From reading the debate on this, the government (and the law commission’s) logic seems to be that it would make things overly complicated and might make it harder to prosecute things like rape. I’m not sure that makes a lot of sense on the face of it, but that is their argument.
> The Lords’ amendment sought to make misogyny – prejudice against women – a hate crime and obliged police to record such offences.
It wasn’t misogyny, it was any incident where:
> the victim or any other person perceived the alleged offender, at the time of or immediately before or after the offence, to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on sex
And while I have no issue with the principle that hate crime laws should cover sex like it does race, any law which is based on the perceptions of the victim is pretty dangerous.
I don’t understand how this is meant to work or rather what it’s meant to achieve?
Aren’t almost all serious crimes are least partly related to the sex of the victim. I (male) was assaulted when there were plenty of much easier (female) targets around because socially it was acceptable to hit a man but not a woman. Similarly, very few sexual harassers would consider me as a prospective victim. The law itself even sometimes requires this (for instance the definition of rape or indecent exposure). And we’re very comfortable treating crimes differently based on the sex of the victim too. Even suspicion is based on sex, I was pulled over as a 25 year old because there were a bunch of teenage boys in the car.
So what’s the actual plan here? Add an always yes tickbox to crime reports and then untick it for a few things like burglary or fraud where the victim is a company?
3 comments
From reading the debate on this, the government (and the law commission’s) logic seems to be that it would make things overly complicated and might make it harder to prosecute things like rape. I’m not sure that makes a lot of sense on the face of it, but that is their argument.
> The Lords’ amendment sought to make misogyny – prejudice against women – a hate crime and obliged police to record such offences.
It wasn’t misogyny, it was any incident where:
> the victim or any other person perceived the alleged offender, at the time of or immediately before or after the offence, to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on sex
And while I have no issue with the principle that hate crime laws should cover sex like it does race, any law which is based on the perceptions of the victim is pretty dangerous.
I don’t understand how this is meant to work or rather what it’s meant to achieve?
Aren’t almost all serious crimes are least partly related to the sex of the victim. I (male) was assaulted when there were plenty of much easier (female) targets around because socially it was acceptable to hit a man but not a woman. Similarly, very few sexual harassers would consider me as a prospective victim. The law itself even sometimes requires this (for instance the definition of rape or indecent exposure). And we’re very comfortable treating crimes differently based on the sex of the victim too. Even suspicion is based on sex, I was pulled over as a 25 year old because there were a bunch of teenage boys in the car.
So what’s the actual plan here? Add an always yes tickbox to crime reports and then untick it for a few things like burglary or fraud where the victim is a company?