Re: The vent thread

[Quin]

Ugh Ajax

[Jayse]

I've been overtraining...

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH FFS!!!!!!! -_-

Changing my routine now.. fucksakes!

[Shaelyssa]

!?!?!

What happened?!?

[Jayse]

Just been doing too much.. not allowing enough rest time. Antiproductive.. but all good now.

[Grufftoof]

Because rape can sometimes not be "that serious"

Yes, it makes my skin crawl that some dinosaur twat like Clarke can come out with such amazingly short sighted tosh and drivel that "date rape" isn't as "bad" as "serious rape". WHAT THE FUCK?!

I was always led to believe, well, that rape is rape?! Or am I mistaken in thinking that? And actually forcing someone to have sex with you against their will isn't that bad if maybe you bought them a drink or a meal first?!

CUNT... grr.

[Ave/Sariella]

..What the.. fuck >->

[Geneviève]

That is not what he said AT ALL.

I'm not defending him out of any sort of loyalty. But rather out of disgust for those who've pounced on quotes taken completely out of context with no understanding about what was said. What the poor man said was that serius rape should be sentenced much more harshyl than statutory rape, that is consensual sex between two underage teens. If you can't see the sense in that you really need your moral compass checked. He goes on to say that whilst the average rape conviction is five years that statistic is skewed because of leniant sentencing in such cases of consensual but still illegal sex.

Bloody hell!


Edit:

Marvellous, the article even puts his comments in context and they're misconstrued.

"and in the end the judge has to decide on the circumstances.""

That is what is being proposed, that is how the legal definition of rape can vary in severity. Because remarkably when someone says rape in a court they do not mean what people often believe they mean. The term covers a huge range of crimes.


A mature paper's coverage of the story with enough context to qualify as professional journalism:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8520940/Kenneth-Clarke-questions-whether-date-rape-is-really-rape.html

[Valerias]

I read the article. Exactly what Gen said.

[Grufftoof]

Actually, he did say date rape was not serious:

"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."

He made the definite distinction between the two, sorry. And that's fucking stupid. This is the justice secretary. He should not do or say such a thing, if he doesn't understand the difference between statutory rape and "non-consensual rape" then that's just as absurd.

I am not naive enough to think that statutory rape is "the same". Rape is a subjective and wholly 'dangerous' topic to discuss on any forum. But the words of Ken are disgusting and stupid. Nor did I base this post, or the venomous ire that raised within me, on one simple article on the Guardian.

And, yes, five years for rape is ridiculous anyway. When you see it as the base statistic. That it is "skewed" because of statutory rape sentencing may be fact, I haven't access to the case numbers of info from the CPS.

[Geneviève]

Stop reading the Guardian is the moral of this story. That's paraphrased, removing qualifying statements that show what he actually means.


Since the Guardian and it's readers are unable to do the nessecary leg work to report on a story I'll quote him for you.


“If an 18-year-old has sex with a 15-year-old and she is perfectly willing that is rape, because she is under age, she can’t consent, anybody who has sex with a 15 year old it’s rape.

“But what you and I are talking about is a man forcefully having sex with a woman and she doesn’t want to, that is rape, a serious crime, of course it’s a serious crime.”


So, are you suggesting that an 18 year old and a 15 year old having consensual sex is as bad as pre-planned, violent rape on a woman? If you're not then you and he are in agreement.

[Amaryl]

Well... reading the article... he doesn't equate "date rape" with "Statutory rape". i get the impression that both date rape and statutory rape are "less serious forms of rape" then forms where "violence and an unwilling woman" is involved.

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."

I guess being unable to say no, because you're drugged can make it less serious...

and a weird question: there's a "Tea-party" and "Tea-party nutters" in england? :O

[Geneviève]

I certainly hope not, Amaryl. But it's a well known phrase that gets the message across, especially in my circles.

[Grufftoof]

Actually, Gene, if "Rape" is used in court it comes under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which states:

Rape

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if —

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

Not sure that's a "huge range" of crime. But maybe that's my simplistic view of that.

Making a two tier system for severity of rape based on that which is statutory and that which is non-consensual (in ANY form) is something that was proposed by previous governments. And, no, perhaps would be no bad thing.

But Clarke suggested date rape to be a "lesser crime", a less "serious" offence. That disgusts me. And this is my view to vent, no less.


EDIT: Whilst there isn't a "Tea Party" proper in the UK (there isn't really "one such entity" in the US either, it's a "movement") there was an attempt to start one some time last year on the coat tails of the American idea.

EDIT 2: Tea Party Article (Telegraph)

[Valerias]

"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."

I guess being unable to say no, because you're drugged can make it less serious...

I think the difference is that "date rape" is hard to define. If a man is actually and intentionally drugging a woman in order to get unconsensual sex, that's the obvious and serious form (and most thought of) definition. But sleeping with a woman who's just really drunk can also be termed date rape, if she says later she wouldn't have consented if she had been sober, and then the situation gets messy. It could have been rape, it could have been a mistake (albeit a 'mistake' made by a jerk sort of person), and that's where "date rape" can depend on the circumstances.

[Geneviève]

Except that if you look past the opening definition and...you know, put it in context you get this:

I apologise, it won't let me copy paste the sub sections rape is then broken up in to. If I find a work around I'll update this. Needless to say, its a huge range.

What I have said, and what I believe he said before his comments were butchered by the media's spin doctors is that not all rape is of the same severity. He never questioned whether or not it was rape, but how severe it was. Severe being a relative term.

[Amaryl]

"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."

I guess being unable to say no, because you're drugged can make it less serious...

