Why isn't rape a hate crime?

[grimbletart]

Just that really.
I was reading about the reported increase in hate crimes involving race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and transgenderism.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34515763

To be a rapist you really have to hate or despise women or you couldn't inflict such pain and humiliation on them.

I'm sure plenty of posters will come along and say I'm impractical, wrong, daft or whatever, but to me, as well as issues such as control, entitlement etc. rape really is a crime of hate.

So why not?

Aren't all crimes based on hatred? You must hate someone to decide to rob them and put them through all the fear and humiliation, and you must hate someone to murder them and end their life.

You must hate someone to decide to rob them

Not necessarily. you might just want their stuff. It's highly likely that you don't give a shit about them but that's not hatred.

No, I'm not sure they are. You can rob someone out of need and not hatred. Say a person steals a loaf of bread from Tesco because they have no money and kids to feed - that's not hatred, is it? An accountant who defrauds a client to fund a gambling addiction may be motivated far more by personal greed than by dislike of that person, may indeed value the client and fully and foolishly intend to put the money back when the horses come in. There are even, arguably, crimes committed out of love - assisted dying might be one. (Just because it is illegal doesn't always mean it's morally wrong).

Rape isn't a feminist issue?

Right o

Can you perhaps give us almost if what is? Just so we know what you approve of feminists discussing.

It affects boys, girls, men and women, therefore cannot be defined as hating a particular group of people based on a common 'identity' such as sex, race, gender, religion, nationality, ethnicity etc.

And getting beaten up affects boys, girls, men and women. However, we feel it is reasonable to mark out some beating ups as hate crimes and not others. Why should rape be different?

I don't think the issue is that rape should be a hate crime but currently isn't categorised that way, per se. I think the issue is that gender should be included within hate crime legislation, which would then enable many rapes to be considered hate crimes against women.

We then wouldn't have to worry about the "what about the menz". And it would redress the baffling inconsistency in the law that gender is a protected characteristic but not included with the rest of the protected characteristics in the hate crime legislation.

In my view it would be because rape is already a crime and a serious one.

Hate crimes, if I understand it correctly, were defined to criminalised behaviour for which there was no specific category and that are motivated by hate towards groups in general.

What I'd agree with would be general offensive comments and attitudes towards women (or men) to become hate crimes.

Aren't 'hate crimes' the aggravated versions of basic offences such as s4 and s5 of the Public Order Act '86 - lower level offences in themselves - dealt with by fines or community sentences ?? The function of the aggravated offence being to ensure that the sentencing exercise starts from a more onerous level not available for the basic ?

Just a thought....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.