Why Liberal Democrats must care about burglars' lives

Ok, here we go, another hippy leftie soft on crime blog post from a bleeding heart liberal.

Actually, I'll cheerfully own up to everything except the soft on crime bit. No, I don't think that householders should offer a full fry up and a nice up of tea to the thug who's plundering their worldly possessions, but nor do I have any time for Ken Clarke's latest wheeze - to "clarify"  the amount of force a householder can use on a burglar. 

Being the victim of a burglary is horrible. Not only has somebody helped themselves to your hard earned property, or stuff with real sentimental value, but often the feeling that your space has been violated is really traumatic to deal with. And that's if they haven't done unspeakable things. My friends had a caravan which was broken into and let's just say the Police found a condom.

So it's awful even if you're not there. The trauma of feeling that your life is in danger must be horrendous.

I think it would be wrong, though, to effectively remove your personal accountability for your actions in that situation. If we believe that human life is valuable, and I hope that we all do, then we can't just decide that people have the right to kill trespassers at will.  Isn't this disproportionate?

We will make it quite clear you can hit the burglar with the poker if he's in the house and you have a perfect defence when you do so”

 If you hit someone with a poker, you could kill them. One blow in the wrong place could be enough. During the course of a burglary, depending on the threat to your life, that might be a justifiable response. But if that does happen, and someone loses their life or is maimed permanently, isn't it best that the criminal justice system takes a look at what went on? I don't think that you should just take away all personal responsibility from householders, even if they are victims of crime.Let's look at this rationally. If the law is "clarifed" to suggest that householders can do what they heck they like to a trespasser, if you were a burglar, would you not go prepared for that eventuality? An opportunist break in becomes a much more seriously planned affair with maybe a knife, or a gun brought along for security. Anything that increases the number of guns and knives on the street is going to lead to more dead people. Individuals should have the right to protect their homes and their families, but the current law gives them the 
right  to do that in a proportionate manner.

The current law has safeguards for all of us. There is a good reason we have a police force and don't allow order to be kept by whichever gang is supreme at the moment. It's why we have courts to mete out appropriate sanctions and not victims who are bound to be subjective. If anyone harmed a hair on the head of anyone I love, you can bet your life I'd want them to be dealt with extremely severely - maybe more so than was actually fair. There are good reasons why that decision should be made by an independent body. I expect our MPs to make it perfectly clear to Ken Clarke that they will not support any such changes.  This is where we as liberals have to make a difference.

Ok, Ken Clarke, you're forgiven

It broke my heart to say, the other night, that Ken Clarke should go, unless he was prepared to make a proper apology and acknowledge his mistake for the comments he made about rape. Well, he's done that, on last night's Question Time. It's not often you have a politician putting his hands up so openly, saying they've made a mistake and delivering a plausible apology. 

He could have pulled out of Question Time and sent someone else, but he fronted up and made an intelligent contribution to the debate. He was helped by the ever wise and liberal Shami Chakrabarti, who told him that he hadn't done himself justice, and then outlined what he meant and how he should have said it.

My problem was never about the sentencing issue, although conviction rates are so low, I'm fairly certain most accused would choose to take their chances with the courts rather than plead guilty and definitely go to jail, whatever discount they got from their sentence. It was that he implied that there were types of rape that didn't involve violence on the woman and specifically that date rape as something that may not always be serious. I think the must-read blog post on this topic is Jennie's which makes you think about the effects of this crime.

There's something about seeing him up against two of the most illiberal people in the country, Jack Straw and Melanie Philips, batting back their scaremongering claptrap about ending shorter sentences, that makes you realise that it could all be a lot worse. He's better than Jack Straw was or virtually every other person in his party would be.

I have been quite depresssed, though, to see the general gender divide in the reaction to this. Men were more likely to back him, women to be more concerned, certainly in the places I've been hanging out, like over at Better Nation. 

Anyway, it's all over now. The way people deal with their mistakes is quite telling. Clarke compounded his on Wednesday by taking a spade and continuing to dig after his initial mistake on Wednesday, but last night he redeemed himself.

It breaks my heart to say it, but Ken Clarke should go

Way back in February, Scottish Tory Justice Spokesman Bill Aitken asked a reporter if a Glasgow rape victim had been a prostitute and made some other really awful victim blaming comments that showed that he really didn't have a clue about the issues surrounding this awful crime.

At that time I said Aitken should resign and I think I was right to. Ultimately, he did resign as Convener of the Holyrood Justice Committee but remained a Tory frontbench spokesman.

If I'm going to be consistent, I have to say that Ken Clarke should resign for the comments he made today, implying that some categories of rape are less serious than others.

Now, I think it's perfectly legitimate to have the debate he's talking about, around allowing more time off for a guilty plea. Go ahead. It's just not on to suggest that one type of rapist is less harmful than another. If a woman has been raped, her trauma will be acute whether the perpetrator was the extremely rare stranger in the dark alleyway, or her husband or boyfriend.

It's such a shame, because I like Ken Clarke. I disagree with him on a lot, but he's a good guy and I admire the way he's dealt with abolishing shorter sentences and the like.  I expect to hear victim blaming rubbish from the likes of Nadine Dorries, but not from our Ken.

I was willing to offer a get out clause to Bill Aitken earlier in the year - that I'd forgive and forget if he had a meeting with Rape Crisis and reconsidered his view in the light of what they had to say to them. I'd do the same for Ken Clarke. Sadly, though, if he's not prepared to do so, then I can't see how he can remain in position. Women need to feel confident that ministers accept that rape is always a horrible crime for which there is never an excuse, and it is never ok to blame the victim.

Can I suggest that everyone reads Jennie's take on this issue. She shows the psychological and physical effects of different scenarios of rape very powerfully.