It’s a bit more than a premeditated/non-premeditated distinction. Many non-premeditated crimes are not crimes of passion, such as a murder resulting from a botched robbery, or an assault committed while drunk, or any crime of recklessness or negligence. I also want to note that “crime of passion” is not a complete defense in the US. Instead, it tends to mitigate a murder charge down to voluntary manslaughter (which we still send people to jail for a very long time for).

Finally, I think it very misguided to ignore the reasons gender-based violence occurs. It is extremely difficult to fight a problem without discussing the causes of it. And yes, sometimes discussing the cause might make the offender seem a little less evil. But you know what? Not all criminals are equally evil. A man who plots to murder someone is a whole lot worse than one who kills someone while in a sudden fit of rage (but even this guy is still pretty bad). I’d like to know if they use the same standard for when a battered woman kills her husband. Should we also ignore her motive? How about reporting the facts (all of them) and letting the public reach their own conclusions?

This list really just needed one rule: Be aware that the framing of an issue and the language used may reinforce particularly harmful norms.

Joe: I agree that every rapist has a motive. However, the motives are often described, subtly or overtly, as something that is actually incidental, rather than a true motive. The true motives men have for raping women (they hate them, need someone to dominate, etc) are rarely mentioned.
Recently I emailed a local journalist who was covering a rape trial. While describing the assault, he casually wrote that the man “bought the woman drinks” prior to the assault. I wanted to know why this detail was necessary to report, since it seemed to imply that maybe she “owed” him something. He didn’t agree, saying that he was only reporting the facts of the case and the timeline.

Also I think billie upthread had a really good point and one that doesnt receive the attention it should as it almost seems, and I know this isnt the case but i get the feeling sometimes, that if it isnt male on female intimate partner/family violence it doesnt really “count”.

I think it’s a useful terms when used in conjunction with concrete descriptions to prevent readers getting lost in legal jargon and to make the reporting a crime more accessible. I don’t see it as inherently biased because, in and of itself, it doesn’t assign forgiveness; it describes circumstances. It’s not up to the media to assign motive but it is up to the media to report any given motives and any accusations/defences made.

I don’t want the argument to get weighed down by semantics. My biggest issue and my reason for posting in the first place is that saying rape committed on the spur of the moment (driven by anger or drunkeness or perceived personal injury such as infidelity, which is how I define crime of passion) doesn’t exist is a useless and extremely dangerous thing to say. If you think crime of passion isn’t the best way to describe those circumstances, that’s fair. I just disagree.

In most places (the law does differ from state to state and I can’t say that I know the details of every single district), there are aggravating factors for rape, just like every other crime. Typical aggravating factors are use of a weapon, premeditation, etc etc. So if you put a gun to someone’s head and then rape them, that’s more serious, just like armed robbery is more serious than unarmed robbery.

I’m also confused as to what you mean by a “crime of passion” with regard to rape. Can you explain a situation that you would qualify as rape-as-a-crime-of-passion?

And “crime of passion” is actually a very biased term. It’s not a technical legal term, although it is used by lawyers to qualify certain situations when asking for sentencing leniency. It is a term that assigns a forgiveable motive to a perpetrator. And, in my opinion, it’s highly irresponsible for the media to use it, because it’s not up to them to assign motive. They should be able to give the circumstances of a crime without using terms that imply justification. For example, you can say that a man killed his wife and her lover, and you can do that without using the “crime of passion” terminology.

I’ve never heard rape described as a crime of passion, legally or otherwise, which is why I’m confused.