Politician causes outrage over "rape" comments

[mightybozz]

Fortunately, crimes are sentenced according to their severity already. What the Justice Minister was trying to discuss was reducing sentences for less severe offenders. Of course, he phrased it incredibly stupidly.

The real problem behind all this is that "rape" is too broad an offence. If, as the Minister had to, you can say that some rapes are pretty minor, that suggests to me that the offence itself is far, far too broad. No consenting 15 year olds should ever be prosecuted and placed on the sex offenders register for rape.


Also, "statutory rape" is a nonsense phrase for the UK. The offence of rape is found only in statute, in the Sex Offences Act 2003. There is no common law offence of rape anymore, so saying "statutory rape" is tautologous.

 

[Saltyk]

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?

There was a kid in my state that went to jail for just that. I can't remember his age at the time of the incident (I want to say he was 16 or 17). So, he and some friends had sex with a girl that was 15 or 16. The problem is that when I say sex all he did was receive oral, while his friends all did the dirty deed. Well, the authorities learned of this, and end up arresting the whole group of boys. All of his friends took plea deals, but he didn't. He went to trial and got convicted. He actually spent a few years in jail under the law, while none of the others did. And this was all because the legal system misused a particular law that was intended to punish child molesters (this was all when Chris Hansen was confronting them on TV). Even the legislator who authored the law said it wasn't intended to punish young stupid kids like this. So, yes, it does happen.

Anyway, it's things like this that make me think extremists in any view should be ignored by everyone.

 

[awesomeClaw]

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.

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.

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.

Hm. You´ve got a point there, mate. I mean, if I were a female, an abortion would be a solution. But since I´m male, that wouldn´t work. (And before you say it, I do not see an abortion as something substantial. More like getting rid of a zit. I´d hurt for a while, but I wouldn´t be sad over the things that the zit could of become if I hadn´t popped it.)

Yes, I´ll get back to you on that point, ok?

But the other 2 argument I disagree with.

So? If you´re not ready, just say so. Nobody with sense will think any lesser of you. And if someone does, then they weren´t worth your time in the first place. At least in my opinion.

And if someone is reckless, then they will fuck up, learn their lesson and eventually be a better person later. (Or die.) Instead, inform the effects of alcohol and drugs on the body and let them decide for themselves.

But I feel that I am ready and I should be allowed to do as I please in that respect. Not everyone is like you, pal. But of course, lack of oppurtunity and all that is currently setting me back.

 

[awesomeClaw]

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.

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.

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.

Oh, "tricked into having sex". You cannot say someone is "tricked" into having sex unless the person they were having sex with was not the person they thought they were having sex. Otherwise, it was a mistake, and what do you do with mistakes you can´t fix? You learn from them.

And? So what if older people try their chances? Who cares?

And yes, perhaps I will think diffrently. Perhaps I might think my whole argument for this was stupid and never be able to see why I thought that. But that doesn´t mean that all the things I do and say now don´t have any weight.

 

[VendettaNola]

Firstly: I would argue rape can occur to men, despite the letter of the law.

Who's looney tune laws say men can't be raped? That's not only UBER sexist, but ridiculous.

 

[VendettaNola]

Firstly: I would argue rape can occur to men, despite the letter of the law.

Who's looney tune laws say men can't be raped? That's not only UBER sexist, but ridiculous.

 

[tahrey]

I'm sort of torn over this issue... and you have to step carefully as it's a very emotive case, much like that of child abuse and the like - if you say anything that could even be slightly misconstrued as supporting the offence in question, you're going to have several thousand shades of shit ripped out of you before you even finish the sentence.

Case in point is Ken Clarke. I'm no fan of the man, I think he's a good example of all the things that are bad about the "old" tories. Elitist, highly patronising, often part of the last remnants of the old-money upper class, unapologetic, unable to take criticism seriously, etc. Just a wibbly, snobby, 5ft 10 bipedal penis in general. And he's displayed enough of those "qualities" during the event in question and during the resultant backlash. Certainly hasn't done himself any favours.

