Ken Clarke and why I'm upset at almost everyone in the media today.
Minitrue has essentially said most things I want to say. Especially the part:
"...although a 15 year old cannot consent to sexual intercourse in law, in practice courts have due regard that they may easily be capable of giving consent if their capacity to do so is evaluated in other objective terms, such as the Gillick test of competency. For that reason, if a charge is preferred at all in such a case, it will one of unlawful sexual intercourse not rape. Only if an individual is under the age of 13 does the law regard them as being incapable of consenting to sexual activity is any sense"
I'm a little concerned the Justice Minister apparently doesn't know this, but there you go. He was also wrong in saying stranger rape is "worse" than rape by a familiar person - if anything people tend to find that more traumatic because of the breach of trust and possibly the lack of a place to escape to once it's over (I had a reference for this, but I've lost it - I'll stick it back in if I find it again).
Regarding the length of rape sentencing - it is all based on whether rapists will re-offend or not. It does carry a maximum sentence of life, after all. Plus the five year 'fact' is wrong - there's an average of eight years (with most ranging between 5 and 10 years), and this doesn't take into account those with life sentences. And that's where the fifteen months figure comes from. And this is before the green paper is even through - we don't know if recommended sentences might be raised in general before the half-off deal is offered.
But my point was, before I got distracted, the sentence length (and any form of treatment given in prison etc) should be based on data on offences and re-offending rates, not because people want to see all rapists whacked over the head with something heavy. If this means a minimum sentence of ten years in prison, so be it. If this means a sentence of fifteen months of intensive cognitive behavioural therapy, so be it. (I can't see that last one being put into practice or indeed working too well as a deterrent - but my point still stands).
Sorry if I'm sounding overly annoyed, but I'm a) annoyed that the damn Justice Secretary is getting everything wrong and saying stupid hurtful things and b) annoyed that the media is getting everything wrong and participating in the erasure of male and trans* victims of various other genders.
(Btw, the first thing I'd change about the law around rape is that only a man can commit it. For anyone else sexual assault has to do. This is bad.)
"...although a 15 year old cannot consent to sexual intercourse in law, in practice courts have due regard that they may easily be capable of giving consent if their capacity to do so is evaluated in other objective terms, such as the Gillick test of competency. For that reason, if a charge is preferred at all in such a case, it will one of unlawful sexual intercourse not rape. Only if an individual is under the age of 13 does the law regard them as being incapable of consenting to sexual activity is any sense"
I'm a little concerned the Justice Minister apparently doesn't know this, but there you go. He was also wrong in saying stranger rape is "worse" than rape by a familiar person - if anything people tend to find that more traumatic because of the breach of trust and possibly the lack of a place to escape to once it's over (I had a reference for this, but I've lost it - I'll stick it back in if I find it again).
Regarding the length of rape sentencing - it is all based on whether rapists will re-offend or not. It does carry a maximum sentence of life, after all. Plus the five year 'fact' is wrong - there's an average of eight years (with most ranging between 5 and 10 years), and this doesn't take into account those with life sentences. And that's where the fifteen months figure comes from. And this is before the green paper is even through - we don't know if recommended sentences might be raised in general before the half-off deal is offered.
But my point was, before I got distracted, the sentence length (and any form of treatment given in prison etc) should be based on data on offences and re-offending rates, not because people want to see all rapists whacked over the head with something heavy. If this means a minimum sentence of ten years in prison, so be it. If this means a sentence of fifteen months of intensive cognitive behavioural therapy, so be it. (I can't see that last one being put into practice or indeed working too well as a deterrent - but my point still stands).
Sorry if I'm sounding overly annoyed, but I'm a) annoyed that the damn Justice Secretary is getting everything wrong and saying stupid hurtful things and b) annoyed that the media is getting everything wrong and participating in the erasure of male and trans* victims of various other genders.
(Btw, the first thing I'd change about the law around rape is that only a man can commit it. For anyone else sexual assault has to do. This is bad.)