Why isn't rape a hate crime?

Binary - that's why I added the bit in brackets about any woman who expressed an opinion in public - I was trying to get at the idea that it was clear that the man in question chose to rape as an act of revenge against women because he hated women as a group, not feminists in particular. I think we all know that expressing feminist views online attracts the ire of that kind of man, but so does simply being knowledgeable and in a public space, whether your area of expertise is ancient history or astronomy.

Lass - coming back to this rather late. Sorry, due to posting rather laboriously on my phone and a fast moving discussion I've made a bad job of keeping two separate strands of thinking clear.

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. And I was interested in how that tied up with an article Biffy linked to today where rapists wh were prepared to self identify as rapists did indeed sem to hate women as a category, while rapists who conceptualised what they did as"forceful sex", while hhaving a pretty low opinion of women (tendency to objectify etc) didn't seem to feel the same level of visceral hatred. Kind of like the difference between a full on white supremacist and someone who simply bins job applications from people with identifiably BME names without even realising what they were doing. Racism but not racial hatred, if you see what I mean.

But by the time I'd posted this the discussion had moved on to the legal status of "hate crime" which I also found fascinating. I probably then tried to post on both my strands of thought at once (while cooking tea) and simply succeeded in confusing the hell out of everyone.

Thanks. Lass. In my state, a penis is not required to be a perpetrator, and the crime is called sexual battery, so men, women, and transgendered people can be perpetrators as well as victims.

“Sexual battery” means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.

I never said rape of women was not a hate crime.

I said rape is not a hate crime.

italian I mean, rape, in itself, does not target a particular group of people. Because anyone can be raped.

slugs "trolls who threaten women with rape as a punishment for expressing feminist views online"

Sorry, I took that to mean a feminist.

Just because men can also be raped does not stop the rape of women being a hate crime! Black people can be beten up and it can be a hate crime, so can Asian or Chinese people or ginger people etc. The fact crimes happen to other people does not stop it being so.

00100001...It can be, if for example you rape someone because they're Buddhist. So being a woman and a victim isn't enough! I think Buffy has explained it so well.... the mentality of patriarchal society is what perpetuates the view that women don't deserve he same respect and care as men, the fact that all this violence spills over and men can also be the victims of sexual crimes doesn't mean it is not hate that is at the centre of it.

A question, in English law and Scots law, rape is defined as a gendered crime, right?

Not in Scotland. Rape is the penetration by person A's penis without the consent of person B of person B's vagina, anus or mouth. Vagina and penis include surgically constructed ones.

So not gendered for either victim or perpetrator but person A being tecowner of a functioning penis will in most cases be a biologically born man although clearly it catches a transwoman if she is still so equipped.

"Persons" who don't have penises can't commit rape although they can commit sexual assault by penetration using other body parts or things and can commit sexual assault.

A person with a vagina who managed to have sex with a person who has a penis against that person's will commits sexual assault.

00100001 re it doesn't target a particular group of people well it does, it targets people with vaginas... that is a category of people. A big category but still a category. And I do think that men who rape women do it because on some level they hate women and the affect it creates in the female population is the same as the fear of other hate crimes.

...and earlier....re If Hate Crime is crime against a person because ofa hatred a particular thing about a person (e.g sex, religion, ethnicity etc) - then rape against women, is rape. It is a crime. Yes. It is terrible Yes. But is only a Hate Crime when the reason for the rape is because victim is a woman. BUT of course the rape of a woman by a rapist is because she is a woman. You've just proved my point.

Miranda Re I know of an instance of rape by a man who was popular with women, good fun etc. He raped because he could, because he wanted to. He didn't care about his victim's feelings; maybe he convinced himself she wanted it really; but he didn't hate her. How can you possibly know if this man hated women or not, the fact he was charming and people liked him proved nothing. People often like manipulating people, because they are manipulated by them!

Lweji control? Control to do something that the other person will find awful and appalling and terrifying, how is that not hate? How could someone do that unless they felt some degree of hate? They might be some rapes that do not fit this pattern, but I think most do. Control is how they are committed. A person can pay a prostitute to have sex with them and they can then be in control. There is more than control going on. Many women who are raped know the person who rapes them, yes, I am sure there is the desire to control them, but why.... because they like them, love them, respect them... I would guess not!