But, I can see where he was - hopefully - trying to come from, before suffering that epic case of foot-in-mouth. To whit: we have various degrees of murder (1st thru 3rd plus manslaughter, and some associated offenses e.g. death by dangerous driving), corresponding to the level of intent, and the trauma inflicted on victims. Why not for other crimes, such as sexual assault?

And given that so many rape cases (seriously, it's a depressingly huge proportion) end with no verdict being passed down for want of evidence at the trial - and the defendants staying utterly tight lipped until that point because they know the choice is either getting off scot-free, or being sent down for quite a long time - what would be wrong with tempting them with a lighter, albeit guaranteed sentence, for fessing up before it goes to court? You then have the bastard, in jail (still for a good 7 years), off the streets, in a place where he's probably going to suffer a couple of unwanted intrusions of his own once the Ordinary Decent Criminals find out what he's REALLY in for - and then on the sex offenders register for probably the rest of their life...
No-one who IS innocent and has a shred of sense would own up - but some of the guilty might. It's not so much a choice between having them sentenced for a full term, or a half one; more like guaranteeing the half term, or running a serious risk of them not being jailed at all, and being back out free as the wind (and bearing a grudge) once the trial's up.

 

[VendettaNola]

Seriously! Who thinks that? Men cant be raped, MAN!

 

[Aesthetical Quietus]

It's been mentioned several times but there are different laws for these occasions. Sex with a minor and rape. There are very rarely cases that someone will be charged with Rape for a non-eligible-consensus in what I've seen. That is, it's rare for someone to be charged with rape when they have co-erced a minor to have sex with them. [Depending of course on the age of the victim.]

 

[tahrey]

Firstly: I would argue rape can occur to men, despite the letter of the law.

Who's looney tune laws say men can't be raped? That's not only UBER sexist, but ridiculous.

Quite a lot of them bizarrely. If, as a man, you are... e.g. drugged with rohypnol, or tied up, or simply overpowered by a woman who is stronger than you (not actually that far outside the bounds of reality, particularly if she goes to the gym more often) and forced into congress with a woman you'd really rather not be bumping uglies with.... you're going to find it a hell of a lot harder to successfully bring any charges against her. For a start, there's the much lower chance of having any physical evidence... and a lot of barristers, judges, jury members simply don't believe such a thing is even possible.

(and that's just considering the straight lying-back-thinking-of-england whilst being bounced on top of possibilities - there's plenty more varied sexual abuse that can be visited on a person of either sex besides)

 

[VendettaNola]

Firstly: I would argue rape can occur to men, despite the letter of the law.

Who's looney tune laws say men can't be raped? That's not only UBER sexist, but ridiculous.

It's the way the law is written; you simply cannot be convicted of raping a man, as rape is legally "Penetrating a woman against her will." It's not a joke. It's sad, yes. But true.

In what country? Because I'm from Canada, and lemme tell ya, the law in no way shape or form excludes men as victims or females as perpetrators.

I will wholeheartedly agree that men are badly unsupported if they legally try to bring a rape case against a female, even if they were drugged. Gentlemen in this position are going to have a hard time of it, however, the law absolutely does not sexually discriminate.

 

[the D0rk One]

People need to remove their blinders and just think for a second before turning to outrage whenever someone makes a point about a contentious issue.

Most people don't think. It's against most peoples' nature

OT: some people ask for it.

 

[VendettaNola]

Firstly: I would argue rape can occur to men, despite the letter of the law.

Who's looney tune laws say men can't be raped? That's not only UBER sexist, but ridiculous.

It's the way the law is written; you simply cannot be convicted of raping a man, as rape is legally "Penetrating a woman against her will." It's not a joke. It's sad, yes. But true.

And hold on, seriously? So in you're terrifying country men can't be raped by other men? Have your legislators seen, say, Pulp Fiction? Cause you might want to send them a copy of that with a note reading, 'this should probably be illegal'.

 

[FOXGEAR]

I am completely with you every step of the way, OP. I am always flabbergasted at these idiots who try to make every single issue black and white like this is a public school kindergarten class or something. Stalking a woman and beating her and forcefully raping her is completely different from having sex with a consenting teen. Whilst it is still not good, the teen knows what she is doing and doing so willingly.

