing is with statutory rape is that it says minors can't make up their mind either way, not just in a positive way. If that is so, then they can't either give consent or not give it. Meaning that it can be argued that a minor can't be against anybody having sex with them, EVER. Yes, having sex with them would still be illegal...but under the law a minor can have no strong feelings against having sex with absolutely anybody.
Doesn't that sound incredibly wrong or is it just me? Aren't we treating minors like severely handicapped people?
As for the whole coercion thing, many many many adults get fooled into sex and then discarded, if something is wrong and should be illegal, it shouldn't be completely legal for most people. I can see there being exceptions to the rule but the fact of the matter is the rule has less applications than the exceptions.
Doesn't that sound incredibly wrong or is it just me? Aren't we treating minors like severely handicapped people?
As for the whole coercion thing, many many many adults get fooled into sex and then discarded, if something is wrong and should be illegal, it shouldn't be completely legal for most people. I can see there being exceptions to the rule but the fact of the matter is the rule has less applications than the exceptions.
Nadine Dorries? Let me just google that...Zantos said:
Children are abused because they don't say "no" forcefully enough? What the fuck? Where do they find these people?
I do agree with him, but to be honest I don't think statutory rape should even be categorised as a form of rape. I mean technicially it is - you have to be 16 in the UK to be able to give consent to have sex, and if they're 15 they aren't able to give consent therefore all sex is forced. But the idea that someone is incapable of making a decision to have sex because they aren't 16 is just absurd; technicalities, honestly.
Of course if one of them's 12 or something then fair enough, but that's exactly what the guy said - circumstance is crucial. I don't really think there are many, if any, moral absolutes.
Of course if one of them's 12 or something then fair enough, but that's exactly what the guy said - circumstance is crucial. I don't really think there are many, if any, moral absolutes.
Your average 13 year old might be physically ready, but mentally ready is a whole other issue. And if you lower the age of consent to 13 you're removing all possible legal defences a 13 year old has against being tricked into having sex even though they are not mentally ready for the deed, let alone the consequences that can come out of it (pregnancy, STDs etc). Not to mention you basically allow every person with a bizarre fetish of having sex with boys or girls barely into puberty to try their luck with them, because hey, it's legal.awesomeClaw said:
And finally, I'll let you know that odds are very likely that you'll think completely differently about this when you're 15, and by the time you're 18-20 your way of thinking will probably have changed again. Which is part of the reason why the age of consent is 16 in most countries, the very way that you think changes drastically during puberty.
So you're 13 right? So what will happen if you (assuming you're female) get pregnant? (or get someone else pregnant if you're male). Will you raise the child? Would you be willing to do so without any help? It's not a coincidence that the legal age of consent for sex is also the age you can legally own a house and demand minimum wage from an employer.awesomeClaw said:
Besides that there are other factors. Even if you are physically capable of sex at 13 doesn't mean you're ready emotionally (hell I know a few people in their 30's that I wouldn't class as emotionally capable). Theres already a lot of pressure on teens and making sex illegal until 16 in Britian provides a nice excuse for those not wanting to admit they're not ready yet. I know I sure wasn't ready at 13 and I'm glad I waited. I can't even begin to think what would have happened if I had sex at that age and gotten someone pregnant.
Teens already have a strong reputation for being reckless and not really caring about consequences - after all how many teens drink and do drugs despite them being illegal? At least keeping the actions illegal provides some incentive to not do them.