Comment: Hysteria over Clarke’s comments is muddying the truth
When the media enters a hysterical fit it pays to try and untangle what we’re talking about and, if possible, to keep our heads.
By Ian Dunt
Once you step back from the cacophony of noise over Ken Clarke’s ill-advised comments on rape, several arguments emerge. This is not about whether he doesn’t understand raped women. This is about categories of rape, plea bargaining, the deficit and dirty politics.
The most volatile issue is rape categories. Clarke’s terrible mistake was to talk about “serious” rape, the implication being that other rape is not serious. That’s a grave error, probably the worst of his career. But the argument that we can have different degrees of rape, as we have different degrees of murder, is not outside the area of acceptable discussion. It does not mean, as Labour’s Yvette Cooper is arguing, that Clarke doesn’t understand rape.
Simply in terms of public safety, a husband who rapes his wife is different to a stranger who picks off women at night in dark alleys. Women’s rights groups spent so long valiantly fighting for rape inside marriage to be made illegal (a relatively recent development) that they are very cautious of this sort of discussion. That is entirely understandable. But we must not let it get in the way of genuine political discussion. To say that there is a difference between ‘stranger’ rape and rape inside of a relationship is not to say that they shouldn’t both remain illegal and trigger a meaningful prison sentence.
The second issue is plea bargaining, which has nothing to do with rape. This is also common in many countries, not least of all the US which gives us all those marvellously dramatic scenes of detectives making offers to criminals in smoky rooms. It’s wrong to say that Clarke is suggesting halving rape sentences. He is suggesting that admitting guilt before trial would reduce your sentence. This cuts court costs, but in rape cases it has two other very desirable attributes. Firstly, it stops victims having to go through a trial, in which their clothing and attitude will be discussed, in which they will be accused of being a liar and in which they will have to relive what was almost certainly the worst moment of their life. Secondly, it would increase the conviction rate, which currently stands stubbornly at around six per cent. Again, it may or may not be correct, but it is valid. Suggesting that it is a plan to just cut sentences is completely wrong.
Third: This row has demonstrated the way that putting a deficit reduction plan at the heart of your government agenda destroys trust. The suspicion which greets policies like these is that they are to save money. Why not? That subject constitutes around 80% of the speeches delivered by ministers. When that’s what you’re known for don’t be surprised when tempers are significantly raised when you discuss your more controversial ideas.
Finally: While there was much genuine outrage to Clarke’s interview, the Commons had less principled things on its mind. Don’t for a moment be fooled by the Tory backbenchers’ crocodile tears over Clarke’s rape policy. They want to force it into a ‘soft-on-crime’ argument. They’ve always wanted rid of a man they consider disgracefully liberal. Clarke is moderate, intelligent and civilised in his department, something which is entirely anomalous when it comes to British justice policy in the last few decades. He believes, quite simply, in what works. He is a useful obstacle to the Tory lock-em-up brigade, who would place their own infinite outrage over measures which would prevent future crimes.
On the Labour side, the temptation has become too much to bear. Miliband started his time as leader refusing to call Clarke ‘soft on crime’. He won plaudits from people like myself for sacrificing short-term political advantage for principles, even though New Labour grandees like Jack Straw shook their heads in dismay. But now the target is too obvious, the goal too open and he’s jumping right on in – although with more panache and resolve, it must be admitted, than when he has time to prepare.
The emotions running through the Commons are not really to do with rape at all. They’re about personal dislikes, right-wing politics and party strategy. The right-wingers have a chance to get rid of a rare liberal justice secretary and they’re taking it. Many of the people who are outraged today might later regret their response if Clarke is ousted and replaced with someone less palatable.
The central issue isn’t the wisdom of the policy. I’m not sure I agree with it, although I can see why it has been proposed. The issue is about us. Our intensely emotional reaction, combined with the cynical encouragement of MPs, has smudged the facts.
Any sensible person’s knee-jerk response is to step back and not get involved. But when the media enters a hysterical fit it pays to try and untangle what we’re talking about and, if possible, to keep our heads. Unless we’re detached and collected enough to do that, the tough, sensitive issues won’t get tackled. And if that happens, we’re all the poorer.
The opinions in politics.co.uk’s Speakers Corner are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.
