Ken Clarke to be binned?

[WaltonRed]

David Cameron urged to sack Kenneth Clarke over rape comments | Politics | guardian.co.uk

 

Kenneth Clarke has become embroiled in a major row over sentences for rape after appearing to suggest that "date rape" did not count as a serious offence, prompting calls from Ed Miliband for David Cameron to sack his justice secretary.

 

Clarke took to the airwaves on Wednesday morning in the face of a fierce reaction to the disclosure on Tuesday that he intends to increase the maximum discount for an early guilty plea for rapists from 33% to 50%.

 

But instead of calming the row, the justice secretary's media appearances and explanations have only served to fuel the controversy.

 

A rape victim broke down in tears after confronting Clarke when he appeared on BBC Radio 5 Live, telling him his sentence discount plan was a disaster.

 

During other television interviews, Clarke appeared to claim campaigners had only singled out rape because it injected a degree of "sexual excitement" into the argument over discounts for early guilty pleas for all offences.

 

But it was his statement that no one convicted of a "serious rape" would be released as quickly as those guilty of some "date rapes" that sparked a political furore as Labour leader Miliband challenged Cameron over the matter at prime minister's questions.

 

Miliband said: "The prime minister, when he leaves this chamber, should go and look at the comments of the justice secretary and then he should say to him very clearly the justice secretary should not be in his post at the end of today."

 

But immediately after question time, the prime minister's spokesman said Clarke was not going to be sacked but would have to clarify his remarks.

 

Cameron sought to distance himself from Clarke's comments and underlined the government's commitment to increasing the rate of rape cases ending up in court. Downing Street said Clarke was under pressure from Cameron to clarify his comments.

 

The prime minister faced down calls to sack the justice secretary, telling MPs that he had not heard the interview and insisting the proposal to extend a reduction in sentence as a result of plea bargaining from one-third to half was merely out for consultation.

 

"We have not yet decided which offences it should apply to or how it should be brought in. This is a consultation," he said.

 

Behind the scenes, Cameron told Clarke to clarify his comments to set straight any misinterpretation, according to a Downing Street spokeswoman.

 

There was also concern among Liberal Democrats, with one senior source saying the justice secretary had struck the wrong "tone". The Downing Street spokeswoman said the government regarded all rape as heinious and not tolerable. Cameron believed Clarke was a very good justice secretary, but had not known about his remarks in advance, she added.

 

Downing Street aides also insisted the domestic affairs cabinet committee had not yet finally cleared the sentencing green paper, and said there would be no relaxation of the penalty for rape.

 

The cabinet committee met on Tuesday to clear the green paper, and Clarke told MPs that proposals to cut potential sentences for rape through plea bargaining were likely to be retained. Downing Street suggested this was not the case and that no decision had been taken.

 

Miliband told Clarke at prime minister's questions: "The role of the justice secretary is to speak for the nation on matters of justice and crime. This morning, the justice secretary was on the radio suggesting that there were serious rapes and other categories of rapes.

 

"The justice secretary cannot speak for the women of this country when he makes comments like that."

 

Cameron told the Commons he had not heard the BBC 5 Live interview, but said a decision on the seriousness of the offence and the sentence that should be passed should be a matter for the courts.

 

He reminded Miliband that the issue of whether there should be a differentiation between categories of rape was debated during the sexual offences bill passed by the last government. The decision at the time was not to make that distinction.

 

He said the aim of plea bargaining was to make sure more people were prosecuted and convicted, and added: "Rape is one of the most serious crimes that there is, and it should be met with proper punishment.

 

"Anyone who has ever met a rape victim and talked to them about what that experience means to them and how it stays with them for the rest of their life can only want to have the most serious punishment possible.

 

"The real disgrace in our country is that only 6% of rapes reported to a police station end in a conviction. That is what we have to sort out. I have not heard the justice secretary's interview, but the position of the government is very clear that there is an offence called rape and anyone who commits it should be prosecuted, convicted and punished very severely."

