Why Ken Clarke is an idiot.

As a politician it takes a special kind of stuidity to say out loud that some kinds of rape are less serious than others. Rape is extremley heinous crime and a word with some very serious connotations. Understandbly any attempt to trivialise any kind of rape, especially by a man, causes a wave of outrage and concern. For centuries rape of a married woman was viewed as a crime against a the husband as she was his property. Until the nineties marital rape was still not acknowledged legally as a crime. In the wider world and even here in the UK rape is often viewed as the womans fault. Rape has only a 6% conviction rate. For the victim Ken Clarke's comments seem to be saying there rape was not as serious, for the media and the public it is a highly sensational story in which the "baddie" is clearly evident.


Did Ken Clarke mean to trivialise rape? Did he mean to infer that having being forced to have sex is ever ok? No probably not. It has been inferred by Labour and some media outlets that Mr Clarke thinks date rape isn't a serious crime.


This is what he actually said: 


Mr Clarke's comments came as he was quizzed on BBC Radio 5 Live about why rape sentences were on average only five years.

"That includes date rape, 17-year-olds having intercourse with 15-year-olds," he said.

"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 if 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, they do vary extraordinarily one from another and in the end the judge has to decide on the circumstances."

[Courtesy of the Independant]


In essence Clarke was, rather foolishly, trying to distinguish between different kinds of rape. Is a 17 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year old the same as someone being a victim  of "forcible rape"? The answer is it doesn't matter. That 17 year old doesn't need to have sex with that 15 year old. If they know they shouldn't. If they don't they should have asked. The law isn't there to protect someones right to have sex with every drunk teenager they come across. It's there to protect people from the monsters that walk among us. Clarke may be well intentioned but rape has to stay a clear cut crime.