I think the difference is that "date rape" is hard to define. If a man is actually and intentionally drugging a woman in order to get unconsensual sex, that's the obvious and serious form (and most thought of) definition. But sleeping with a woman who's just really drunk can also be termed date rape, if she says later she wouldn't have consented if she had been sober, and then the situation gets messy. It could have been rape, it could have been a mistake (albeit a 'mistake' made by a jerk sort of person), and that's where "date rape" can depend on the circumstances.

How can that be messy? either its consensual or it isn't. Either it is Rape or it isn't Rape.
the statement proposed here is that some forms of date-rape should be punished less severly then others.

the court of law is there to find if a crime has indeed been commited and the person charged is guilty of said crime. either the guy raped a drunk girl. or the guy had sex with a consensual girl, that had remorse the day after when she was sober.

you should not base the severity of the punishment based on the possibility that it wasn't actually rape. then you should simply acquit.

Edit: so what I see here is a secretary of Justice, wanting to solve difficult court cases or "messy" as he called them, by offering a plea-bargains for less prison-time, because the purpetrayor might not actually have committed rape.

[Geneviève]

Right. This is the example he gives, further clarified because people are throwing around terms with variable definitions.


Scene 1: An eighteen year old has sex with her fifteen year old boyfriend. She doesn't regret it, he certainly doesn't regret it but unfortunately for them the police find out who are then obliged to press charges. This is rape because he is legally unable to give consent. Fair enough, such laws exist to protect children which is excellent.

Scene 2: A man selects his target and over a period of some weeks familiarises himself with the target's rutuine. One night he violently attacks and rapes her.


What the victimised professional was suggesting is that the law should allow for judges to hand out sentences suitable to the crime that was actually committed. Not that rape is not a serious crime. Not that date rape is not a serius crime ultimately, but that relative to even more extreme forms of rape it shouldn't be sentenced the same.

This is what oversimplification of a story leads to. Witch Hunts, almost always led by members of the party currently in opposition. Frankly they're all as bad as each other. Except perhaps the Lib Dems who have sold out the people they represent for power, and the minority parties who at least have the moral courage to stick to their policies regardless of the political cost.

[Grufftoof]

RE: Amaryl's edit:

In which case that person shouldn't be on trial for rape at all. He should be acquitted, as there is under British Law (whether it's rape, murder or theft) the need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed, and that the accused is guilty.

RE: "severity" of rape. It's rape. It's pretty fucking severe if it's done after a meal and a drink and a rhohypnol or after being held down with a knife.

It's also probably worth pointing out that most rapes (not just the statutory ones) are committed by people known to the victim. This flies in the face of the knife wielding terrorist attacking random women and subjecting them to "bad" rape. It's obviously a terrible thing to be held at knife point and have anything done to you, let alone be raped. But how is that any worse than being raped by a family friend who plies you drink, slips a few pills your way, or just tells you "it's ok, you want it really too"...?

[Grufftoof]

Thanks for the examples, and the clarity you want to show. But sorry...

... Not that date rape is not a serius crime ultimately, but that relative to even more extreme forms of rape it shouldn't be sentenced the same...

Yes it should. It's rape.

The difference if he wishes to make one between statutory rape (your first example) and "other rape" (your second example) is entirely different to date rape and "other rape". Date rape is rape. Full stop. No difference.

If I rape you but do it on a bed of flowers and cotton candy, it's no different to raping you in a cold car park after hitting you with a hammer. (Yes, there is the legal side of me also attacking you violently, that's a crime too. But rape is rape. We are talking about the raping, not the hitting).

Whilst there's undoubtedly use in this as a "witch hunt" for some people, it isn't for me. I hold no power, no authority to act on or against Ken. In fact, if you want to know, on some issues in the past I actually admired Ken (his relatively strong pro-EU views, his moderate views on a number of things).

But here, he's a twat.

[Geneviève]

Nobody is suggesting that any type of rape is not severe, or mild, or any other relative term used. But that there is a range of severities within that 'bracket'. Of the two example you've provided I believe each is equally severe and should be punished equally. But of the examples I provided I think one deserves a slap on the wrist, the other a long term jail sentence.


However, I don't think it's possible to legislate for every circumstance which is why Judges should be allowed to apply their professional judgement to the suitable punishment. Which, after all, is what he actually said.

[Geneviève]

I'm actually more confused now than when I started. He says date rape but then provides examples that, to my knowledge have nothing to do with date rape.

Is date rape a legal term? Or is he incorrectly using what I think is a slang term?

Drugging somebody before raping them is rape, no question about it. But on the basis of the examples he provided I agree with him. Which is why I've been bashing on about context all this time.

[Ave/Sariella]

To me, rape is rape no matter the case, either the person says no or yes and when it comes to women (or men) being too drunk, well then the other shouldnt be punished because its the persons own fault for drinking thier tits off and should just live with the regret.

[Grufftoof]

I don't believe there is any legal term of "date rape". It's certainly not a "crime" (under the above mentioned Act). The crime is rape. The phrase "date rape" might have been used in some court proceedings at some time, maybe a summation by a judge, but I think it's more a media/slang term.

[Geneviève]

In his example...What if a person was in a long term non sexual (but romantic) relationship with another person and then one night perfectly sober decided they were ready and explicitly said yes but were deemed too young by the law to make that decision...Should that be punished as severely as say, rape of a minor? Drugging someone in a bar then raping them? Rereading my posts I'm terribly incoherent and I apologise in retrospect for that. But I'm far too tired and jet lagged to do anything about it right now.


Edit:

Thanks. That's sort of my point. I think, based upon the examples he went on to provide, he incorrectly used the phrase date rape.

[Ave/Sariella]

Thats not rape and shouldnt be punished at all to be fair, neither should an 18 year old for having sex with a minor, as long as the minor agrees with it.

[Sponsored content]