Why isn't rape a hate crime?

A question, in English law and Scots law, rape is defined as a gendered crime, right? In my state, the word "rape" does not actually appear in the statutes, and the laws, as written are gender-neutral. There are different types of sexual assault, of which penetration is one.

We can't apply "theories of systematic oppression" or misogynistic views to rape to help define it as a Hate Crime. Because both men and women are offenders and victims. There is not one defining trait of a rape victim per se. So to say rape is a Hate Crime, just can't be true. To ask "Is a man that rapes a woman a Hate Crime" - well that's different.

Not really - did I get terminology wrong hence the emoticons?

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. In the US, in jurisdictions where gender is a protected category, clearly some, but not all, sexual assaults could be prosecuted as hate crimes. For example, if a women's rights activist were targeted for her activism and raped as punishment, that could be prosecuted as a hate crime in addition to the rape.

Sorry I was replying to Buffy Not Seneca

I'm not clear what your point is.

The law recognises certain crimes can be made worse because of the perpetrator's attitude to the victim. The law does not automatically assume a fight between an Asian man and a white man is always trigered by a racial motivation (and always on the part of the white man). It could a racially motivated trigger by one or other or neither. A robbery at an Asian shop is not always automatically racially motivated.

If you apply hate crime to all male rapists of all female victims what are you achieving?

I'm assuming you don't want to have some rapes which are treated as hate crimes and others which aren't?

Would you say Ched Evans hated his victim? And think about your answer without applying feminist theories of systemic oppression but solely in relation his status as perpetrator to her as victim.

He could not have cared less for her safety or well being, he cared nothing about her but that's not hate in the way the law looks at it.

In the US (broad generalization here; there are many jurisdictions), there would need to be evidence of "state of mind" that the person was targeted because he or she was a member of the protected category, so, for example, racist comments made before or during commission of the crime or membership in a hate group, possession of hate literature, etc. would be indicators. In my state, homelessness is a protected category; this was added because of several high profile cases in which people went out specifically looking for homeless people to attack.

The court would look at surrounding facts and circumstances. If say it was part of a robbery or a drugs turf war or say the Asian man had been peddling drugs within the community or had sexually assaulted the child of one of the white men there may be no racial element at all.

It is possible to dislike a person of a different ethnicity just because they are actually deeply unpleasant whatever their race.

If you are of a more liberal feminist persuasion, then you will be looking at individuals, and assuming that they are making choices with pretty much free will, and so what's consciously in their heads at the time they commit the crime is the most important thing. Very few people who do and say misogynistic things actually experience the emotion of hate towards women. ISYWIM?

I think this is right but it does make me wonder whether a demonstrable negative attitude for a class of people - which doesn't quite match the usual definition of hate - could/should fall under the definition of 'hate'.

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?

As I've said upthread, I don't think all rape should be classified as hate crime, as I think it would be meaningless from a legal point of view, but I think it's an interesting thought.

I have no idea what drives a person to rape another.

There may be a time where a man rapes a woman because he hates women. But I am guessing that most of the time they are raping because they feel they can/should for reasons of control/power etc.

in my understanding Hate Crimes are targeting an individual for a specific 'trait' that the offender objects to and is "punishing" the victim because of that. (eg. Trait = race/sexual orientation/religion etc)

Difference in my mind:

Example: An Offender hitting a black person

Scenario A:
Offender: I'm hitting you because you're black, and I don't like that
= Hate Crime

Scenario B:
Offender: I'm hitting you because you have done something to me that I don't like (and happen to be black) = Crime

So, imo, rape itself is not a Hate Crime unless the 'trait' of the victim is the reason for

It is often said that rape is about control. Certainly not sex, of course. But probably more control than hate.
Can you get sexually aroused by someone you hate? Does it happen to men?

Italian The reason it's hard to think of as a hate crime is because it doesn't target a particular group of people and isn't committed because of the groups "identity" Some people will abuse a person because they're gay or black, or Muslim, or Trans. They are being attacked for that reason. Because the attacker 'hates' what they are. There is no overall "characteristic" of rape victims - the rape of a woman /man can't be defined as a Hate Crime unless the attacker raped because they are a woman/man and the attacker took objection to that particular thing about them.

