Comments on: Let’s Talk About Rape.

By: Kate Harris

Kate Harris — Thu, 26 May 2011 12:34:34 +0000

Thank you for this.My only criticism is that the 6% conviction rate includes people who don’t bring their case to trial, which is an awful lot of people. The conviction rate for cases brought to trial is much higher – about 58%. The fact that they don’t bring their case to trial I think shows what you are talking about, that people around them, police officers and the victims themselves see women as a commodity and heterosexual sex as some sort of exchange (not to minimise male rape, but the vast majority of rapes are of women). I will be re-posting this, thanks for saying everything I wanted to say.

By: maryhoneyballmep

maryhoneyballmep — Tue, 24 May 2011 16:10:17 +0000

While I take on board your point that juries and the public are not “pro-rape”, I contend that no member of the public would like to think of themselves as apologists for rapists in just the same way many people do not like to think of themseleves as racist or sexist or pertaining to any form of prejudice whatsoever. That does not mean that this is actually the case. Prejudices, stereotyping and the perpetuation of cultural myths are a part of the nature of society and in this blog I am simply trying to confront and analyse those that we have surrounding rape. In regard to your point on the justification for the low rate of convictions I believe I already demonstrated the fallacy of this by highlighting the conviction rates for male rape. Surely both kinds of rape are equally difficult to prove? Yet conviction rates for male rape remain substantially higher. I maintain that it remains the case within the UK that, given we have a judicial system where rape victims are cross-examined on what they were wearing and their previous sexual history, the reality of sexual violence is still not understood and victims of rape are not treated the way they should be.

By: Simon

Simon — Tue, 24 May 2011 09:15:08 +0000

RE: “The reason – becuase juries and the public still view …”

I believe your view of “the public” to be seriously flawed. If you view us in this way then I shudder to think of what you are doing while representing us in the EU!

Your view on juries is dangerous. Juries have to be convinced of guilt, they are not allowed to guess. The problem with crimes like rape is that often there is a lack of tangible evidence and you end up with the word of one person against that of another, and that leaves juries in an unenviable situation. It is a horrible suggestion that the good people of this country are telling the scum that commit “proper rape” that they are free to go because we some how agree with their actions. How dare you!

By: Twiss Butler

Twiss Butler — Mon, 23 May 2011 20:52:01 +0000

Thank you for this excellent, insightful, clarification of rape and Strauss-Kahn rape in particular. The British definition of rape as forced penetration is correct, unlike laws in some other countries that restrict the definition to which part of the body is penetrated. Certainly press reports seem to assume the latter view.

By: Daniel Oxley

Daniel Oxley — Mon, 23 May 2011 20:30:50 +0000

He was almost bound to wrong on the nature of rape. He gets just about everything else wrong; he was passionate that we should join the Euro and he said that he would be delighted for the Houses of Commons to lose their sovereignty to Brussels and become just an especially grand town hall.

By: Martin

Martin — Mon, 23 May 2011 11:23:09 +0000

What we should remember is that Ken Clarke is not always Ken Clarke: this was not proper Ken Clarke, but another type of Ken Clarke.