Kenneth Clarke

[StraferJack]

is he being hung out to dry?

I say yes. If you listen or read what he said, and then what has been spun out of it it's like parallel worlds

[mockney piers]

Wouldn't surprise me if a few within the tory party fan the flames on this one, he's a bit wishy washy liberal for many of them (ie pragmatic and sensible, veering from extremes).

I'm inclined to agree, I took it that he was discussing the sliding scale legal framework that currently exists rather than the impact it has on individuals (which I suppose is to a certain extent implicit in that framework), but frankly in such a tricky and emotive subject a bit more forethought in choice of words and above all sensitivity would have been advisable.

[Marmora Man]

Yep - hung out to dry.

The subject he was discussing was the consultation documentabout whether to extend the current mandatory 33.3% discount on sentences, if an early guilty plea was entered, brought in by the last administration by giving judges the freedom to increase that mandatory discount to 50%.

Rape was one of a number of crimes which would have been affected but somehow both the media and a number of spokespeople focused in on the crime of rape from 7.00am - to the detriment of the wider consultation process.

Also agree with MP - KC is someone a number of the right wing Tories would be happy to see go, I like him in the Cabinet tho' - a good moderate conservative, with sound instincts on crime & punishment, but poor instincts on Europe.

[Loz]

He made one error - confusing 'date rape' and 'statutory rape' which, admittedly, is not good from the justice minister but is hardly to call for his resignation. He got suckered in a bit which, for a politician of his experience, was a bit silly of him.

It's interesting that - reading the press - you'd think this was for rape charges only. It's actually being proposed across the board. The irony is that this proposal would save a number of rape victims the trauma of a trial but people do like to let their political whims get in the way of what is a good thing.

[Jeremy]

Bad choice of words, and dealt with clumsily. But he is right, in that some cases are not necessarily black and white, and not all cases warrant equal sentencing. I feel very sorry for him.

[Loz]

From the Torygraph...

Bridget Phillipson, a Labour MP who previously ran a refuge for victims of domestic violence, said: ?For the Justice Secretary to say that in effect he is on the side of rapists and not on the side of victims sends out absolutely the wrong message.?

Good grief. No overreaction there, then.

[pk]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bad choice of words, and dealt with clumsily. But

> he is right, in that some cases are not

> necessarily black and white, and not all cases

> warrant equal sentencing. I feel very sorry for

> him.

and is he right to imply that some cases are not 'serious'?

[Loz]

pk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> and is he right to imply that some cases are not 'serious'?

What do you mean by 'imply'? What were his actual words?

[Jeremy]

I'm not so sure he was implying anything, it was more a very poor choice of words.

[pk]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> pk Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > and is he right to imply that some cases are not

> 'serious'?

>

> What do you mean by 'imply'? What were his actual

> words?

you don't know what 'imply' means?

he distinguished some cases as 'serious rape' which 'implies' that some are not

[Loz]

Of course I know what 'imply' means - I meant that to use the word means you are giving us your take on what he said, rather than give us what he actually said.

Here's the transcript. You need to understand that he got the phrases 'date rape' and 'statutory rape' mixed up. In fact, he rather got himself all twisted up in the concept.

Derbyshire: Rape is rape, with respect.

Clarke: No it's not, and if an 18-year-old has sex with a 15-year-old and she's perfectly willing, that is rape. That's 'cause she's underage, can't consent. Anybody has sex with a 15-year-old, it's rape. So what you and I are talking about, we're talking about a man forcibly having sex with a woman and she doesn't want to. That is rape. Serious crime, of course it's a serious crime. And I'm very glad that people do now got to the police and report it. There used to be a taboo against it, in a crazy way.

and later

Derbyshire: The five years, the five-year stats come from the Council of Circuit Judges.

Clarke: And they include the 18-year-olds having sex with 15-year-olds.

Derbyshire: The five years come from the Council of Circuit Judges.

Clarke: And they include date rapes which, eh, date rapes can sometimes be very confusing. A straightforward?

Derbyshire: So is date rape not as serious?

Clarke: Date rape can be as serious as the worst rapes. But date rapes, as you are quite right to say very old experience, of being in trials, they do vary extraordinarily one from another and in the end the judge has to decide on the circumstances. But I've never met a judge who, confronted with a rapist, as you and I would use the term in conversation, would give him 12 months. That would be a crazy sentence.

[pk]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You need to understand that he got the phrases 'date rape' and 'statutory

> rape' mixed up.

i do understand that

what point are you making?

[mockney piers]

Are you trying to demonstrate how to entrap a politician.

I think more to the point, so to speak, what point are you making?

[Loz]

pk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > You need to understand that he got the phrases

> 'date rape' and 'statutory

> > rape' mixed up.

>

> i do understand that

>

> what point are you making?

I am asking what were the words he said that implied that some cases are not serious?

[pk]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Are you trying to demonstrate how to entrap a

> politician.

> I think more to the point, so to speak, what point

> are you making?

Jeremy said in some respects Clarke is 'right' and that he feels 'very sorry for him' (may be i missed some sarcasm here?)

so i asked if Jeremy thought it was right to imply that some rapes are not 'serious'

i think that Clarke was wrong to imply this and should know that was likely to (and has in fact) caused offence by doing so

i also feel no sorrow for Clarke and consider his comments to be at least one of insensitive and ignorant - guess that's my point

[Loz]

Gonna go all Jeremy Paxman here, pk - what were the words he said that implied that some cases are not serious?

