Pointless But It Does My Head In

[you]

sorry baboon - that's just me being a twerp.

Regarding rape - there has been a bucket load of Tory nonsense flying around about this, I find it an uncomfortable subject to dwell on but there have been a few thought provoking comments made.

Rape=Life, whilst morally right ( for me anyhow, I feel it's akin to murder ) can backfire in this ( scary ) world..... a particularly violent rape could become a murder, if the perpetrator knows he will get life anyway what's to stop him/her from 'dealing with' the risk of the victim reporting the crime - this is horrid but an interesting consequence to mull over nonetheless. - - -EDIT - - - Mmmmmm, are rapists this logical? Do people think about the potential consequences whilst committing crimes??? Mmmm, I dont know about this on second thoughts....

Also - as Clarke has gotten himself muddled and sullied over the 'degrees' of seriousness something hit me - Rape is Rape, it's a pretty straight forward act to define, quite narrow. The whole seriousness question of the recent dialogues is due to clouding, lumping together, of a series of criminal acts. If a rape is particularly violent, then that violence is also a crime and rape is a separate crime committed in conjunction. If some nutter breaks a door down in order to commit rape then the rape is no worse or better for some previous or juxtaposed act ( the criminal damage and breaking and entering of the door being kicked in) - it's still rape and it's still wrong. You don't get increased speeding fines if your tyres are illegal, no, you just get 2 charges, 1 for speeding and 1 for illegal tyres.

Also, a lot of people are referring to victims as she/her - and this has not been picked up by anyone, sadly it happens to blokes too.

This could probably do with it's own thread, is there a rolling politics thread?

Sorry if I'm miles off with anything I'm saying, I don't really have any experience of crime or anything - so feel free to enlighten me!

 

[Mr. Tea]

I've been thinking just lately, perhaps inspired by Clarke's blithering about "serious" (as opposed to "petty"?) rape etc., and come to the conclusion that both the law and its enforcement in this country are often unreasonably lenient towards criminals who target ordinary people and unreasonably draconian towards those who (supposedly) trespass against the state - and, increasingly, the state's corporate partners (eg. huge punitive fines for filer-sharers).

It's a shame, as a lot of people have pointed out Clarke was up to now the 'voice of reason' within the Tory party.

Edit: def agree with 'you', one rape can certainly be nastier than another but GBH, assault with a weapon, false imprisonment etc. are already crimes in their own right and should be counted separately from the rape charge itself.

 

[you]

one rape can certainly be nastier than another but GBH, assault with a weapon, false imprisonment etc. are already crimes in their own right and should be counted separately from the rape charge itself.

this is exactly the presupposition that is getting people confused - I think ( sorry Tea ), - surely all rape is the same.... the satellite crimes of GBH, torture or whatever are separate! The overall experience of the victim may have degrees of stress, degrees of seriousness dependent on the types of crimes ( and the severity ) committed in conjunction with rape, but at the end of the day non-consensual sex in isolation is always serious and not to be contemplated within a context of other crimes for charging or sentencing - these should be examined separately, and heaped on as additional charges?!?!?!

Do judges consider the overall context and alter odd sentences according to their context? Or do they just add up the laws broken???

 

[IdleRich]

Rape doesn't just include sex without consent though, it could be consensual sex between a seventeen year old and a fifteen year old and I think Clarke was right to say (as I believe he did) that that is different from rape that involves non-consensual sex. Not to defend or agree with any of the rest of what he said of course.

 

[you]

Idlerich - Mmmm, that'd throw my whole argument. I've just had a mooch around though and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_law

 

[baboon2004]

I hate passive-aggression, at least you know where you stand with straight-up aggressive-aggression. Does seem to be more of a female trait, in my experience. A bloke who's pissed off at you for some reason will generally not deny that he's pissed off or make you guess the reason...

definitely have to disagree with this, though I agree that proscribed gender roles in the Uk would lead to what you have said. Have met so many men who use p-a bullshit...obviously a lot just use straight aggression too though!

 

[IdleRich]

"Idlerich - Mmmm, that'd throw my whole argument. I've just had a mooch around though and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_law"

I guess you're talking about this bit

The offence is created by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
“ 1-(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.

My understanding is that someone having sex with someone under age is classed as rape because the minor is deemed unable to give consent - so the sex may be consensual in reality but non-consensual in the eyes of the law if that makes any sense.

 

[you]

Idlerich - yes, that does make sense, interesting. So underage consensual ( an oxymoron ?!? ) sex would be 'rape' because consent is not possible because consent is not lawful.....I would say two 15 year olds in a long term relationship technically, strictly, committing a 'rape' is not so bad, a different type of problem, because both are willing. I would say individual willing is more important than consent - unfortunately the latter is easy peasy to define and prosecute by, the former is open to interpretation, more so.

