melthebell Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 ive said it numerous times on here and stand by it, its ridiculous, there seems to be some strange topsy turvyness where violent criminals are getting let off and people such as the graffiti artist that got 4 years??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 as a PS... I am galled also by his point about "A serious rape with violence and an unwilling woman" all persons, who have been raped are "unwilling":- rape, by definition is the forcing of sexual intercourse on someone who is not consenting. Y'see that is where you are wrong and that is precisely what Clarke's point was. He wasn't making a mealy mouthed politicians byline, he was speaking as a lawyer speaking about the real world of the law and the courts. You'll understand that when you listen to the original comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The PIT Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Rather than worrying about Clarke getting himself mixed up the real issue is the reduction in the sentence. In certain cases the creeps could be out in 15 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 The thing that I don't understand is why parts of the media seem to think that this new potential policy is only going to apply to rape. It's under consideration for all crimes. Which is stupid in the extreme. So a rapist says " I did it it's a fair cop" and assuming he was going to get 5 years in the first place,(which is a very bid assumption ) that's down to 2 1/2. Keeps his head down he's out in 18 months. And if this is across the board for all crimes I could stab someone to death and be out in less than 4 years if I cough for it at worse. Now Im not big on the death penalty but we should at least jail criminals for an extended period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Y'see that is where you are wrong and that is precisely what Clarke's point was. He wasn't making a mealy mouthed politicians byline, he was speaking as a lawyer speaking about the real world of the law and the courts. You'll understand that when you listen to the original comment. I think there is something to be said for debating the application of law and it's complexities rather than sentiment towards a specific criminal act regardless of that act. I don't think also there is any room for sentiment in law. As a politician with vast media background I think some of his comments were unwise due to ignoring the difference between legal mode and sentimental media mode. The jury is still out for me on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 He was certainly unwise to try to have a sensible and logical discussion on Radio 5 since they changed from a news station to one that batters the same point for the whole day without any thought for nuance, meaning or truth. Perhaps he'd have had a better response on Talk Sport? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 He made the mistake of assuming that the public are able to understand the concept of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 It seems a bit bizarre to be blaming people for misunderstanding him when he used the wrong words Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 It seems a bit bizarre to be blaming people for misunderstanding him when he used the wrong words You could read "archbold on criminal pleading evidence and practice" or failing that wiki it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shogun Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 What an idiot he is to speak about a subject like that in the the way he did,its a very touchy subject that can upset a lot of woman,and rape is rape and it can not be put any other way ,I think he has committed political suicide and he should go and take the rest of his rag tag and bob tail government with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.