Why isn't rape a hate crime?

infrequentposter88 re As I have answered your question I would be grateful if you could answer mine.

Are you talking to me?

If so, is your question ...is applying an aggravating factor as a blanket term to it really going to make a difference in a way that more convictions would?

If so, my answer is - I don't know. I don't think it is an 'either or'. I don't think we say either we are (IMHO) honest and admit that rape and violence against women is sometimes (if not mostly) part of a wider picture of misogyny as part of patriarchy, which keeps women down... or we have more convictions. What if being (IMHO) honest about the extent of the problem lead to more convictions?

Does more convictions help women if the guilty men are let out early, if they have no help inside problem to address their aggression and violence. IF there aggression and violence were identified as being against women generally rather than against the specific women they chose to rape could the prison service not set in place a better way of rehabilitating these men (IF possible) to minimise the risk the female population on their return to society.

Let's take an example of a man who rapes and abuses his wife or parter or ex wife or ex partner. Is he doing that because of some intrinsic part of her as a person or is he doing that because that is how he relates to women and how he thinks of women and their value; perhaps how he reacts to any presumed provocation in terms of his own internal jealousy or fear etc etc.

If we think the former than we may think with a different women things would be different! Yet don't such men who beat up or rape or murder women, including their own wives and partners, often do so again if they get the chance?

Serial rapist rape many women, what do these women have in common, maybe nothing except that they are women.

Is this not a hate crime?

Is calling this a hate crime more or less likely to lead to detection and capture, arrest and prosecution and possible rehabilitation? If someone were out there murdering trans women would identifying that factor not lead to better detection? If someone is killing or beating up people who are members of an ethnic group does identifying this not help detection, does it not, in an ideal world, lead to prevention of crimes?

Why are we as a society afraid to identify these crimes against women but not afraid to identify crimes against any other individual group in society?

I am not asking any specific person these questions, I am just musing, but anyone who wishes to can answer.

If we are just looking at improving conviction rates for rape then maybe you'd have a point infrequent. Although I can't see that defining rape as a hate crime would be detrimental either to conviction rates. It may also help get harsher sentencing.

However, in terms of removing the systematic oppression women face (rape being one of the tools of that oppression) then it would be a step forward and certainly more honest as Italian says about male violence towards women. Name the problem first, then you can do something about it.

No it obviously isn't, so obviously in fact that no one has suggested that is the case on this thread ( as far as I can see).

As I have answered your question I would be grateful if you could answer mine.

Is it honest to pretend rape is never motivated by hate?

I don't think anyone would argue that the prosecution of rape is remotely acceptable in any way you look at it, conviction rate, sentencing or the support for victims- but is applying an aggravating factor as a blanket term to it really going to make a difference in a way that more convictions would?

Rape does not get life in prison. In fact some who anal rape might skip the country and get to make films and be lauded in their profession. And even get nominated for an oscar.

She was 12 years old and a girl. What's not to like eh?

Now had that person whipped someone within a slavery context...

I agree that it should protected to slug, seems strange that it isn't.

In America, the FBI include gender.

Sexual assault on someone because they are of a particular gender can be classed as a hate crime.
It needs to be proven that the assault took place as a "pure" gender-based hate crime, and not because of prior interpersonal relations between victim and rapist.

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/hate-crimes-laws-and-penalties.htm

Thank you Buffy.

Mide the sentence is not the thing, it is whether or not the rapist is put away from women he can rape, clearly here we can see NOT always, at least NOT long term, regardless of the sentence given.

IMO it's not how the rapist is prosecuted that needs to change its the sentences given out that do. You can't have a harsher sentence than life, so adding the hate crime element wouldn't change maximum sentence.

Not put away for life....

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010433/More-150-rapists-freed-early-prison-went-rape-again.html

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/child-rapist-serving-five-life-3651426

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11649668/Serial-rapist-let-out-of-prison-on-day-release-rapes-again.html

I could go on but you get the picture.....

Mide re What would be gain from making rape a hate crime?*
-I think it would be more honest. It would show that rape is taken seriously.

• I am not sure what this Rape already carries a maximum sentence of life. means because in reality rapists do not go away for life.
• It might mean that hateful comments on line about raping women were investigated and taken more seriously, hateful images of women such as those that appear on Facebook, would be removed quicker

I would like to ask the reverse, what is the point of not acknowledging that rape and violence to women is often a hate crime.

What would be gain from making rape a hate crime? Rape already carries a maximum sentence of life.

