Different levels of crime
So Ken Clarke made a boo boo the other day and got his words in a twist and didn’t say exactly what he meant to say about the crime of rape. This has led to everyone from the labour leadership to various campaign groups hanging on to the wrong words and implying that Ken Clarke said something very bad and that he is a dinosaur.
Whatever he said, there are different levels of rape. There is statutory rape (which I gather he wrongly labelled as date rape) which is between underage teenagers even if both parties are willing and consenting. Then there is the rape as normally thought of. Two different levels of rape.
Just like there are different levels of murder. There is manslaughter where a fight leads to the death of someone and then there is murder where someone pre-plans in cold blood the killing of another.
There are also different levels of theft. There is white collar crime where no violence is used and there is mugging and burglary from the home where violence is used.
Now you can see that there are different levels of all different types of crime.
We also have to take into account that sending someone to jail is for two different reasons. One is for punishment and the other to remove them from society so that they don’t carry on committing their crime. This is why some crimes have shorter sentences than others and others longer.
Someone who commits manslaughter is less likely to commit the crime again so they don’t need to be kept away from society for as long as a serial killer.
Someone who admits their crime and pleads guilty and helps the police will get a shorter punishment sentence than one who refuses to admit guilt and hinders the police.
So a teenager who has sex with another underage teenager commits an act of rape but should not get the same sentence as as someone who grabs a woman off the street and commits an horrific and terrifying act leaving her with permanent mental scars.
Note that I am talking about crimes having different levels of severity. The fact that the sentence for rape is low already and that the left and right are only arguing about 5 months is covered by Dizzy.
I am also not talking about the reason that the subject was raised which is to discuss whether someone admitting guilt makes it easier on the victim (shorter trial, less need to give witness, etc.) and therefore to try and encourage more criminals to do so they should be given shorter sentences.
Should each criminal committing a type of crime get the same sentence no matter to what extent the seriousness was? Or should they get a sentence commiserate with the seriousness of the crime.
SBML
-
May 19, 2011 at 15:10 -
“Someone who commits manslaughter is less likely to commit the crime again ….”
Well, actually, it should be ‘Someone who commits manslaughter may be less likely to commit the crime again…’
For instance, a regular brawler who gets in an unlucky punch one day may give up brawling as a result and…he may not.
-
May 19, 2011 at 15:13
-
-
May 19, 2011 at 15:15 -
“Someone who admits their crime and pleads guilty and helps the police will get a shorter punishment sentence than one who refuses to admit guilt and hinders the police.”
I’m as leery of this one as I am the ‘you don’t get parole until you admit guilt’ aspect for the convicted prisoner.
What if you didn’t do it?
-
May 19, 2011 at 15:38 -
What if you don’t know you did it?
-
May 19, 2011 at 18:08 -
That’s always been my problem with the concept of plea bargaining, it’s used as a threat by the prosecution and I suspect that in places where it’s used, innocent people have on occasion entered a guilty plea to avoid more serious consequences if they know their evidence is weak or that there’s been excessive media coverage of the case.
-
-
May 19, 2011 at 15:20 -
There are also different levels of political mischief-making. There is the type that uncovers genuine corruption or serious misdeeds by persons holding high office, and there is the rather manufactured sort involving lots of huffing, puffing and arm-waving when someone doesn’t speak quite as clearly as they meant to. The first is perfectly in order, the latter is a waste of everybody’s time.
-
May 19, 2011 at 15:36 -
It’s much the same with Theft.
There’s ‘ordinary’ theft where say £30k is stolen from an individual.
And, there’s politicians’ expenses theft where £30k is stolen by an MP from the general public.
-
May 19, 2011 at 15:39 -
I should have also added that the latter Thief may have been given the opportunity to repay, and so nullify the crime.
-
May 19, 2011 at 16:17 -
“I should have also added that the latter Thief may have been given the opportunity to repay, and so nullify the crime.”
And have praise heaped upon them – along with a good job in gummint as a ‘reward’.
-
May 19, 2011 at 20:38 -
And the Standards & Privledges committee harshly sentences you to having to say ‘soz’ and piss off for a week; oh, the horror! If we all had judges like that, we’d be laughing.
-
-
-
May 19, 2011 at 23:28 -
And there’s property is theft where you have a house, and it is taxed out of existence !
-
-
May 19, 2011 at 16:37 -
Simple solution???
Plead guilty get normal sentence but DOUBLE the sentence for those found guilty and put the poor lady (or man) though all the turmoil of the trial?
Then Ken might be on to a winner!!
-
May 19, 2011 at 18:21 -
Prove it then!!!!
-
May 19, 2011 at 20:37 -
With a slight change of wording but the same concept was being used by people on Radio all day. “Serious rapes and more serious rapes”. Both concepts call for a tiered sentencing policy where time served will vary.
I know a few girls who have suffered this crime. Decades pass but the emotional scars remain with them all. None contacted the police. They have commented previously about different types of attack severity. I am sure they understand what Ken Clark meant but failed to clearly state.