 

 

 

Asked by the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson after question time whether he was going to apologise, Clarke said he did not say anything that was factually incorrect but claimed people were "spinning" his remarks.

 

He said: "What is happening is what always happens in politics, I'm not surprised by this, people are slightly spinning, loading what I said in order to get what I regard as false indignation.

 

"I think rape is a serious crime. Always gets a long sentence. It should do. I'm not proposing to reduce the penalty for rape in any way. The proposal I'm making, a discount for an early plea, applies to every criminal offence in the book. It has good reason for it."

 

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, told the BBC: "You cannot have a justice secretary who takes this kind of attitude to rape, this kind of attitude to rape victims and this kind of attitude to women across the country."

 

The rape victim who confronted Clarke on the radio said his plans were "a disaster".

 

She said she had fought the criminal justice system for 688 days, only for the rapist to have his sentence reduced for pleading guilty and then go on to commit another offence.

 

"I wouldn't wish what I went through, fighting the criminal justice system for 688 days, on my worst enemy," she said.

 

"I'd gone through the trauma of it for the 688 days, and then on that 688th day he pleads guilty and gets out early."

 

But Clarke said an extra discount for an early guilty plea could avoid her being dragging through the further ordeal of a trial.

 

"People who save you the 600 days of going to the police station, preparing to give evidence ... we're saying a 50% discount saves trauma," he added.

 

"The reason for giving a discount for pleading guilty is so the victim doesn't have to be put through the ordeal again."If it was the case that I was saying rapists should be out in a year, I would vote for somebody else myself."

 

Clarke said no one convicted of a "serious rape" would be released as quickly as those guilty of some "date rapes".

 

Asked why rape sentences were, on average, only five years, he said: "That includes date rape, 17-year-olds having intercourse with 15-year-olds.

 

"A serious rape, with violence and an unwilling woman, the tariff is much longer than that. I don't think many judges give five years for a forcible rape frankly."

 

Asked whether he thought "date rape" did not count as a "serious" offence, he said: "Date rape can be as serious as the worst rapes, but date rapes, in my very old experience of being in trials, vary extraordinarily one from another and in the end the judge has to decide on the circumstances."

 

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

 

Got to go for me.

 

Rape is rape.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Would be surprised if Cameron sees anything wrong with his comments. A man who told his daughter that she 'looks like she's just fallen out of a council flat' and tells women to 'calm down, Dear' perhaps isn't the most likely to see the subtle connotations of wording.

[Anny Road]

I listened to this interview and agreed with most of it. He attempted to draw a distinction between a violent jumping out the bushes knife wielding rape, a date rape and a 18 year old having consentual sex with his girlfriend. Whilst under the law all three are rape he infered that sentancing policy should and is different. The 18 year olds offence is not as serious.

[Tom R]

I listened to this interview and agreed with most of it. He attempted to draw a distinction between a violent jumping out the bushes knife wielding rape, a date rape and a 18 year old having consentual sex with his girlfriend. Whilst under the law all three are rape he infered that sentancing policy should and is different. The 18 year olds offence is not as serious.

 

i kind of understand what you're saying, but try telling that to the girl he raped.

 

Is the guy who chopped that woman's head of any more of a murderer than me if I was to just stab someone or shoot them? Not really, we'd both still be murderers.

 

i don't see how this should be any different to be honest.

 

Murder is murder, rape is rape. They should all be punished equally, and things that grab headlines - like jumping out of bushes with a knife, or sawing off someone's head - shouldn't really factor at all in my opinion.

 

if sentencing was based on the crime, equally, regardless of emotive criteria, then we might finally get some consistency when it comes to sentencing in this country.

 

At present it's nothing short of a lottery based on your post code, your background, and as you prove here the STORY of your crime.

It should be the crime and the crime alone.

[Steve Holt]

I listened to this interview and agreed with most of it. He attempted to draw a distinction between a violent jumping out the bushes knife wielding rape, a date rape and a 18 year old having consentual sex with his girlfriend. Whilst under the law all three are rape he infered that sentancing policy should and is different. The 18 year olds offence is not as serious.

