Should gender violence be treated as a hate crime?
Currently, acts of gender violence are prosecuted as hate crimes in 32 states. That is, they have special programs to deal with these cases, as for other hate crimes like race or religion, and the punishments are more severe. Gender violence includes by and large rape and domestic violence, though other types can be argued.
To be clear, a hate crime is defined as one in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person. In other words, one victim could stand for any other of the same group.
|
1
point
No, since hate crimes can involve equally matched individuals. Gender involves a more uneven playing field, I suggest they ramp up the charges for animal cruelty and categorize gender abuse alongside it trolololo!!! For real though, violence against women and animals is equally atrocious, I'd support eye for an eye in those circumstances. Treat women on man violence as man on man violence (.75 the penalty for man on woman, and human on animal). Interested to hear thoughts on my proposal :) 2
points
1
point
Initially I did jokingly (hence the "trololo") but clarified my point below. You're correct, I'd add that certain human females have "a bit more defensive ability" than other human females as well. The point was to outline abuse of physical superiority. While beating a bunny rabbit and beating a human female are different acts, I suspect that the intentions would be more similar than different. I wouldn't suggest creating a new category, simply rearranging specifics in already existing categories. In this case women, children and animals are more defenseless than men rendering these crimes more heinous (in my opinion) than man on man violence. Clarified? :) While interesting, I honestly do not think much of your proposal. The effects of being treated violently by anyone are arguably as negative for one person as the next, regardless of gender (or species if you want to go there). I think that in this respect gender should not factor at all in the sentencing, but what should be considered was the actual motive and harm inflicted. 1
point
Thank you for your candor though I disagree wholeheartedly. effects of being treated violently by anyone are arguably as negative for one person as the next Admirable quest for equality but impractical. You needn't look further than sexual abuse of a man/woman/child to find clear differences between the three hypothetical scenarios. gender should not factor at all in the sentencing....should be considered was the actual motive and harm inflicted I agree on both accounts, but there is more to consider (for example risk of recidivism). My initial point outlined a (what I believe to be a necessary) change in the current system. The torture and murder of an animal (while as maleficent an act as the same against a man) is far removed in terms of accountability from said act against a human. Abuse of any sort against a weaker victim arguably inflicts more damage (you disagree?). I suppose my issue with your argument is that even though you're correct regarding a myriad of hypothetical situations, not all can be accounted for under the regime you suggest. 0
points
Gendered violence should only ever be treated as a hate crime when a person is specifically, explicitly, and provably targeted for the violence because of their gender. If gender is, however, incidental to the crime then there is no hate included in the motive and thus it should not be prosecuted as such. The very purpose of hate crime legislation is to penalize behavior that is against a group of people in addition to the individual was targeted because of their identity. It is an augmented punishment stacked upon the normal sentence on account of demonstrable racism, sexism, etc. 2
points
My issue is that it's rare for hate crimes nowadays to explicitly reveal themselves as such. People beating up black kids aren't going to flaunt their racism because they know they'll be facing a harsher penalty. I have found substantial arguments that most, if not all rape cases can be classified as gender violence. Male on female rape especially. Men target the victim because she is weaker. He targets her because he seeks to terrorize and control her. Those are characteristics of a hate crime. Control of one is control of the group. And, speaking as a woman, I can attest to the fear I feel when hearing about rape cases. That is another characteristic. The whole group feels threatened. In a study done in the nation's largest cities, 46% of women reported not going downtown after dark, compared to 7.5% of men. I agree that it needs to be specific, but I also that for rape, it's unconditional. My issue is that it's rare for hate crimes nowadays to explicitly reveal themselves as such. This may be true, but where such evidence is lacking I would argue that a person should not have their sentence enhanced. You cannot justly penalize someone for something that you cannot prove they are guilty of, and the supposition is innocent until proven guilty. Men target the victim because she is weaker. He targets her because he seeks to terrorize and control her. Those are characteristics of a hate crime. While I agree that this is likely the mentality of most male aggressors, I do not agree that this meets the definition of a hate crime. The offender odes not choose the woman because he hates her, but because the woman is more vulnerable than another target would be. The hate may occur concurrently with that assessment of vulnerability in which case you have a hate crime, but absent the hate you have only the crime. And, speaking as a woman, I can attest to the fear I feel when hearing about rape cases. That is another characteristic. 46% of women reported not going downtown after dark, compared to 7.5% of men. I am a transgender man who grew up as a woman and is still sometimes perceived as one. So I understand that fear on two fronts. I think that it is highly problematic and that something needs to be done about it, but I am dubious that making rape a hate crime is the solution. Instead of tacking on an enhancement to all cases of rape against women, why not increase the punishment itself? Clearly, something is out of balance. Also, I think the problem needs to be tackled more directly by countering the rape culture that is perpetuated in our society (particularly by the mass media). 1
point
2
points
I agree that there must be determination of gender hate. That's what a hate crime status is for: it creates specially trained departments of law enforcers who can differentiate. However, I am somewhat convinced that rape is a hate crime. Rape is born out of a need to control, and like I previously said, that's what hate crimes are about. No genuinely respectful and unhateful person rapes. Of course there's violence with no respect to gender. Gender violence is most commonly dealing with rape, domestic violence, and the likes, which often has a gender aspect to it. Hate crimes are confusing. Are there violent crimes where the individual does not feel "hate" at least in the moment of the action? If the definition of a hate crime remains as is, then sure, it's a hate crime. But why is that even a category? If an action merits more punishment then punish the perpetrator more severely. It just seems an unnecessary and redundant label. 1
point
The purpose of hate crime enhancements is primarily to account for the ramifications of a hate motivated attack against a group of people. Research has convincingly demonstrated that when an individual is attacked because someone hates one of their identities (say they are perceived as being homosexual) then the entire population holding that identity is victimized. 1
point
|