US federal law includes gender as a protected category in hate crimes legislation and 28 states do as well, so it theoretically would be possible to prosecute rape as a hate crime, but actual cases are few and far between.

"too drunk to say no at the time, but with regrets the next day"... don't you mean too drunk to say yes, so therefore rape.

It's possible for someone to murder or rape someone without it being a hate crime. well legally, yes, but that is what we are debating.

Re Being able to produce an erection isn't a sign of consent in that scenario either. I am sure you are not suggesting men are not responsible for what they do with their erection because they are drunk - so what do you mean?

Re I can't put my finger on why it feels harder to think about it as a hate crime, but it does? I think this is because rape is so normalised in our society. The fact some women are raped perpetuates fear amongst other women this is how hate crimes work.

The idea that gay people, trans people, black people etc are all potentially victims of hate crime but women cannot be, unless they fall into these other categories is quite ridiculous, when you think about it! I think one of the reasons that we find it so hard to think of rape as a hate crime is because it is confused with sexual desire, and also because patriarchy has got women turning on each other so much. So we have nice girls and not so nice girls, good women and not so good women and maybe some of us spend some of our time thinking rape and violence happens to other women and it is maybe their fault! I am not saying we say or think this 'out loud' I think we totally internalise that message. We hear it in whispers and it can take years to realise it is a crock of shit, literally years!

This myth was sold to us a lot by the idea of what a woman wears, or where she goes, having bearing on whether or not she is raped or (sorry, I hate typing these words but the perception is still there) 'asking for it'! The idea that an Indian shop keeper or black person in a very white area etc could be 'asking' to be the victim of crime, is ludicrous, so we should firmly stamp on any idea that women are 'responsible' for their treatment at the hands of violent and abusive men, even if they are unfortunate to be trapped in a relationship with such men, IMHO.

Good knowledge of local european law btw lassunparalleled. I doff my metaphorical cap.

Belgium has the approach that , for simplicity on here I'll sum up as , any nasty or threatening behaviour towards another person is a crime, and it is compounded if at least part of motivation is that that person is different from you.

That's basically the law here - using 'words or gestures intended to cause harassment, alarm or distress' (s5 of the Public Order Act). Obviously the application leaves a lot to be desired, but at the same time you can see why the police and courts are reluctant to spend hours and hours dealing with low-level twattishness.

We hear about invading armies (modern ones and from ancient times) raping the women of the peoples they conquer. This obviously falls into the category of instilling fear, control etc and therefore could be described as a hate crime.

But not all rape is like that. Mentioned upthread is that men who rape hate women - I'm not sure that 'hate' is the right word. 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.

The point of the designation of a crime as a hate crime is to make an act which is already a crime a more serious crime.

This leads , as has been discussed before here, to inconsistencies and illogical application in certain cases. A very simple one being a violent assault by one football supporter on another just for supporting a particular club where neither team has a sectarian following isn't, but a Rangers fan committing a minor assault on a Celtic fan may well be.

In the awful case of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter the bullying of her disabled daughter was, but not that of Fiona for being a bit odd. Likewise beating up Goths just for looking like Goths or other people who look "odd" , or as happened to one of my son's friends, being beaten up just for being a posh boy in the wrong school uniform, is not an official hate crime although some police forces are recording such crimes as a special category in their own records.

I will probably be called a rape apologist for this but I don't see what the point is of naming all rapes of women as hate crimes. What in law does that achieve? An already very serious crime is more serious?

I think campaigning for better prosecution results, stiffer sentences and a better understanding of issues of consent is the correct approach. And as for "the menz" should the anal rape of a 16 year old boy be a less serious crime because he is a boy?

On the issue of lesser crimes such as cat calling if the law were properly applied such harassment could be dealt with. Belgium has the approach that , for simplicity on here I'll sum up as , any nasty or threatening behaviour towards another person is a crime, and it is compounded if at least part of motivation is that that person is different from you.