 

What the fuck?

 

Yeah by all means lets draw a line between rape and consentual sex between a boyfriend and girlfriend when one happens to be legally underage. Those are totally different.

 

But date rape isn't as serious? Just because that person might not wield a knife? Have a fucking word with yourself. Date rape should be treated as rape just as this "Violent knife bush rape" should be treated the same.

 

Those are both instances when the victims didn't give consent, whereas the underage one is one where the law doesn't recognise the right of the person underage to give consent in the first place.

 

In any instance where consent is refused it is rape.

[Anny Road]

I have no time for the Tories but here for once was a senior Tory talking in a sensible liberal way and not the hang em high wankers we have come to expect. Of course a judge takes into account the nature of the crime. That is all he was saying. Guilty is guilty and in that you are correct but you cannot tell me that the youg lad who has consenting sex with his under age bird should be sentenced the same as a balaclava wearing psycho.

This was said in response to the interviewer who repeatedly said that the average sentence for rape is 5 years and under this scheme offenders could be out in 18mnths.

Clarke was merely responding by saying this average figure includes all of those 'lesser rapes' such as those described above. Yes his terms could have been phrased a bit better but his argument is fair.

[Steve Holt]

I have no time for the Tories but here for once was a senior Tory talking in a sensible liberal way and not the hang em high wankers we have come to expect. Of course a judge takes into account the nature of the crime. That is all he was saying. Guilty is guilty and in that you are correct but you cannot tell me that the youg lad who has consenting sex with his under age bird should be sentenced the same as a balaclava wearing psycho.

This was said in response to the interviewer who repeatedly said that the average sentence for rape is 5 years and under this scheme offenders could be out in 18mnths.

Clarke was merely responding by saying this average figure includes all of those 'lesser rapes' such as those described above. Yes his terms could have been phrased a bit better but his argument is fair.

 

If he included date rape with "lesser rapes" and you find any way to agree with him, that's ridiculous.

[Anny Road]

What the fuck?

 

Yeah by all means lets draw a line between rape and consentual sex between a boyfriend and girlfriend when one happens to be legally underage. Those are totally different.

 

But date rape isn't as serious? Just because that person might not wield a knife? Have a fucking word with yourself. Date rape should be treated as rape just as this "Violent knife bush rape" should be treated the same.

 

Those are both instances when the victims didn't give consent, whereas the underage one is one where the law doesn't recognise the right of the person underage to give consent in the first place.

 

In any instance where consent is refused it is rape.

Totally disagree. I never for one moment suggested that date rape is not serious and neither did he. He was simply stating in relation to a question about sentencing that the average sentence is confusing and gives the impression that the most violent and serious offenders get 5 years.

 

A date rapist if guilty deserves a sentence if found guilty.

[Anny Road]

If he included date rape with "lesser rapes" and you find any way to agree with him, that's ridiculous.

 

I wouldn't say date rape is less serious but I would say that violence should add a further tariff.

[dirk grout]

I wouldn't say date rape is less serious but I would say that violence should add a further tariff.

 

You seem to be suggesting that there is such a thing as 'non-violent rape'.

[Guest The Chimp]

Didn't Anny Road specifically point to the 18 year old example above - the case of consentual sex with an underage girlfriend? That even though "consentual" is still classed as rape. He never said that date rape was OK or a lesser offence. Unless I've misread what he wrote - and I'm not sure I have.

[silverlining]

You seem to be suggesting that there is such a thing as 'non-violent rape'.

 

There is

[aws]

Nothing to see here.

 

Of course some rapes are worse than others, just as some assaults are worse than other and some thefts etc. To suggest every rape is equal is bonkers.

 

A guy goes to bed with his missus, she changes her mind at the last minute, he carries on regardless = a gang rape of some woman = some young girl being drugged and raped = an ex-husband beating the shit out of his ex ?