Just reading on the CPS website that an aggravating factor is "offence motivated by prejudice", which I imagine means racism but I wonder if it could be used in other ways.

But Lurcio you say And as you say, surely what we want is more effective prosecution of rape, regardless of what the rapist's motivations are. Surely understanding why men rape would help and maybe if society has the courage to classify sexual violence against women, including rape, in the majority of cases as hate crimes, we would get further in understanding what motivates it. We would also send a clear signal to men that it was not to be tolerated.

The debate about men being raped is that I think there is possibly some correlation with the rape of women. In that the rape of men (as it is used in war - for example) is done for the same reasons it is committed against women, to control (someone mentioned control up thread, and I was dismissive of it but I think what I meant was it was part of a much bigger picture), to humiliate etc and has the potential to effectively 'reduce' men in the eyes of the attacker and in the eyes of other men and in the victims' own eyes to a status like that of women that are attacked. I think if this was not so then the subject of the rape of men, e.g. in prison, would not be something that is rarely spoken of or addressed.

It is not my desire as a feminist to fail to take into consideration the needs of men who are victims or to de-value them and I would say that the rape of men is also a hate crime but it comes from an area of patriarchy that sees most men as the champions on top and women as devalued and held back. The fact some men also fall into this group does not alter where the desire of other men to control comes from IMHO.

The news of the gang rape of young children in India makes me really want to ask can people not see hate in these crimes? A lack of empathy does not lead one to brutily harm another by itself. I do not see that defining some rapes and attacks on women as hate crimes would mean that other rapes should be treated as less serious. Some rapes will be of under age girls, will also involve other forms of harm, might involve stalking etc. The fact we take into consideration all these things (as a society) when dealing with the rapist or the victim does not mean that we do not take seriously all violent crime. Or at least that we should take it all seriously.

Also the effect on the female population is the same as say the effect of religious or racially motivated attacks or racial or religious groups, it is fear! To me the knowledge that men may be raped does not make me less fearful of rape!

When we say that racial or religious groups or trans groups can all be victims of hate crime but women cannot we are, of course, massively devaluing women. Men can also be victims of hate crimes.

Rather than defending a staus quo that is clearly not working for half the population we should wonder why we find it so hard to find and recognise the 'hate' in these appalling crimes.

Buffy, sorry the d is next to the f so I mis-named you, BUFFY FOREVER! Apologies.

I'm pretty sure I agree with you on this, Lass - as I said I was musing aloud on whether Buffy's article shed light on Grimble' OP, and I think it does, in the way you've said (Ched Evans being a good example). And as you say, surely what we want is more effective prosecution of rape, regardless of what the rapist's motivations are.

I also totally agree that we don't want "degrees" of rape (which is a different matter from aggravating factors).

One was in answer to the general moral issue of whether it would be possible to commit rape without to some extent hating your victim - because if you had the slightest capacity for empathy and understanding of the effect it had on your victim, you couldn't do it otherwise

Lack of empathy is not the same as hatred. My worry about introducing this concept might result in downgrading some rapes. I mentioned the unlovely Ched Evans. I don't think it would be possible to prove he acted out of hate. I think his actions arise from an enormous sense of entitlement and a complete lack of empathy for or concern for his victim but is that hate should there be any scope for downgrade?

I agree with Seneca's point below.
I agree that violence against women is motivated primarily by misogyny, but I think as a political matter it is difficult in the context of how hate crime legislation is applied to make all sexual assaults against women hate crimes

Seneca also said The rationale behind hate crimes is also linked to oppression, and prosecutions tend to be for crimes committed against members of historically oppressed classes, except, of course, when that class is women

But where that analogy falls down I think is rape was (until very recently ) legally a crime which can only be committed against women so we are back to it being irrelevant whether it's a hate crime. It's a terrible crime full stop.

Getting back to the Scottish judicial system rape , murder and treason are the only crimes which, if I remember correctly, have to be tried in the High Court before a jury. In all other crime (except for a few which can't go lower than the Sheriff Court) the Crown has the choice of the District, Sheriff or High Court and whether or not there is a jury-more likely there isn't. I would want the existing law to be properly , forcefully and effectively applied to a crime which is in theory already in such a special catgeory rather than the lip service which frequently applies.

Buffy jokes frequently go whooshing over my head!

Well, precisely, Seneca. Nail on head!

Sorry Biffy Buffy. I am really completely crap at typing on my phone.

The rationale behind hate crimes is also linked to oppression, and prosecutions tend to be for crimes committed against members of historically oppressed classes, except, of course, when that class is women.