 |
| Malbon |
on Thu 19 May 11, 12:35 AM to Malbon's blog.
Poor old Ken Clarke. Not very PC, is he?
Woman A is violently assaulted, dragged into the bushes, raped, beaten, and left for dead.
Woman B goes to a man's place of her own free will, things go too far, he won't stop when she says no, also rape.
The fact that case A is more serious than case B seems self-evident to me, and to suggest so does not for a moment diminish the general seriousness of rape as an offence. In the same fashion other cases of other crimes are more or less serious instances of the offence, although the principle that they are crimes remains the same.
According to the Guardian (bless), now all defendants should be automatically considered guilty.
"the plan to encourage all defendants to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity"
The government proposes to increase the rape conviction rate by effectively bribing the accused to confess with the promise of a reduced sentence, already in place at 33% but to be increased to 50%.
The cynicism of the government, in attempting to mollify pressure groups who are enraged by low conviction rates, is matched only by that of the media, and their opponents in rushing to exploit it.
| 19 May 11, 1:38 AM Der_Morgenstern UK(LA), 7 yrs |
The often quoted conviction rate for rape is 6%. Unlike all other crimes this statistic is based on reported crimes that lead to a conviction. For all other crimes, the conviction rate is based on those cases which make it to court and which lead to a conviction. If rape cases were treated in the same way as other crimes, and the conviction rate was measured by the number of convictions in cases that go to court, the statistic would be that the conviction rate is about 58% For more information go to http://www.equalities.gov.uk/pdf/Stern_Review_of... Go to the executive summary, pages 9 and 10 and the section titled "The conviction rate has taken over the debate" "We're all living in a freakshow Man, it's called life. Buy a ticket and enjoy the ride." Foamy The Squirrel | |
| 19 May 11, 8:18 AM snarkysub UK(E), 7 yrs |
Hm... perhaps too polite a view of what a 'friend rape' might be like. I fear this doesn't hold up for other crimes and so you may wish to reconsider. A person who snatches a child off the street for vile purposes versus the uncle who is loving and caring yet abuses the child for years. Would you suggest that the snatcher is somehow worse? Just a thought. Another thought is that the most obvious solution is apparently the "New York Prosecution" solution which has rape as one charge, then battery, grievous bodily harm, attempted murder, etc etc as subsequent charges. That way 'rape' is not in question, and the severity of the crime is judged accordingly. What people usually mean in this powder-keg discussion is that some crimes are more severe than others. Without making assumptions about whether or not the more severe crime comes from someone you know (which is clearly folly), you may wish instead argue that yes there should be better ways of judging the severity of a crime. Then who could argue with that? (edited for various things, twice) ...everything worth knowing leaves bruises... Edited 19 May 11, 9:09 AM by snarkysub | |
| 19 May 11, 10:13 AM Incandescence UK, 3 yrs |
I've just read some of the transcript linked in a thread in the politics group and some of what he's said (as far as what I've read) regarding the scale/severity of rape cases is a complete no brainer.
He certainly doesn't seem to be winning friends and influencing people I think, therefor I fuck up!! | |
| 19 May 11, 10:31 AM SirOpenSource UK(E), 6 yrs     |
I think it is fair to say that having a previous legal professional background Mr Clarke views the intimate details of a crime in what may appear to be a somewhat hard-nosed approach. Everyone has jumped on him in criticism but I think he should be thanked for bringing this contentious issue to the forefront of debate as it is a crime our legal system handles so badly. SOS The Titter group - for when you don't feel too serious. | |
| 19 May 11, 11:43 AM PlayerOfGames UK(E), 5 yrs |
Roughly my view too. | |
| 19 May 11, 11:59 AM Malbon UK(LS), 8 yrs |
Perhaps one of the problems here is the perspective. When the word serious is employed it has a different meaning depending on whether we are thinking in terms of the perspective of the victim, or the perspective of the law. A rape which might appear to the law to be "less serious", eg less violent, may still be shattering to the victim's wellbeing, and may affect them adversely for the rest of their life. 'Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?' - Harry M. Warner, 1927 | |
| 19 May 11, 6:14 PM caprycorn 8 yrs |
Scenario A - stranger rape, I guess? - is also a composite of other crimes. GBH / attempted murder depending on circs. Scenario B may or may not involve assault / battery / ABH or GBH as well as rape. Both women were raped though. That fact doesn't change. So what is more serious? The surrounding circumstances appear to be more violent in Scenario A, making it a compositely more serious crime in total when or if prosecuted. But the fact remains that both women were raped and therefore to say that the rape itself is more - or less - serious depending on circumstances doesn't necessarily run for me. Semantics maybe. But as Mr Clarke is both legally experienced and Justice Secretary, he should perhaps have been more careful with his choice of words. I sat on a few rape trials. All but one were acquitted. The most memorable summary was from a barrister who said to the defendant's solicitor that the defendant was an idiot so it was just as well they could prove that the victim was a slapper, to get him off. Such a joy at times, our justice system.
My imaginary friend thinks that you have a problem | |
| 20 May 11, 6:39 PM rose_in_chains UK(W), 4 yrs |
Yes. The Stern Report calls the difference between convictions and reported rapes, the 'attrition rate' - 58% of those prosecuted do end in conviction. But if you take the figures also in the Stern Report, that only 11% of rapes are even reported, that is actually a 2% conviction rate of rapists. Debating rape sentences is one thing. What is needed is more prosecutions, less 'attrition'. Still not quite myself but time to be me again... | |
| 20 May 11, 6:42 PM rose_in_chains UK(W), 4 yrs |
Agree. I understand the argument that there are 'aggravated' rapes and rape happens in different circumstances. But it's not an argument that I agree with. Rape is rape is rape. Rape is already the most violent form of violence there is, short of murder. Rape is violence inside the body; because the body might not bruise on the outside does not negate the violence. Rape by a known person can be a bigger thing than a stranger - you might not see the stranger again. Debate that tries to focus on 'incidents' and categorise the 'seriousness' of said incidents is never going to cut the surface of what needs to be discussed and will instead be spun into a dead end of hot air. But I know most people don't get my point. Most people will think violence makes its worse. Actually, violence makes it more explainable - and more acceptable - to others. Still not quite myself but time to be me again... Edited 20 May 11, 6:45 PM by rose_in_chains | |
| 20 May 11, 6:43 PM rose_in_chains UK(W), 4 yrs |
Absolutely. Rape isn't an 'incident', it's an ongoing experience. Apologies for using your weblog to get on my soapbox. Still not quite myself but time to be me again... |
