Justice Secretary Ken Clarke today rejected calls for his resignation amidst controversy surrounding comments pertaining the seriousness of rape, insisting that he was merely describing a ‘longstanding factual situation’. However, while he pledged to consider his words more carefully in future, Clarke refrained from issuing a public apology, insisting that his comments are being removed from their intended context and that, in his view, ‘all rape is serious’. He did, however, write a letter of apology to Gabrielle Brown, who had challenged the Justice Secretary during a radio phone-in.
During an interview on BBC Radio 5 Live, Clarke contested reports that the average sentence for rape was a mere five years, suggesting that ‘serious rape’ was punished more heavily. The Justice Secretary then questioned Victoria Derbyshire’s statement that ‘rape is rape’, contending that: ‘if an 18-year-old has sex with a 15-year-old and she's perfectly willing, that is rape because she is under age … What you and I are talking about is … a man forcibly having sex with a woman and she doesn't want to’. This, according to Clarke, represents ‘a serious crime’. While this does, indeed, represent judicial fact (i.e. the circumstances of a crime impact upon the length of any given sentence), critics, including Ed Miliband, have opined that this suggests the existence of ‘other categories of rape’ and marginalises the seriousness of the crime. Whether this is the case, however, is the subject of debate: recognising, for example, that instances of repeated rape, gang rape, and violent rape will not always share similar circumstances is not the same as denying the profound abhorrence of either crime. Neither does it necessarily suggest that one is more, or less, serious than another. Indeed, Clarke’s designation of non-consensual sexual acts as ‘a serious crime’ seemingly indicates that this was not, in fact, his intention. What is being overlooked in the arguments so far is the detestably low tariff available to judges for such a deplorable crime.
Interestingly, the example cited by Clarke was factually inaccurate, raising questions over the former barrister’s continued competence in his role and potentially giving the Prime Minister grounds to remove him from the Ministry of Justice. While Miliband’s public calls for Clarke’s resignation render such a move unlikely in the immediate future, a cabinet re-shuffle may well witness the Justice Secretary being transferred elsewhere; the gaffe may have worried Cameron that a liberal-leaning Justice Secretary is not best suited to a Conservative Party traditionally viewed as being tough on law and order. Clarke’s scheduled appearance on Question Time (from Wormwood Scrubs, no less) may, however, provide an opportunity for the Justice Secretary to regain confidence both within the public and the government.
The Justice Secretary also expressed his disappointment with the Daily Mail for seeking to add ‘sexual excitement’ to their reporting by applying proposals intended for all criminals specifically to cases of rape. The government, as part of general cost-cutting measures, is currently consulting on plea-bargaining plans to increase sentence reduction to a maximum of 50%, from current limits of 33%. It is estimated that doing so could free up 3,400 prison places and save some £130m per year by 2015 – 62% of the annual £210m savings the department has to find. Clarke’s policy proposal, as a result of the association with the early release of sex offenders, may now be dead in the water. Chris Huhne, however, may be thankful for the distraction.
No comments:
Post a Comment