Interesting little moral grey spot here Idle - good call! Though I haven't seen anyone in the media use this example to defend Clarke.....

 

[mistersloane]

Interesting little moral grey spot here Idle - good call! Though I haven't seen anyone in the media use this example to defend Clarke.....

Clarke's just being used as a scapegoat cos the right wing of the right wing hate him. Milliband fell right into their hands.

Suzanne Moore really came into her own about Clarke, I was waiting to see what she had to say and she didn't disappoint, she's really finding her voice :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/21/political-impotence-rape-opportunistic-crime

Great headline.

 

[baboon2004]

Clarke's just being used as a scapegoat cos the right wing of the right wing hate him. Milliband fell right into their hands.

Suzanne Moore really came into her own about Clarke, I was waiting to see what she had to say and she didn't disappoint, she's really finding her voice :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/21/political-impotence-rape-opportunistic-crime

Great headline.

It's always good to see someone actually applying proper analysis to any such scandal and what's really going on...I guess my only addition to the whole thing would be to ask, what highly sensitive subject hasn't or wouldn't be cynically used for political capital in a similar way? If Ken Clarke had made a similarly offensive gaffe on any other subject, he'd have been crucified just the same. I barely trust any politicians' motives to be free of party political cycnicism (a la Miliband's call for Calrke's resignation as detailed in this article). Maybe the writer makes this very point and I scanned the article too quickly tho, perfectly possible.

Edit: spot on re hypocrisy re rape crisis centres - didn't the biggest one close in Glasgow as well as a result of the cuts, or am I misremembering?

What is the current conviction rate for rape anyways in the UK? I seem to recall it's still shockingly low...

On a personal note, an ex of mine was raped and had basically no legal recourse to do anything about it (wasn't in the UK), and, well, just the sense of powerlessness...I think Suzanne Moore is so right to foreground that, the display of power as the essence of rape.

 

[you]

I hated that article, just feels like filler. Especially "Look at the Sun coming on all caring for rape victims on its front page and its pair of pert breasts on the next" - 10 originality points to Moore please.....*sigh* ( Editor - "Moore, 23 words short, could you take another look at it?" )

I dont disagree with all of it, but most of what she is saying feels observational - "Every time a high-profile man is accused of rape or harassment or assault, not only is there usually a backlog of complaints, there is usually a protective entourage. Tyson, Clinton, Schwarzenegger, Berlusconi etc etc. Powerful men have powerful urges, you see."

"There is an argument that we should see rape as an extension of assault and not a specifically horrific crime. It is not the worst thing that can ever happen. A penis is simply a piece of flesh. That's all. But rape culturally is about power and humiliation and real, or threatened, violence." - cheers for taking something definable, something easily proved and legislated for and turning it into something grey and open to a myriad of different interpretations!

Regarding power - most things are about power though right? Mugging, abduction, GBH - all have emotional consequences of powerlessness?

Baboon - Political Point scoring, it's pretty vile, anythings up for grabs.

I feel bad criticising this stuff, because everybody has an opinion, and it's so hard to stay detached because it's such a vile subject to contemplate.....

I feel like this is going to be an unpopular post. ( but hey it's dissensus! )

 

[hucks]

What is the current conviction rate for rape anyways in the UK? I seem to recall it's still shockingly low...

The rate most people cite is 6%, which means that 6% of rapes reported to the police result in conviction. In the Stern report, which is referred to in the article and is v good, she makes the point that other crimes are not discussed in that way. The conviction rate is normally the proportion of cases brought to trial that result in a conviction.

On that measure, the conviction rate for rape is comparable to eg Gbh. What's odd is that there appears to be no data,
according to Stern, on what proportion of other crimes reported to the police result in a conviction. Only rape.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Rape doesn't just include sex without consent though, it could be consensual sex between a seventeen year old and a fifteen year old and I think Clarke was right to say (as I believe he did) that that is different from rape that involves non-consensual sex. Not to defend or agree with any of the rest of what he said of course.

But seriously, when was the last time a case like this even came to court though? Everyone knows girls mature a few years ahead of boys at that age anyway.

 

[IdleRich]

"Idlerich - yes, that does make sense, interesting. So underage consensual ( an oxymoron ?!? ) sex would be 'rape' because consent is not possible because consent is not lawful.....I would say two 15 year olds in a long term relationship technically, strictly, committing a 'rape' is not so bad, a different type of problem, because both are willing. I would say individual willing is more important than consent - unfortunately the latter is easy peasy to define and prosecute by, the former is open to interpretation, more so."

