There are few subjects more stirring to the electorate than female emancipation and equality. While it may be obvious in retrospect that Clarke was trying to distinguish between constitutional rape (i.e. consensual sex with a willing minor) and the kind of sadistic violent rape so beloved of Anthony Burgess' 'A Clockwork Orange', a seasoned politician such as Clarke should know when he is stepping onto thin ice and act accordingly. By making the confused statement that date rape was somehow less serious than other kinds, he has given his opponents all the ammunition they need to show him as being out of touch with women's issues. A swift apology while the show was still running and an immediate admission that he should have chosen his words more carefully were the very least he should have offered. Instead, he will now bullishly face the morning press, his misplaced belligerence a tainted shield against accusations that he is no longer fit to be the Justice Minister.
One suggestion from Twitter that intrigues me is the complete rejection of the use of the phrase 'date rape'. It is felt by some that the classification of a crime in this way somehow trivialises it and contributes to the notion that we have seen implied by Clarke - namely that there are serious offences and less serious offences. I find this argument compelling and am wholly supportive of the idea of doing away with the phrase altogether.
Whether you feel that Clarke's comments have been taken out of context or feel he should burn in hell (and comments from Twitter et al suggest that opinions on the Justice Minister are becoming somewhat polarised) today's interview has thrown the door open on the issue of rape and given us all an opportunity to have a honest discussion about how it should be treated in court. Rape is overwhelmingly (though not wholly) a crime committed by men against women and the pathetic conviction rate of 6% - roughly one conviction for every sixteen reports - shows us that there is still so much more that we need to do to support victims through the court process. Reduced sentences for admission of guilt surely cannot be the answer.
One thing to note about the conviction rate. One of my colleagues' friends, a female police officer, said that the number of aleged reports of rape that are actually consensual but since the man has left (or annoyed the woman in some other way) she sees this as a revenge tactic, and should be charged with wasting police time. Therefore I cannot comment exactly on 9% but is convicting innocent guys to bring up the numbers the right course of action?
ReplyDeleteHello Rob, thanks for commenting. I think your comments about the conviction rate are perfectly valid and of course, no-one wants to see innocent people convicted of crimes simply to push the conviction rate to a more socially acceptable level.
ReplyDeleteI think though that it is generally accepted that the conviction rate still in no way does justice to the number of women who are actually raped. Part of the difficulty encountered by the justice system is that it is often one person's word against another.
While we cannot put concrete numbers on such things, especially given that many women may not even report the crime, neither can we realistically suggest that the other 94% of allegations are all bogus. Sadly, some of them will be, and they represent another harmful barrier to justice for true victims.
Ultimately, all investigations would ideally end in a conviction (either for the proven rapist or the lying accuser) and that should be the outcome that we strive for.
I definitely agree with your last paragraph. I agree that the problem is there, that not enough guilty parties are convicted.
ReplyDelete