Categories Of Rape?

The understandably emotive issue of rape is in the news today because Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has stated his viewpoint that it is morally correct for some rapists to get different sentences from others. It was during a radio interview where the host suggested that quite simply, “rape is rape”. Clarke said it wasn’t because a predatory rapist who abducts a woman and subjects her to sexual violence is much worse than someone who has consensual sex with a person under the age of sexual consent. Personally, I think Ken Clarke is spot on; the context of rape should always be taken into account, and this does not have to mean that the seriousness of the crime would be in any way diminished. Yet since his comments, Ed Miliband has called for Clarke’s resignation, and Clarke has been made to clarify / toughen his comments in various interviews.
I have two main problems with the rather hysterical response that has been generated by Clarke’s original comments. First, I honestly think that we should stop using the term ‘rapist’ to describe someone having consensual sex with a person under sixteen years of age. The age of sexual consent is an arbitrary decision which changes from one country to another - it is thirteen in Japan, and twenty-one in some American states. As much as I appreciate that the law needs to be enforced and underage sex has to be punished in some way, it is not an act of rape, which the Oxford English Dictionary says has to entail “forcing another person…against their will”. And second, this furore has all come about because the Conservative Party want to reduce all criminal sentences by 50% if the offender pleads guilty; a ridiculous proposal considering they already get a reduction of a third which is quite enough incentive for someone to plead guilty. Quite who David Cameron thinks this policy is going to appeal to is beyond me. So let’s focus our bile on him and his policies rather than the more knowledgeable Justice Secretary.