Ken Clarke’s comments this morning, and his follow-ups through the day, were catastrophic. He gave the impression that there are degrees of rape. There are not. Simply not. No-one should EVER be forced into having sex with someone they don’t want to. It is not acceptable for anyone but particularly a government minister – and, at that, the justice secretary – to send a message to society that rape is anything other than entirely, wholly wrong.
This – once again – highlights the need for better communications planning in the government. It is unthinkable that any representative should go out to sell a policy without a) understanding every bit of related law, and b) knowing WHY they were suggesting changes.
It also highlights the need for ministers to think about the full implications of what they say. Just in the last few weeks, we’ve had Andrew Lansley implying that it was our fault for not understanding his health reforms; we’ve had David Willetts giving the impression that rich students could buy their way into university, and now we’ve had Ken Clarke suggesting that there are degrees of rape.
Philip Hammond did some GREAT tidying up on WATO, outlining that the consultation which Ken Clarke was discussing was supposed to try to figure out ways to increase the conviction rate for rape – a laudable aim. I would be entirely prepared to look at evidence on whether or not the proposed further reduction in sentences for guilty pleas would increase that conviction rate. But I’m not prepared to countenance the idea that sometimes rape is not serious. It is.
As I said when Alan Johnson sacked David Nutt, I do want policy to be based on evidence, and when it’s not, I want politicians to be honest about being political. I think that Ken Clarke’s general justice proposals do in fact generally focus on evidence rather than knee-jerk bang ’em up ideology which is why I am doubly cross about this stupidity today.
Once Ken Clarke has provided evidence that increasing the time off for a guilty plea is going to increase conviction rates, I’m fully prepared to look at it. I’m doubtful that we should have any blanket reductions in sentences – I don’t see why, if someone is sentenced to an amount of time in jail, they shouldn’t serve it all. But I’m willing to have an open mind – if the evidence is there.
If it’s not, this was a spectacularly stupid thing to have started talking about on a day when there is good news on the Stephen Lawrence trial and good news on unemployment and private sector job creation.
New blogpost: What was Ken Clarke doing? http://bit.ly/kRl8yW #fb
“no-one should EVER be forced into having sex with someone they don’t want to” – erm, that’s basically the whole point of what Ken was saying: there are acts which are legally rape but do not consist of someone being forced into having sex with someone they don’t want to. Like consenting sex between a 17-year old boy and a 15-year old girl, or whatever he said.
Let’s leave the outraged knee-jerking to the left-wing, please.
Edward – that’s partly my point. He said an 18 year old and his 15 year old girlfriend. That’s not classed as rape, actually. If she’s under 13 it is.
Ministers need to know the relevant bits of law BACKWARDS before they start trying to change it. And they need to understand why they want to change it.
It’s not outraged knee-jerking. I do not think it is EVER acceptable for ANYONE to be forced into having sex with someone if they don’t want to.
Also, communications wise was it right to make this announcement today when he is going to be apperaing on Question time tomorrow inside A PRISON which will include inmates in the audience. I can just see the headlines now: “Clarke wins over convict audience” or “Justice Secretary canvasses for votes at Wormwood Scribs”.
BTW – I agree with him doing QT from within a prison but the commbonation of the images and policy reduction announcement don’t work well together.
Fiona Melville: What was Ken Clarke doing? http://is.gd/BL2UvY
I don’t think that anyone would disagree with this. But it does not follow that:
Its wrong to murder someone – but some murders are worse than others.
Of course there are different degrees of rape, the same as Murder, manslaughter, Causing death by dangerous driving, causing death by driving under the influence of drink or drugs. Date rape and the causing death by driving under the influence are the same level of crime, and the sentence for driving drunk is normally a lot less than murder.
Are you suggesting that the sentence for leaving someone alive should be more than leaving them dead ?
What an irratatingly knee-jerk reaction from Fiona. Of course there are degrees of rape – as there are of all the most serious crimes. There were degrees of human rights abuses amongst those standing trial at Nuremberg. Ken’s point was reasonable and Fiona is as vacuous as the media in ceasing on this to beat him up. Grow up.
There are NOT degrees of rape. Rape is rape. There are degrees of death ( murder/manslaughter etc etc ) but rape ( sex without consent) has no degrees.
And before someone says oh that’s a woman’s perspective, remember that MALE rape is quite common – and equally has no degrees. It’s rape
Fiona’s main point — that this Government needs to work on communication issues — is absolutely right.
Talking about degrees of rape, as many of the comments are, is misleading. Rape is rape, so there are no degrees of rape. However, there could be said to be degrees of the types of circumstances in which rape appears.
Clarke on Question time has largely recovered himself and more. His comments on Radio 5 were poorly expressed, but no-one could have misconstrued them as being disingenuous about rape. We shouldn’t fall too quickly into the Labour and far right trap of wanting to undermine one of the few liberal voices in Cabinet. And as I say – he sorted his own mess out pretty effectively on Question Time.
I think there are two issues political and legal. Clearly morally and politically rape is rape. Period. But in discussions with a lawyer this week it was pointed out to me that in the courts every day judges have to make decisions about the differing circumstances surrounding rape cases, which will affect sentencing etc. My lawyer friend said that Ken Clarke’s answer was one which many judges might have given. But politically it wasn’t a sensible answer to have given.