Buddy re your words after *
So really, it depends on how you define 'hate' ...*

I totally agree with you.

thedacingbear Re *Eg. take a situation where someone decided to give an asian person a kicking, with a view to getting jollies out of it, and that they had selected their victim on the basis that she considered them inferior and their feelings worthless (essentially a racist attitude). I wouldn't have any difficulty with categorising that as a hate crime.

So how would that be different from the actions of a rapist with a casual disregard/contempt for women generally?*

thedacingbear - So why do you think the rapist selected the woman to rape?

My preference would be to focus on effective prosecution of all rape with punitive sentencing.

A sort of "you committed rape? well here's your starter for 10 - and she (or indeed he) was 14 , move up a level; and you beat her (or him) up move up another level. And so on in the same way assault is aggravated by severity.

I appreciate this would also result in cases being treated as of being of varying degrees of awfulness but I don't however see what meaningful distinction is being made by the 2 examples below.

Does this connect up with the self identified rapist who thinks all women are slags who have it coming versus self identified practitioner of coercive sex who "loves women", just thinks "this one was a bitch who wouldn't put out when I'd bought her a drink."

lurcio

It would depend I suppose.

Is the man raping the woman for having feminist views, or because she is a woman? Or both?

Does the same man rape a man that has feminists views?

Does the same man rape the same woman for not having Feminist views.?

If the Fictitious Attack is only attacking women that have feminist views, then one might argue that he is targeting only a particular group of people which would be a Hate Crime imo.

If the Fictitious Attacker is attacking all feminists (and just "happens" to hate women) then can we say that Feminists are a protected category? If we can say 'yes!' then we might argue that Trekkies are a protected category? You may think I am being flippant, I am not. Interestingly enough, Manchester Police are recording incidents against sub-cultures (eg Goth, Emo) as hate Crimes too. source

We might get to the point where all attacks against any person/group of people for any reason would be a Hate Crime.

Should all crimes could be defined as Hate Crimes if we are to define 'hate' as an attack on any person/group of people.

Perhaps we should take the word rape out of this conversation and call it "attack". and ask the question "Why aren't attacks against women Hate Crimes?" Indeed, maybe we should be asking, "Why aren't attacks against people Hate Crimes?"

BuffytheReasonableFeminist

Oh yes, my apologies. So hate is 'hostility or prejudice based on a personal characteristic'

No: that is the definition of a Hate Crime, it is not the definition of hate.

Well, getting it prosecuted as such would be a different matter altogether, Lurcio.

Phew that's good to know Seneca.

Both examples should be hate crimes. The second clearly would be in any jurisdiction that has laws against hate crimes. And the first would likely be a hate crime in every jurisdiction in the US that includes gender as a protected category. These statutes use "gender" and not "sex," but it is clear that they mean gender in the sense of "sex" as "gender identity" is usually listed as a separate category.

Argh poxy phone means I'm constantly playing catch up.

The othering vs all have mums, sisters etc distinction. Does this connect up with the self identified rapist who thinks all women are slags who have it coming versus self identified practitioner of coercive sex who "loves women", just thinks "this one was a bitch who wouldn't put out when I'd bought her a drink."

Would it help to firm up the distinction between the moral and legal points if one came up with a concrete (albeit fictitious) example. Suppose one of the online trolls who threaten women with rape as a punishment for expressing feminist views online (or indeed simply being a woman in possession of an opinion in a public place) were to actually carry out the threat and rape the woman. Further let's suppose that there was a plethora of blog posts, tweets, e- mails establishing that he not merely hated women but thought they should be politically disenfranchised and saw this particular rape as an instance of"corrective rape". Would it be possible to prosecute this as a hate crime?

Now supppse the details were almost exactly parallel, only with a self professed whote supremacist, a member of an ethnic minority and a severe assault. Would this be prosecuted aa racially aggravated, and/or a hate crime?

And if you do have different answers (first isn't a hate crime legally, second is), what's the difference based on?

(Apologies for crap typing on phone btw)

I think it comes down to the usual issues about rape, perhaps? That its so linked in the social consciousness with sex... The law has a hard time viewing rape as hostile or based on prejudice, because it's associated with being overcome by passion. A love crime, not a hate crime, is how it's unconsciously viewed?

Yes. This attitude is especially prevalent in sexual assault of older women. Who would rape an old woman? Lots of people, as it turns out, but prosecuting these cases can be very difficult.