I have sat in dismay as I have listened to, and read, the disastrous efforts Ken Clarke has made at justifying sentence reduction for rapists over the past 36 hours. The word “serious” has been debated across the country and rightly so. Rape is a serious crime and people including ministers do need reminding of the seriousness of this crime.
However, it wasn’t the differentiation of the seriousness of different rapes that offended me most, but the suggestion that only violent rapes were serious and indeed deserved higher sentencing.
Isn’t it equally as frightening to be violated and abused by someone that you know and trust as it must be by a stranger? Doesn’t all rape regardless of the violence leave years of psychological damage that can effect every aspect of a female’s life? Am I wrong in thinking that rape is violent in itself and you don’t need bruises or broken bones to determine this violence.
72% of rapes in the UK are committed by an acquaintance or intimate of the victim, 74% take place indoors, such as the victim or attacker’s home, and nearly half involve no additional physical injury beyond the rape itself (Muir, 2003). This statistic may be little outdated, but was quoted by a radio journalist just this morning and still valid.
Therefore, I feel would be more beneficial for the Justice Secretary to be considering policy that reflects the above statistics and, considers the long term damage that rape inflict, rather than implementing a cost saving exercise that rewards rapists for owning up.
Bunty
