The federal hate-crimes law was expanded today to include gender, and some have raised the possibility that a rape claim, such as the infamous Duke lacrosse non-rape, could be encompassed by it: Obama signs hate-crimes bill into law: "As law professor Gail Heriot notes, 'Some have even called for federal prosecution of the Duke University lacrosse team members–despite strong evidence of their innocence.' Advocates of a broader federal hate-crimes law have pointed to the Duke lacrosse case as an example of where federal prosecutors should have stepped in and prosecuted the accused players — even though the state prosecution in that case was dropped because the defendants were actually innocent, as North Carolina’s attorney general conceded (and DNA evidence showed), and were falsely accused of rape by a woman with a history of violence (including trying to run over someone with her car) and making false accusations."
Of course the lunatic fringe of feminism will want all instances of rape to be classified as "hate crimes" against women. We've already seen some feminists seek "hate crime" status for any crime committed against women. You read that right. See here
The fact is, it is possible that more men are raped than women, because of prison rape, so women do not have a monopoly on being victims of rape.
But men, on the other hand, do have a monopoly on being victims of false rape claims. If a hate crime is defined by the fact that a victim is targeted due to his or her membership in a social group, then virtually every false rape claim (except those lodged against, for example, a female teacher) should be classified as "hate crimes."
How could it be otherwise? With a false rape claim, a false accuser specifically, purposefully, and calculatedly singles out an innocent person from a distinct class -- males -- and tries to destroy his life by claiming he was the perpetrator of a heinous rape.
One might quibble and assert that merely because the false rape accuser singles out males, she is not motivated by a "hatred" toward males and, therefore, this is not a hate crime.
Not motivated by hatred? Perhaps some of her best friends are males? Or perhaps it's akin to "The Godfather" -- it's not personal, it's strictly business, so it can't be a hate crime? Unfortunately, that argument doesn't stand scrutiny.
If a criminal came into town and started shooting only blacks, or only Jews, or only women, or only gays, or only Hispanics -- would anyone doubt that the act amounted to a hate crime, regardless of the criminal's twisted rationale? But somehow a different analysis must apply when the victims of the crime are males (including dreaded white males)? Must the hate be personal loathing toward the group targeted, or can it include cold-hearted, calculated indifference?
I am not endorsing hate crime status for any crime, but if any crime should be classified as a "hate crime" based on gender, it is the false rape claim.