I know they would also have been sick listening to a bunch of media and political types saying RAPE a thousand times a day, talking about a subject so traumatic for political point scoring. They were not discussing how many years the perverts get and how disgustingly short the sentences for rape are.
nothing productive just empty opposition politics from Labour students in suits.
A serious discussion on this subject is needed. It says much that our society gives 14 years for money laundering and tax evasion but a few years for rape of children and women. I am often disgusted by our system
-
May 19, 2011 at 23:34 -
Yes.
-
-
May 19, 2011 at 22:30 -
What has happened to the Old Holborn site.It has disappeared.
-
May 20, 2011 at 05:55
-
-
May 19, 2011 at 23:51 -
Clarke didn’t actually say anything wrong. I can’t stand the guy so I’m glad anyway.
The issue here is that he’s made many bigger boo-boos than this but you just don’t fuck with the sisterhood.
-
May 20, 2011 at 00:28 -
Maybe for crimes like rape, theft etc there should be two separate crimes, one for the act plus a separate charge of using violence, intimidation or threats where they were used. The perpetrator could then be tried for both. That way a pickpocket or sneak thief or rapist would get tried for that crime exactly as they do now. Using violence as in deliberate rape attack or mugging would add a whole extra charge and sentence?
At least that would not create a reduction in sentence but an increase where violence was used. -
May 20, 2011 at 00:37 -
Dont forget making a penalty for alleging rape that didn’t happen.
What of the possibility that as morals fall away – say when compared with the 50s – so should there be a possible lower penalty for intermediate crimes. Back then a glimpse of stocking was something shocking. -
May 20, 2011 at 01:07 -
Clarke got his facts wrong (in addition to the ‘mis-speaking’). Consensual sex between two people aged 14-15 or one person aged 14-15 and a 16+ year old is unlawful sexual intercourse, not rape. (Any sex involving someone 13 or less would be rape.) I’m more concerned that he doesn’t know the nature of the offences which would be alleged for acts rather than that he is speaks so imprecisely. The old Grandees don’t enjoy being challenged by the hoi polloi, so why would he bother to be careful?
-
May 20, 2011 at 10:48 -
So a teenager who has sex with another underage teenager commits an act of rape
And that’s the problem isn’t it? Because it isn’t rape at all. It is the wrong word for it.
The correct word is something like “normal”, or a phrase like “shouldn’t be anything to do with the courts”. I have this crazy libertarian radical plan for a criminal justice system in which- get this nutty idea- things which are not crimes are not against the law.
I know. Barmy.
-
May 20, 2011 at 14:09 -
Ian B PT Barnum is correct. Search for the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents
Rape
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1
Sexual activity with a child (covers the under/over age bit)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/9
Personally I think Ken Clarke was ambushed, goes in to discuss plea bargaining and Justice and ends up with being accused of being soft on rapists.
I also fail to see how any proposed changes would affect the supposed “victim” on the telephone whose attacker had been given multiple community sentences before raping her. The attacker must have been judged by some court who felt that his guilt was in doubt (lots of times). Or perhaps the caller was a plant (sincere apologies if not).
Things need to be laid out in simple ways to get messages across.
Criminal gets caught for sexual activity with a child (max tariff 14 years)
Pleads Guilty when initially arraigned – max tariff 7 years
Pleads Not Guilty – further investigation and court proceedings including not doubt stressful time for victim and family.
Changes plea when eventually case comes to trial – max tariff 9 years 4 months.
Pleads Not Guilty but found Guilty after putting victim through cross examination – max tariff 14 years.
I would assume that within each frame that the judge can also use discretion depending on the case. For example the youngster Ian mentions could get a fine.
btw I could have been that youngster and last year we celebrated our silver wedding
-
May 20, 2011 at 20:21 -
There are surely different levels to any crime and that is why we have judges to carry out sentencing. Stealing sweeties from the corner shop is theft. Snatching an old lady’s purse just after she has drawn her pension is theft.
Unfortunately making decisions is frowned on nowadays and the Politically Correct Thought Police want statutory sentences for every crime. And their favourite word is fair? -
May 20, 2011 at 23:03 -
Anna is right – here’s the view of an outspoken rabbit
http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com/2011/05/ken-clarkes-mistake-was-not-being-brave.html
Some crimes classed as rapes are nothing of the sort and should be reclassified downwards…
-
May 21, 2011 at 09:33 -
I think some of the offences constructed by the Act as between young people should be abolished; at the same time, I think the crime of rape is properly described in almost all cases. I think Clarke and Rabbit (among others) are mistaken in understanding the example of the sixteen and fifteen year old as rape: section 74 of the Act means that children between the ages of thirteen an[md fifteen may [mainly] have the capacity to consent.
The CPS openly declares on its website that the sexual offences which should be used -or misused, depending on one’s point of view- for dealing with consensual acts are, in fact, used as fall back offences where it is difficult to establish proof of a more serious offence. This practice strikes me as wide open to abuse.
-
{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }