This week Ken Clarke has got himself into a bit of a political pickle. Justice secretary for the Conservative party, the man who is responsible for ensuring the justice system best serves the public, has proposed rapists who plead guilty to a crime have their sentences halved.
When I first heard this news story, I confess to being a little shocked. Ken's delivery of his opinion that some rapes are worse than others was pretty bad. He just blurted it out as a valid and justifiable reason for attackers who have not used violence to control their victims to serve a lesser sentence. But there is some logic in his (very poorly delivered) thinking. It would be naive to the point of stupidity to think that all rapes are the same. A solicitor who called into Radio 4's "Any Answers" programme yesterday made the point that all murders are not the same. He compared a brutal and random killing of a vulnerable person to a brother assisting his sister who is terminally ill in assisted suicide. A valid point, I felt. Both Ken and the solicitor are right; a violent and pre-meditated attack of a stranger walking home from work, forced into submission by the threat of violence, mutilation or death if they do not comply is very different to an opportunist taking advantage of a friend who is too drunk to say no, a friend who has trusted them so much, they felt safe enough to get that drunk. These two circumstances are very different indeed, this I understand. What I fail to grasp though, is how any one of them is less punishable because the perpetrator admits to committing the crime.
The solicitor went on to say that jurors are not very sympathetic to women who flaunt themselves, in the same way that a juror is not sympathetic to a victim of theft when they have left all of their valuable gold on their front car seat in the middle of Piccadilly Circus without locking the car. At this point, anyone driving passed me on the M5 would have seen a very odd thing indeed. I was incensed. How could this (seemingly) educated individual have such a black and white view on this matter. I don't hide my television away in a cupboard before I go to work in the morning. If I were to return home to find it has been stolen, would this be my fault for leaving it within sight of the window, flirting with passer by's and opportunist thieves. Get real. We live in a democracy - where we have the right to agree or disagree to do something, no matter our attire.
Some women who had been raped spoke also called the "Any Answers" programme, and were blaming themselves for their assaults. They got drunk; they were not worldly; they should not have got themselves into that state; they should not have been so naive to think they could flirt without having to give something more... Hold on a second here. Really? Is it really their fault? Do we as a society really think this? Would we really be so unsympathetic to these people, that just because they got drunk or were not particularly worldly, we would assume they asked for it and the attacker therefore cannot possibly be guilty. I like to think not. We would, I believe, think the victim naive, silly, stupid even. But deserving: No.
The responsibility, blame and punishment should solely be with the perpetrator. And as for reducing sentences for those that plead guilty, I think this is very poor judgement from the powers that be to think this should even be considered. I agree, there should be some incentive for pleading guilty which will ease the burden on the victim, but not a lesser sentence. If a lesser sentence were to be offered, then the mandatory sentence served should be increased. I have two trains of thought here:
1. It should be the victims choice if they would like to offer a lesser sentence in lieu of appearing in court
2. Why does the Justice Secretary, who's responsibility it is to ensure the safety of the public, want attackers (violent of opportunist) to be free sooner? This should not be their priority.
The Justice secretary's responsibilities are:
- to be responsible for improvements to the Justice system so that it better serves the public
- to reduce re-offending and protect the public
- to provide access to justice
- to increase confidence in the justice system
- to uphold people's civil liberties
To pass this as law would be insulting, disgraceful and an outright abuse of the victim's rights to live freely in this society. In future, Ken Clarke would be well advised to review all of his responsibilities a little more closely when considering "improvements", and perhaps keep his personal opinions to himself.
