ronthenekred Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 It's so hard to know what the correct answer is, because if we categorise rape into different degrees of badness, then someone who has been invited into a woman's home, into her bed, could think, well, I'm only a Cat 1 rape (now she's said no), that's not as bad as a Cat 5 rape (dragging a woman off the streets and torturing her too). Which means that some 'rapes' aren't as bad as others. Are we now going to say that some women were 'asking for it'? I'm not sure anyone has categorised it as 'not as "bad". You seem to have made that definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 You are clearly wrong. A girl aged 15 years 364 days has willing sex with her 16 year old boyfriend is totally in a different leauge to a man dragging a girl into some dark corner and having unwilling forceful sex with her. And while both cases would be classed as rape because the law says she is a day too young to consent. She the 15 year old clearly wasn't unwilling. I don't think that example you give of an 'under 16 but over 13' girl having consensual sex with a boy of up to age 17 is rape. Ken got it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I have found the Law Commission report, "Consent in Sex Offences". Only 84 pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHsheff Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I'm not sure anyone has categorised it as 'not as "bad". You seem to have made that definition. My understanding from the R4 report. "In a radio phone-in, the Justice Secretary repeatedly insisted that some rapes were not as “serious” as others. He indicated that not all involved an “unwilling woman” and when challenged over whether “rape is rape”, he replied: “No, it is not.” " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8522490/Kenneth-Clarke-forced-to-apologise-for-claiming-that-some-rapes-are-more-serious-than-others.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 My understanding from the R4 report. "In a radio phone-in, the Justice Secretary repeatedly insisted that some rapes were not as “serious” as others. He indicated that not all involved an “unwilling woman” and when challenged over whether “rape is rape”, he replied: “No, it is not.” " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8522490/Kenneth-Clarke-forced-to-apologise-for-claiming-that-some-rapes-are-more-serious-than-others.html Sorry, misunderstanding, but that's what happens when the right words are not used to construct a sentence. Bad implies good as an opposite, I don't think anyone would argue against rape being "bad", and I don't think anyone has said rape is not bad. The question is the complexity of present law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 My understanding from the R4 report. "In a radio phone-in, the Justice Secretary repeatedly insisted that some rapes were not as “serious” as others. He indicated that not all involved an “unwilling woman” and when challenged over whether “rape is rape”, he replied: “No, it is not.” " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8522490/Kenneth-Clarke-forced-to-apologise-for-claiming-that-some-rapes-are-more-serious-than-others.html ...and he is right. Some crimes that are classed as rape are more serious than others that are classed as rape. Am I missing something here or do people really not see a difference between "statutory" rape (a 17 year old having consensual sex with a willing 15 year old) and forcibly violating someone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 When Cameron was questioned by the opposite bench his reply was "The important thing is we should be catching and locking away rapists". In my opinion he should have replied ' I reserve judgement until I've read the transcript', because we all know rapists should be caught and locked up, we didn't need to be told that, as he wasn't asked that. I'm A political so quite enjoying watching themselves whipping each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 anyone else embarrassed at the bbc news even reporting on this? He quite clearly said that "rape" where the rape includes a consenting 15 year old is different to forced sex and the bbc correspondent is asking whether he might be sacked-what? tv licence runs out on the 31st, I can stop being angry then!! good old ed agrees:hihi: Sensationalism and scare mongering sells papers. We need more balanced reporting. Why has Libya not been more fully reported on lately ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Derbyshire: Rape is rape, with respect. Clarke: No it's not ------------------- Derbyshire: So date rape is not as serious? Clarke: Date rape CAN be as serious ... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1388096/Ken-Clarke-forced-apologise-date-rape-comment.html Oh dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthebean Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 It's so hard to know what the correct answer is, because if we categorise rape into different degrees of badness, then someone who has been invited into a woman's home, into her bed, could think, well, I'm only a Cat 1 rape (now she's said no), that's not as bad as a Cat 5 rape (dragging a woman off the streets and torturing her too). Which means that some 'rapes' aren't as bad as others. Are we now going to say that some women were 'asking for it'? Edit: I think there should be different categories. I was recently burgled. The burglar/s were clean and tidy, didn't hurt our dog, made no mess (apart from the broken window), and only took the (few) valuables. Personally, there is a big difference between 'our' burglars and the ones who trash your home, kill your dog, tie you up and threaten you. It's a bit like the rationale for having armed police - if they're armed, then the criminals will be too. If the police aren't armed, then the criminals tend not to be. In the UK, we tend to prefer our police to be not armed, then the rest of us aren't either, and our petty criminals aren't. If all 'rapists' are tarred with the same brush, then there's no incentive for someone who knows they have crossed the line to leave their 'victim' alive and well. Well, technically if you kill your rape victim then you are a murderer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.