Our thanks to Gerry for this. Note that the proposal is to deny rapists (under UK law, men only) early release, while not denying it (and invariably giving it) to women who murder.
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.
If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.
Mr Bentley. You are right the two key pillars of feminism ,now that they have legal equality in all things, are “Rape” and “Domestic Violence” . You will notice everything will be linked in some way,however tenuously, to one or both of these. This is neatly encapsulated in successive governments Violence against women and girls Strategy (VAWG) Which links to things as unlikely as getting girls into STEM courses at school and university, the “gender pay gap” and the balance of domestic chores in couples. Almost any feminist demand will be linked to VAWG because, contrary to the feminist theory, experience shows nothing is more likely to galvanise public support than claims of violence against women and girls; from men as much as women in the public and politics. To keep this golden goose laying feminist need to maintain a steady stream of stories about such things.
Good points AJ thank you for your research. On your point of seriousness, I realise it’s an unpopular view but it does seem that sexual crime is still given Victorian prominence. A society in which sex outside marriage was frowned upon, virginity crucial in marriage prospects and contraception rudimentary. Whereas now sex is promoted as an healthy expression, virginity is no problem to marriage or partnering and contraception reliable and ubiquitous and abortion pretty normalised. Anything goes so long as it’s “consented” to. Thus few convictions for rape are for wild attacks on virginal young women, most are, as feminists point out, where both parties have known each other even briefly and the case is about “consent”. Even some feminists “sex positive’ have argued for fines and much shorter sentences on the grounds that much of what comes before the courts is not ” a fate worse than death’. Indeed at the time of the Bill that became the sexual offences act two decades ago there were moves to remove the word rape from the Act. Partly on the grounds that juries would not convict if the case presented was one of consent rather than the violent assault the word conjures. But of course feminists realised the political capital in the word itself, and it stayed in..
Thanks, agreed. Like all parties, the Tories have marched to feminists’ tunes for decades. Throwing justice for men and boys out of the window is one of their favourite plays.
the problem of rape , and the suggestion of rape, and the possibility of rape, and accusations of rape, and sexual harrassment., etc., etc,., etc. seems to be the feminists desired battleground. please tell mme if I have got this wrong. it seams that they are obsessed over it. I cannot help but feel that the tory party is under some pressiure from the feminists, and that they feel that they have to do something to appese them. this proposal would seam to be it. thanks to the man who whistle blew .totally unfair of course, esopecially when contrasteed with murderous women . !
On rape reoffending I googled the rape reoffending rate and found this from 2013-2017
‘It shows that each year, in England and Wales, roughly 40-60 people are convicted of rape who had previous rape convictions.
From 2013 to 2017, there were 263 such convictions, making up 4% of all rape convictions.’
https://fullfact.org/crime/how-many-rapists-reoffend/
The key thing is that this reoffending rate has apparently dropped from 40-60 a year to less than 20 a year. This is something that you would think be celebrated and used to justify a continuation of current policies rather than a change.
I looked at the CPS statistics for 2021 and taking the number of prosecutions and the conviction rate I calculate 1725 men were convicted of rape. Assuming that number is constant and taking the seven years since 2016 that gives a reoffending rate of rapists released early of less than 1%. It’s only a rough calculation. I believe the number of convictions was higher in the past and therefore the reoffending rate lower. In any case the rate of reoffending seems remarkably low and not something to justify ending the early release of any rapists regardless of the circumstances.
Some obvious questions are:
1. Why rape specifically, Surely murderers an even more serious concern than rapists?
2. How will this affect discipline in prisons for a group of prisoners for whom there is no possibility of an earlier release if their behaviour is good nad therefore little incentive to behave well?
3. Is there sufficient space in appropriate prisons for the extra prisoners that will result?
The ranking of the seriousness of rape as a crime often seems anomalous. Rape is rightly considered a serious crime but it is surely less serious than murder or the infliction of permeant life changing injuries yet it often seems to be treated as the most serious of all crimes and certainly more serious than the infliction of serious injuries which can’t be explained in terms of the effects of the crime.
Coming so soon after the Malkinson case, where his sentence had been extended because of his protestations of his innocence, this looks like politics rather than anything to do with Justice. As you point out currently the Justice system (as written into official policy and the “Bench book”) is busy doing everything it can to not send women to prison, yet doing the reverse if a man, for any crime. The key factor in prevention is the perception of being caught; while our police forces are busy with “online abuse” and “non crime hate incidents” real crime goes on because those who perpetrate do not fear being caught. Effective Police forces deter crime and virtue signaling Police “services” don’t. Here in Greater Manchester this simple fact has been grasped by the recently appointed Chief Constable.