@Realitycrash: No, when you have sex with a consenting minor in the states it's counted as "Statutory Rape". Go US of A. woo.

EDIT: And women are not the only ones who can be raped, whatever the hell the ignorant feminists want to spout off. If a woman came up to me and hit me and tore my pants off, I would not like it one bit. I would yell for help and try to fight her off. Unfortunately, it probably wouldn't work because I am a complete weakling, and I don't even pretend to try and act macho. I am a bi-sexual man, and I don't care whether it is a woman or man being raped, it is STILL RAPE.

 

[RoonMian]

I personally like very much how that sort of stuff is handled in my country. As long as it is in consent the law here kinda "scales" with age. Turning 14 you "get" the "right" to have sex. Turning 18 then you "lose" the "right" to have sex with people below the age of 16. That means:

You are 14 or 15 -> Sex with people from 14 to 17 is not a problem.

You are 16 or 17 -> Sex with people from 14 to 110 is not a problem (110 is chosen at random).

You are 18 or older -> Sex with people 16 or older is not a problem.

Sticking to these rules is a guarantee that you won't be bothered by the justice system sticking its nose into your sex life. But even if you don't follow those rules it's not automatically rape or illegal sex with a minor. Then a court "just" investigates if the younger person actually is in charge of her own sexuality, you didn't exploit her etc. (it gets complicated there). So let's imagine you're 18 and your girlfriend is 15 (i've read somewhere that the acceptable agerange is supposed to be half your age plus eight which would fit there) and she is mature and confident about it just like any 16-year-old you'll be okay even if your relationship gets an investigation.

Something we have to thank the sexual revolution in my country in the 60ies and 70ies for.

 

[FOXGEAR]

Firstly: I would argue rape can occur to men, despite the letter of the law.

Who's looney tune laws say men can't be raped? That's not only UBER sexist, but ridiculous.

It's the way the law is written; you simply cannot be convicted of raping a man, as rape is legally "Penetrating a woman against her will." It's not a joke. It's sad, yes. But true.

And hold on, seriously? So in you're terrifying country men can't be raped by other men? Have your legislators seen, say, Pulp Fiction? Cause you might want to send them a copy of that with a note reading, 'this should probably be illegal'.

I believe the US court system would count that as "Assault". Once again, woohoo US of A.

 

[razer17]

Second: coercing a fifteen-year-old (and it is coercing) to have sex with you (rape them) might be less physically damaging,

A 16 year old who has sex with a 15 year old, is technically a rapist and a child abuser (16 being the age of consent here). Thing is, 15 year olds usually know what they are doing. People don't suddenly, on their 16th birthday, wake up and discover a new ability to judge whether or not they should have sex.

My point being that it probably isn't coercing. In fact, from what I've seen I'd suggest a lot of the time 14 or 15 year old girls coerce older guys to sleep with them. In some countries, Spain being the one I can think of, the legal age is as low as 13. I'd say 15 year olds know how to handle themselves, barring any psychological or developmental issues.

OT: Personally, I think rape is rape. Ignoring the issue of child abuse, which is different to standard rape, so not really relevant, I think any rape is a rape. Yes, some may be more violent or whatever, but any rapist should get the same time, because they are awful, horrible people.

(Also, it isn't just women who get raped. Men can be raped by other men and by women.)

Edit - Actually, maybe rape isn't just rape. There are different circumstances, I retract that statement.

 

[Gigano]

How utterly pathetic that these people who attack him not only have no ability to step back and look rationally at a subject, but lash out at those who do.

 

[Chris^^]

thank fuck someone has the balls to say it, I'm behind him all the way, its about time society stopped pussy-footing around the issue and actually bothered to take the reality of the situation into account.

 

[razer17]

And hold on, seriously? So in you're terrifying country men can't be raped by other men? Have your legislators seen, say, Pulp Fiction? Cause you might want to send them a copy of that with a note reading, 'this should probably be illegal'.

I believe the US court system would count that as "Assault". Once again, woohoo US of A.

I think you'll find that the American penal code counts rape as being able to happen to both males and females, and can be both hetero and homosexual. In fact, something like 10% convicted rapists are convicted for raping males.