Well, I think it's only rape if one is over the age of consent and one isn't. Not sure what the status is if they're both younger than sixteen.

 

[vimothy]

Clarke's just being used as a scapegoat cos the right wing of the right wing hate him. Milliband fell right into their hands.

True.

If you read the transcript (here), it's clear that Clarke was saying something reasonable--if arguable and clumsily phrased. Sami Chakrabarti made basically the same point on QT the next day to no controversy whatsoever. Obviously there are different levels of "seriousness" (note that UK sentencing guidelines talk about the "seriousness" of sexual offences)--a 15 year old having sex with an 18 year old is different to someone taking their stepdaughter round to a relative's house so that they can rape an abuse them over number of days.

Consequently, judges have some degree of discretion, and the law allows for "aggravating factors".

That was the substantive issue. Most of the actual argument revolved around Derbyshire's claim that rapists receive five years on average.

Also, on the conviction stats, this post at the anonymous "Inspector Gadget" blog, was intersting (now down?):

As a serving policeman, there are several things I am not allowed to talk about.

There are plenty of operational secrets we cannot discuss, but I’m not referring to those. I’m talking about the taboo subjects. The ‘detection’ rate for rape is one of these.

It’s very frustrating to sit and listen to pundits talking about the low number of rape convictions in Court, when as police officers we all know what lies behind these poor numbers.

For example, I couldn’t possibly tell you that out of every ten rapes which are reported in Ruraltown, at least eight turn out to be nonsense. To be fair, eight out of ten of everything reported at Ruraltown police station is nonsense, why should rape be any different?

I couldn’t tell you that of the remaining two, an existing alcohol-fuelled chaotic drug-based relationship is a factor in at least one of these, and ‘consent’ is probably present in the other to some degree. In my whole service I can only recall three stranger rapes and a half a dozen where consent was withdrawn at the time and he carried on. But I can’t tell you that.

I can’t tell you that most of the adult rapes reported in Ruraltown represent either the latest in a series of allegations designed to score points against an ‘ex, lies designed to fend off an angry parent when a curfew has been missed or a defence mechanism when a jilted ‘partner’ discovers an infidelity.

A rape once reported, even if withdrawn later, is in the system and a failure to bring someone to justice, even if it never happened, shows up in the ‘detection’ rate. The ‘detection rate’ is low because the number of rapes which actually happen is low. I couldn’t possibly say that though...

The facts about rape seen from the street are this: most genuine rapes are against children under 13 years old and are within the family or family circle. Genuine adult rape is rare and nearly always charged to Court; what a jury do next is for them, but it usually comes down to ‘consent’ issues, and being as they were not in the bedroom at the time, and we are not simply proving intercourse because that is already admitted by the defendant, it’s not really within our gift to prove or disprove consent. Consent can amount to one word, said in a half whisper six months before in a darkened room where no one else was present.

But we can’t possibly say any of this. We will simply accept that it’s all our fault and promise to do better in the future.

 

[Slothrop]

Back on topic, people who always give poor excuses for not going out. I mean, I know a few people who are hard to get to see because they're playing in an international badminton tournament on saturday, reading from their new poetry collection at the Barbican on sunday, playing banjo in the pit band for an avante-garde musical monday through wednesday and then flying out to Nepal to attempt to climb an unclimbed peak in the Himalayas on thursday, but I know a shitload more who are almost impossible to get out of the house for a quiet pint and a chat and inevitably give a series of implausibly shit excuses about having work the next day, having to do some washing, being a bit tired etc etc etc and generally displaying a lack of get up and go that would be cause for concern if you heard it from your 90 year old grannie let alone a twentysomething with no kids.

Or maybe they're just off at some party that's too cool for me to even be allowed to know about...

 

[Slothrop]

Also flakey people who say they're up for stuff but then have a 75% probability of pulling out at two hours notice.

 

[Sectionfive]

^
You usually end up with the same 5 people at everything.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Also flakey people who say they're up for stuff but then have a 75% probability of pulling out at two hours notice.

Yes, these are definitely worse than people who don't even say they're going to come in the first place.

 

[Slothrop]

You'd think after about the fifteenth time they sent you a text saying "sry mate, had a nightmare day at work and prolly not going to make it tonight" or "shit, just realized I have to be at my sister's dog's bar mitzvah this eve, so not going to be able to make it" or "was going to head over to yours after watching the entire Ring Cycle but it went on for ages" or "got an itchy ear, not sure I'm going to be able to come out" or something they'd think 'hey, I seem to be unbelievably flakey, maybe I should check my calendar more carefully and/or man the fuck up a bit", but they never do...