[dennis tooth]

This is about saving money more than any other issue. As per usual with the Tories, lets save some money from being diverted from rape cases so we can possess the ultimate deterrent, a nuclear warhead! After all, the warmongering resource hungry elites, bombing and drilling bankers need to be able to defend themselves from angry hoardes that were unaffected by pesticides and smog laced with propaganda.

[Section_31]

I quite like Clarke, he's a proper old boy establishment cigars and brandy, owner of an Indian houseboy Tory, what you see is what you get. He's like Stephen Fry if he'd been raised by Churchill.

[Tom R]

That scenario is technically several different crimes though, aws, isn't it? And you'd be prosecuted individually and accordingly for those crimes, surely?

 

Lets say you bundle some poor woman in to your car and then batter her, drug her and subject her to a long and violent episode of rape and abuse.

 

That's rape, of course.

But then you'd also be sentenced for Kidknapping, drugging someone (whatever the charge would be there - GBH? ABH? I dunno whatever....), Assault and battery and any other number of other offences that relate to that number of crimes you committed.

 

But on the subject and the sentencing of the rape element of the charges, it should be exactly that: A rape charge.

 

I personally don't see the difference, or any "degrees" to it. You either rape someone or you don't, and I'm almost certain that most victims of rape (whatever "degree" of rape that might be in the eyes of the law) would agree.

[The Flâneur]

It's Ken Clarke's fault for dressing so sexily.

[aws]

That scenario is technically several different crimes though, aws, isn't it? And you'd be prosecuted individually and accordingly for those crimes, surely?

 

Lets say you bundle some poor woman in to your car and then batter her, drug her and subject her to a long and violent episode of rape and abuse.

 

That's rape, of course.

But then you'd also be sentenced for Kidknapping, drugging someone (whatever the charge would be there - GBH? ABH? I dunno whatever....), Assault and battery and any other number of other offences that relate to that number of crimes you committed.

 

But on the subject and the sentencing of the rape element of the charges, it should be exactly that: A rape charge.

 

I personally don't see the difference, or any "degrees" to it. You either rape someone or you don't, and I'm almost certain that most victims of rape (whatever "degree" of rape that might be in the eyes of the law) would agree.

 

They're all rape and should all be charged as rape - agreed. But the sentencing for each of them should be different. Which is what ol' Hush Puppies was saying.

 

You really think that the guy in bed with his wife should get the same as the stranger in the bushes?

[Tom R]

They're all rape and should all be charged as rape - agreed. But the sentencing for each of them should be different. Which is what ol' Hush Puppies was saying.

 

You really think that the guy in bed with his wife should get the same as the stranger in the bushes?

 

Depends.

 

How long will I be getting?

[Hermes]

 

How long will I be getting?

 

If the rumours are right, less than 4 inches.

[Tom R]

If the rumours are right, less than 4 inches.

 

6/10

[Hermes]

6/10

 

Of an inch? even the rumours flatter you then.

[WaltonRed]

I'd string all rapists up regardless of how they carried it out

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

I don't agree with the discount. I don't agree with most things the Tory elite say.

 

However, I think what Kenneth Clarke send needs to be taken in context. He doesn't appear to be making any judgement as to the seriousness of the effect the rape has on the victim. He's looking at it from a purely legalistic point of view, for me. The bottom line is, legally, some rapes are more (or less) serious than others. The CPS/judges will highlight any "aggravating factors" to the offence. What is an "aggravating factor"? Something that makes something more serious than it would be without the existence of that factor.

 

Therefore, what Clarke said is technically right. What's happened is that Milliband has tried to exercise his political "muscle" in a haphazard manner, highlighting his naivety, by trying to jump on to a non-issue and make a mountain out of a mole hill.

[Stu Monty]

Bit of a shame really because Labour will pile into this, to get him sacked, and then we'll get some fucking lunatic in his place. But I suppose that's what they want, he's quite electable in the eyes of a lot of reasonable people, as opposed to whichever cunt they might put in his place.