Good Rape, Bad Rape, Not really Rape

[stonerblue]

No one on here nor Ken Clarke said 'good rape' Your clearly one of those posters who quotes things that weren't said to prove your point.
As has been my stance all along all rape is bad. But there a differences in each case which are taken into consideration when brought to trial.

Can you stop reading the hysterical headlines and give it some thought.
Just the same as murder. All murder is bad but they all have differing reasons and outcomes and circumstances. All of which lead to differing court cases and sentencing. If anything it's the people who lump everything in as one that cheapen the whole thing.

Given the thread titles 3 choices of classification then i'm sure several bluemoon members would put that case in the classification i suggested.

Where have i quoted anything?

I'm fully aware of the workings of the legal system thanks. Rape is rape, when other charges relating to the offence like 'with extreme violence' or 'aggravated' or 'kidnap' are added then the offnece becomes more serious in the eyes of the law. The point i'm trying to make is that i think rape is a worse offence than anything else and a long mandatory sentence should be given for it.

Can you stop being so patronising

My point was you are quoting things that aren't there. Stating that people would consider something good rape when clearly no one but a rapist would.

The thread title shows peoples disregard for what actually was said so they make things up to make it seem worse than it was.
And I don't think I was any more or any less patronising than your own comment. And that point didn't come across.

But to clarify something. You honestly believe that all rape regardless of the circumstances should be treated the same? Because again that IMO cheapens the whole thing by lumping so many instances into one judgement.

Yes. The actual, physical rape should be a minimum term (say 15 years) THEN star extending the sentence based on other circumstances like level of violence, use of weapon etc

 

[gaudinho's stolen car]

No one on here nor Ken Clarke said 'good rape' Your clearly one of those posters who quotes things that weren't said to prove your point.
As has been my stance all along all rape is bad. But there a differences in each case which are taken into consideration when brought to trial.

Can you stop reading the hysterical headlines and give it some thought.
Just the same as murder. All murder is bad but they all have differing reasons and outcomes and circumstances. All of which lead to differing court cases and sentencing. If anything it's the people who lump everything in as one that cheapen the whole thing.

Given the thread titles 3 choices of classification then i'm sure several bluemoon members would put that case in the classification i suggested.

Where have i quoted anything?

I'm fully aware of the workings of the legal system thanks. Rape is rape, when other charges relating to the offence like 'with extreme violence' or 'aggravated' or 'kidnap' are added then the offnece becomes more serious in the eyes of the law. The point i'm trying to make is that i think rape is a worse offence than anything else and a long mandatory sentence should be given for it.

Can you stop being so patronising

My point was you are quoting things that aren't there. Stating that people would consider something good rape when clearly no one but a rapist would.

The thread title shows peoples disregard for what actually was said so they make things up to make it seem worse than it was.
And I don't think I was any more or any less patronising than your own comment. And that point didn't come across.

But to clarify something. You honestly believe that all rape regardless of the circumstances should be treated the same? Because again that IMO cheapens the whole thing by lumping so many instances into one judgement.

Yes. The actual, physical rape should be a minimum term (say 15 years) THEN star extending the sentence based on other circumstances like level of violence, use of weapon etc

So, for example, if it was a so-called "date rape" case where memories were hazy and alcohol was involved, the judge would have to turn to the jury and say "Remember, if you find the defendant guilty he/she will serve at least 15 years". The jury may well think the defendant is guilty under the letter of the law but theres no way they should serve 15 years, and find them not guilty. This is why there is rarely a "minimum" sentence, it influences the jury's decision.

In the case of murder we know there has been a crime, because there is a body with knife holes in it. When it comes to rape the evidence of a crime having taken place is not as clear cut. I'm glad people have to go to University before start making laws, if it was left to us lot everyone would be hung, drawn and quartered at inquiry stage.

 

[mammutly]

This whole issue is just media hype.

He never said some rape was not serious, just that some rape is more serious and he is right. Common sense tells you that.

This story is all about fucking politicians and hacks trying to tell us what we are supposed to think again and create the mood of the moment for their own benefit.

If I have sex whilst pissed with another adult who is more pissed and technically lacks the capacity to consent, I am not as bad as someone who goes out tooled up to rape a schoolgirl. And that is completely obvious to anyone with a brain. No debate needed.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

This whole issue is just media hype.

He never said some rape was not serious, just that some rape is more serious and he is right. Common sense tells you that.

This story is all about fucking politicians and hacks trying to tell us what we are supposed to think again and create the mood of the moment for their own benefit.

If I have sex whilst pissed with another adult who is more pissed and technically lacks the capacity to consent, I am not as bad as someone who goes out tooled up to rape a schoolgirl. And that is completely obvious to anyone with a brain. No debate needed.

Bang on the money. If has always been the case that if you disagree with someone's politics, you will attack him, whatever he says. Total and complete common sense.

 

[Lucky Toma]

Agree with the above although it was still a very stupid thing to say. I honestly thought Clarke was more media-savvy than that.

Incidentally, I regarded Milliband's crass opportunism in calling for Clarke's departure to be far more offensive.
Being misconstrued on such a senstive issue is one thing.
Purposely trying to capitalize upon it for political gain is quite another.

 

[mammutly]

Agree with the above although it was still a very stupid thing to say. I honestly thought Clarke was more media-savvy than that.

Incidentally, I regarded Milliband's crass opportunism in calling for Clarke's departure to be far more offensive.
Being misconstrued on such a senstive issue is one thing.
Purposely trying to capitalize upon it for political gain is quite another.

Deliberately reconstructing facts in order to support a particular agenda is what politics is all about.

In real life it's known as talking bollocks, but in Westminster it's seen as political nous.

 

[scorer]

No means no.... but there are severities of rape are there not?

Scenario 1. Lady walking through the park with her dog is jumped, has the crap beaten out of her and is sexually assaulted and raped and left in a real bad way... rape and clearly rape.

Scenario 2. You and a lady friend go out for an evening and have a meal and a great time, you both have a drink and get tipsy and end up in bed. The next day she goes to the Police and reports you for rape as she was drunk and incapable of consent..... rape and not clearly rape.

Very different scenarios I think and if punishment is given there would be justification for having discrepancies in the sentencing.