[StraferJack]

So even tho Loz has shown you the transcript where it's obvious he didn't imply that at all, you are ignoring that as well as ignoring teh wider point Clarke was trying to make about being helpful to rape victims?

[mockney piers]

I think he did cause offence, and everyone is agreed that he came across as insensitive, but he basically stumbled into a minefield, trying to address issues as a lawyer but suddenly finding he was actually discussing things from a moral and social perspective before he realised that that was what had happened.

A politician of his long years should have known better frankly, but I do think it's unfair to suggest that he was attempting to imply that rape sometimes isn't serious, indeed he was quoted as saying that isn't the case.

I do feel a bit sorry for him as I rather like the old codger one of the last of a dying breed of decent (no, not in that sense) politicians, and some of my pity comes from having an idea just how much he's going to cop it on Question Time tonight.

[pk]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So even tho Loz has shown you the transcript where

> it's obvious he didn't imply that at all, you are

> ignoring that as well as ignoring teh wider point

> Clarke was trying to make about being helpful to

> rape victims?

guess what, i managed to read a transcript even before Loz showed it to me!

so by way of further example:

"a serious rape where, you know, violence and an unwilling woman"

rape by definition has an unwilling women (in the eyes of the law, i believe) so the above implies no violence = not serious

even on the distinction that you lot seem to think makes it all ok i'd say he's wrong to suggest that statutory rape isn't necessarily serious - bearing in mind it is an adult (not necessarily an 18 year) having sex with a minor who is unable to consent (not necessarily a 15 year old)

what's odd to me is that Clarke clearly hasn't said what he means (as he doesn't e.g. know the distinction between date rape and stat rape) but you all seem to know exactly what he meant

[mockney piers]

"but you all seem to know exactly what he meant"

As apparently so do you, inferring from a two-stage extrapolation that he thinks non violent rape isn't serious despite saying it is.

The whole point of what he was saying was that it's up to the courts not politicians to decide, they're just tinkering with the framework (not in a way I particularly agree with but that seems to be the topic for another thread).

I'm pretty sure that if statutory rape was committed by a grown up in a position of trust and one committed by an 18 year old in love with a fifteen year old, that the judge might be in a position to judge the seriousness of the two cases as different (though maybe not if it had been judge pickles where they're all asking for it apparently).

I say storm in a teacup, lets focus on the proposed policy and not Mr Miliband*'s petty point scoring from a labour party in disarray.

*whom I rather liked before he became leader

[*Bob*]

The sooner Clarke and his ilk are ousted, the sooner we can fill the HOC with more vacuous, soundbite-oriented PR monkeys who spend their political lives deciding what not to say (lest they impede their chances of climbing the greasy pole) rather than contributing anything that might stimulate some sort of useful debate - and thus be of value.

[Loz]

even on the distinction that you lot seem to think makes it all ok i'd say he's wrong to suggest that statutory rape isn't necessarily serious - bearing in mind it is an adult (not necessarily an 18 year) having sex with a minor who is unable to consent (not necessarily a 15 year old)

So are you implying that all statutory rape should be considered on the same level of seriousness as all violent rape? That a girl of 16 years and 1 day who has sex with a boy of 15 years and 364 days should be treated at the same level as a John Worboys? Really?

[StraferJack]

* taps fingers waiting for interesting response *

[mockney piers]

Plus it's all a distraction from the real issue. That a woefully low amount of rapes even make it in to court in the first place, and thence to a very low conviction rate compared to other crimes.

This probably needs addressing more urgently than whether a quick guilty plea can knock a couple of years off the sentence; carts and horses spring to mind.

And spot on *Bob*, of course I think you're wish is pretty much granted isn't it?

[Loz]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Plus it's all a distraction from the real issue.

> That a woefully low amount of rapes even make it

> in to court in the first place, and thence to a

> very low conviction rate compared to other

> crimes.

That's not actually true - unless you consider that all crimes generally have a woefully low attrition/conviction rate. There are two figures: Attrition Rate (from complaint to conviction) and Conviction Rate (cases that an actual charge is laid and that are convicted or plead guilty). The only attrition rates for various crimes I can find are:

Attempted murder - 14%

Robbery - 10%

Cruelty and Neglect of Children - 9%

Rape - 6.5% / 12%

Violence against the person - 4%

It is worth noting that the 6.5% is the figure for rape complainants that end in a conviction for rape only. If you take into account other convictions (e.g. sexual assault) then the figure rises to 12%. Part of this is thought to be due to misunderstanding by the complainant about what 'rape' is (in the eyes of the law), though I imagine part of it is chances of a realistic conviction meaning prosecutors going for a lesser charge.

What happens to the cases that don't make it to court? According to the Stern review, of the other cases 15% are withdrawn or retracted very quickly, 20% are later withdrawn by the complainant, 23% had insufficient evidence and 14% went for other reasons. In around 26% of cases, a suspect was charged with something (be it rape or sexual assault), of which 19% went to trial.

Conviction rates for rape once it gets to court (both trial and pleading guilty) are actually quite high ? 59% in 2009.

Of course, none of these stats covers incidents that are never reported.