tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14422435.post4019122404576694966..comments2024-01-03T06:47:01.541+00:00septicislehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03369157723084834549noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14422435.post-57170158514483293402011-05-20T13:04:45.409+01:002011-05-20T13:04:45.409+01:00Exactly. What he was trying to elucidate, incredibly badly it should be said, is that the law does have to discriminate according to the facts of each individual case. He wasn&#39;t suggesting that rape isn&#39;t one of the most horrendous crimes imaginable, with terrible, debilitating effects for the victim, as some have wrongly in my view taken it as.septicislehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03369157723084834549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14422435.post-76553752738190536952011-05-20T08:58:11.300+01:002011-05-20T08:58:11.300+01:00<i>no one is seriously claiming that he regards certain types of rape as less serious to the victim than others</i><br /><br />What Clarke said was clumsily worded, and sounded (as everyone in the world has said) as if it endorsed the old myth that stranger rape is the only real rape. But most of what he said was actually correct, and the reaction to it has been deeply confused. Unless every rape has identical effects, some must be more serious than others. In reality judges do impose longer sentences for rapes with aggravating factors, violence most obviously - and if A is more serious than B, B must be less serious than A.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07009879034507926661noreply@blogger.com