You be the judge - sexual assault?

[James R]

sideshowbob:

That's what I thought. So if the "victim" doesn't know anything happened, he/she can not be apprehensive of imminent harm. Hence, no assault, no crime.

As I said, it depends on the particular laws in play, and assault tends to fall under a number of different categories. Under the old, common-law definition of assault, apprehension of imminent harm was required, but I'm not so sure about the current legal position. Note also that assault and battery were traditionally two separate offences. If you actually hit somebody, that would be battery, but merely putting them in fear that you were about to hit them would be assault.

Take a modern situation. Let's say that you are on a crowded train and you see a man deliberately rubbing up against a woman for his own sexual gratification. Let's assume that because she is surrounded by other people, she doesn't notice what the man behind her is doing, but you do.

Suppose you (or another passenger) were to report the man's actions to the police. What action do you suppose would follow? Suppose that the woman only became aware of the man's actions at the time when the attention of public transport officers or police was drawn to his activities. What then? And what if that particular woman left the scene before the man's activities were reported, but he was, for example, caught doing the same thing to another woman. Would it be legitimate for the police to raise the reported matter of the first woman in any prosecution, do you think, given that she was unaware that anything happened to her?

That's all I'm saying.

I find your approach simplistic, and somewhat worrying as well.

Or take the example of homosexuality. It was deemed "wrong" at one time. It was a crime, even though there was no victim and no harm. That's why I'm saying that we should be defining crimes more in reference to harm.

Homosexuality was criminalised because it was considered harmful, have no doubt about that. It was viewed as "deviant" and socially harmful. The victims were perceived to be the heterosexual majority, some of whom were literally homophobic. Homosexuality was considered a danger to the functioning of a "civilised" society.

Homosexuality is still a crime in many countries. It is only in the past month that India has finally decriminalised it. The idea that it is harmful is not an archaic one; it's still with us today. And even in a nation like the United States, there are still plenty of people who would like to see homosexuality criminalised again. There are plenty of religious types who still consider it a sin against God, and will happily quote biblical "law" at you to justify their bigotry.

No, that is not clear. If I don't miss the nickel, if I don't even notice that it's missing, it is not a real crime, even though the law might technically regard it as such.

Perhaps now would be a good time for you to say what you mean by a "real crime".

Going back to the theft of the nickel we have the following:
1. The nickel was your property.
2. It was taken deliberately (i.e. intentionally), let's assume.
3. The aim of the person who took it was to keep it for himself (i.e. to permanently deprive you of it).
4. The actions of that person involved acting dishonestly. Knowing it was yours, he nevertheless decided to appropriate it for himself.

This is a crime, as defined. But forget the definition if you like, and let's get back to basics.

Ask yourself the basic question: did the person who took your nickel act rightly or wrongly?

If you think he did nothing wrong, then it seems that there would be no moral grounds to consider his act a criminal one. On the other hand, if you believe that there was something morally blameworthy about his actions, then quite possibly there are grounds for making a law prohibiting such behaviour. So, tell me what you think.

In this case - the appropriation of your nickel - you might well consider the level of harm that you suffered to be negligible. Applying the rule of thumb that "the law is not concerned with trifles", prosecution of this crime might be considered less important than other crimes. But it remains a criminal act, if you think the perpetrator is morally culpable.

Consider also the implications of decriminalising this action. You write a law that says ... what? That it's acceptable to steal nickels? So now it's open slather for people to go around nicking other people's nickels. Is that a socially valuable outcome?

Maybe you get more sophisticated, and you say it's okay to steal a certain proportion of a person's assets - a proportion they won't miss, say. Let's say the proportion you decide on is 0.0001%. If Bill Gates has a billion dollars, then under your new law it is legal to steal $1000 from him. How many people do you think will be lining up to steal "their" $1000 when you promulgate this law? Suppose you have $200,000. Then under the same law it's legal to steal 20 cents from you. Anybody can do that any time, and the law won't intervene. Would this be a good law in your opinion? I mean, you could go around stealing from other people, too, so you might well be able to balance things out so you had no net loss. So, it's all good, then?

What do you think?

 

[James R]

Why would drugging her be a crime? After all, by your logic, if she is unaware of it, is it really a crime?

Referring to this example...

Bill Cosby recently received a prison sentence for exactly this. Some of the women involved with Cosby only suspected years later that he might have drugged them.

I am interested to hear whether sideshowbob considers that Cosby should not be prosecuted for the drugging in such cases, even if he thinks Cosby should be prosecuted for the rape or sexual assault that came after the drugging. And what about those sexual activities? If they occurred when the victims were drugged unconscious, should that make the assaults a non-crime? If they didn't know about it at the time, and only suspected much later (e.g. when the pattern of behaviour became public), is it fair to say that a crime was still committed? When did the crime (if it was a crime) occur? When the assault happened, or only when the victim put two and two together and concluded she had been raped while unconscious?

