Letter: Instead of shouting, Listen to what Ken Clarke said
Letter: Newspapers love to put politicians in pillories. Whipping up a frenzy accentuating emotional aspects of a case is grist to the paper mill. Consequently any underlying problem that needs to be addressed is often unfortunately hidden.
Letter: Newspapers love to put politicians in pillories. Whipping up a frenzy accentuating emotional aspects of a case is grist to the paper mill. Consequently any underlying problem that needs to be addressed is often unfortunately hidden.
Take Kenneth Clarke for instance. No-one could deny, not even I suspect Kenneth Clarke, that rape is a diabolical crime and to differentiate between levels of rape would be impossible.
So why then do judges have discretion to award differing sentences? Surely, unless Mr Clarke had a valid point, rape is a case where a one-size custodial sentence fits all? It's a 'throw away the key' job, isn't it?
There was a case reported recently of a man falsely accused of rape. So what should happen then?
Should the one who made the false accusation go to a prison where locks have no keys, or would the courts be forced to look more deeply into the case and consider psychological aspects, provocation, childhood background and all other modern concepts of contributory innocence?
Not always that easy, is it?
Peter J H Sharman
Llanymynech