Kenneth Clarke has earned the ire of the nation. In a single, hostile, four minute interview, the most senior legal politician of the state has offended, it appears, just about everyone by positing different 'categories of rape'. He has faced calls to resign, and been forced to make a television appearance denying the validity of his earlier remarks. The media has pounced upon Mr Clarke, shocked that the Justice Secretary could make such remarks: 'Rape is Rape', the Guardian finger-waggingly pointed out.

Mr Clarke has not apologised for his comments. That he has not done so has angered many, but he is right to withhold his contrition. In refusing to apologise, Clarke is staking a claim for the endangered role of intellectual political argument and opposing a trend of sensationalism that threatens the very nature of free debate in our society.

Ken Clarke has been a progressive justice secretary. He has had the courage to question the wisdom of the 'tough on crime' paradigm that Labour utilised so successfully in the 1990s, asking whether sending ever greater numbers of offenders to prison really is an efficient way to reduce crime. He has admitted that building more prisons would be an expensive mistake, and that the living standards of some institutions are well below acceptable. He is a smart man in a difficult job, and recognises that complex questions have complex answers. Finding those answers means considering the issues at stake in a careful and thorough manner.

Clarke's error lay in trying to give that complex answer in a radio interview to an audience demanding a simple solution. The host, Vicky Derbyshire, wasn't interested in the complex nature of sentencing, or of rape, arguing bluntly that 'Rape, is with respect, rape'. Clarke attempted to give a balanced, if a little rambling, answer – statutory rape can be clearly different from the legal murkiness found in the varied cases of date-rape, which is different again to cases of violent rape.

But careful discussion wasn't what Derbyshire wanted to hear. Instead, she ambushed Clarke with a phone-in from a victim of violent rape, using it is a generalisable case for all such crimes. The story is an unpleasant one – and this is not to say that other rapes are not – but to use a single, emotionally recounted case history in order to frame the complex argument of all guilty-plea sentencing, not just rape, is utterly absurd. Clarke tried to point this fallacy out on being challenged in this manner – 'I'm not halving the sentences for rape. That's a nonsense headline...a ludicrous fallacy', but it went unheard.

He went on to stress the importance of dealing with cases as circumstances warrant 'I'm always cautious commenting on cases... I would just like to see what the judge had before him'. It is worth noting that the unique nature of every case is one of the reasons we have judges capable of complex thought in the first place, and not simply a book of regulations – we already have recognised that crimes are complex events. But the soundbite mafia had their prize. Mr Clarke, on tape and out of context concluding 'you and I are talking about rape in the ordinary conversational sense'.

The result of the scandal – it has already been dubbed Clarke-gate – is predictable yet saddening. Clarke has now had to backtrack on what was a sensible policy to increase the dispensation given to those who plead guilty, thus vastly reducing the cost and time for a prosecution. Clarke's policy will be no longer be accorded the judicious assessment it deserves (right or wrong) – instead it will be gutted to cater to a public who know little of the criminal justice system. Intelligent debate has lost out to a sensationalist media hungry for scandal.

This is becoming a worrying trend in contemporary politics. Clarke is right to be wary of 'nonsense headlines' – ever more prevalent as only the extremes are reported in abstract soundbites, as news organisations seek higher ratings and readerships. Clarke himself played the game – he has admitted using rape to 'add a bit of sexual excitement to the headlines' – and lost. The extremes of argument go nowhere productive – hard cases make bad law. Now important, difficult debates are being fought not on the grounds of relative merit, but on the knife-edge of absolutes.

Mr Clarke may be forced to resign. We can only hope he does not. In refusing to apologise whilst simultaneously accepting the flaws in his initial approach to the issue, Mr Clarke evidences a dying breed: a politician willing to stand up for the importance of complexity. If he is silenced – and he may well be, even if he keeps his job – then even fewer politicians will be willing to place their heads above the parapet and argue for sensible, balanced and progressive policies that benefit society despite risking the anger of a wider population that knows little about the issues.

Debate drives society – it is only through engaging with issues that we progress, gain new understanding and recognise nuance. Vilifying Mr Clarke, without a prior critical engagement with the issues at stake, is to leave us at the mercy of a polity driven only by the fear of scandal, unwilling to make substantive changes lest their rolling heads be paraded above the fold. If we want change, if we want positive development in society, we too need to recognise the importance of complexity. We must begin to engage with issues for ourselves, rather than accepting the spoonfed scandal that sells hard-copy. We need to start talking and thinking for ourselves. But we should start by listening to Mr Clarke.