Also, if there are other women out there who were drugged and assaulted by Cosby but who haven't realised it yet, has any crime been committed against those women, in sideshowbob's opinion?

sideshowbob's definition of a crime rests on a somewhat fluid notion of "harm". I think we need to pin down exactly what constitutes "harm" for him, and when "harm" does and does not occur.

If Cosby drugged a woman and then raped her while she was unconscious, and the next morning she woke up thinking she had merely had a bit much to drink, and then went about her life as normal, blissfully unaware forever after, should Cosby's actions be considered criminal in this instance? Is there any harm? Where, if anywhere, does the harm lie? What, or who, was harmed?

I look forward to sideshowbob's clarifications on this.

 

[billvon]

Consent is not implied. Implied consent is actually a myth.

In many cases consent IS implied.

A man and a woman who live together and have sex every night is not rape - even if there is no explicit consent by either one on a given night. Even if the woman likes to have the man "do all the work." Even if they don't talk.

Now, if she says "no" and he ignores it, it is of course nonconsensual. But the law recognizes that explicit consent need not be given for sex to be consensual.

 

[sideshowbob]

So, do you think child pornography should be freely allowed on the internet?

What I said was that drawings about children and stories about children should not be treated the same as photographs because there are no children (directly) harmed.

 

[sideshowbob]

Why would drugging someone be a crime--no harm, no recollection?

How is drugging somebody not harm?

 

[parmalee]

How is drugging somebody not harm?

Jesus Fucking H Christ. 'Cuz it's a benzodiazepine, and with adequate dosage one will forget the period surrounding ingestion--it ain't fucking cyanide, you imbecile.

I'm out. Git a brain, moran!

 

[sculptor]

I have an old comedy album(circa late '60's) of Bill Cosby's in which he talks of a trip to spain wherein he hopes to obtain some "spanish fly".

Bill gets into a cab and the cabbie asks him if he has any of that "american fly".

......................
and we thought it was just comedy

 

[sideshowbob]

Dr. Bradley's victims were never threatened and had no knowledge of what he was doing to them.

Since you know what the doctor did, I can only conclude that the victims eventually found out too.

Ah, so now the change. They need to find out that anything happened.

No change. That's what I've said right from the beginning.

What of paedophile priests who groom their victims and then molest and rape them.

You're not listening. You might as well ask, "What if somebody breaks into my house and I don't find out about it until an hour later?" Come up with an example where they never find out that they have been "harmed".

Try not dodging and actually answering in regards to the arguments you have made in this thread.

I'm not going to address the arguments that you make up. Try addressing what I actually said.

To suggest that raping a patient in a coma, for example, would not really be a crime....

I didn't suggest that. I suggested that it would not be an assault specifically. Somebody else confirmed what I thought, that an assault, specifically, requires a perceived imminent threat. There may well be a crime involved but it is not, as far as I can see, an assault or burglary or fraud.

What do you think is beneficial in portraying children as sexual objects or sexual beings to adults?

You quoted what I said: "In the case of pornography in general, does it promote sexual abuse in general? Or does it provide an outlet for some that might prevent them from acting out against a real person? or both?"

There are inherent dangers to what you have argued for in this thread....

There are also inherent dangers in suppressing questions. Most of what I have done in this thread has been asking questions. The only thing I have advocated is paying more attention to helping victims.

Your attitude is the same as the attitude that made homosexuality a crime for so long: Do not dare to question the absolute wisdom of Bells.

 

[billvon]

To suggest that raping a patient in a coma, for example, would not really be a crime....

I didn't suggest that. I suggested that it would not be an assault specifically. Somebody else confirmed what I thought, that an assault, specifically, requires a perceived imminent threat. There may well be a crime involved but it is not, as far as I can see, an assault or burglary or fraud.

====================
Unconscious woman allegedly sexually assaulted near Kennedy subway station
By The Canadian Press
Sun., Sept. 2, 2018

Toronto police say they are looking for a man accused of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman outside of a subway station on Saturday afternoon.

Police say multiple passersby witnessed the alleged sexual assault of the 40-year-old woman as she lay unconscious on the ground outside Kennedy subway station.
==================

 

[Bells]

In many cases consent IS implied.

A man and a woman who live together and have sex every night is not rape - even if there is no explicit consent by either one on a given night. Even if the woman likes to have the man "do all the work." Even if they don't talk.

Now, if she says "no" and he ignores it, it is of course nonconsensual. But the law recognizes that explicit consent need not be given for sex to be consensual.

Actually, it is not.

You seem to be applying the common law definition of "implied consent". That went out decades ago in pretty much all Western countries, Billvon. Common law and statutes in the majority of jurisdictions around Western common law nations, no longer recognise "implied consent". That has been established for decades. When I say Western nations, I understand many states in the US lags behind the rest of the world in regards to marital rape and the outdated notion of "implied consent". So perhaps you live in one such state in the US?

For the rest of a large portion of the world, however.. The very notion of implied consent went out in the 90's.

To use your example, a man and a woman who live together and have sex every night, have consensual sex. It is not rape. Nor is consent implied. Even if it is silent, with no talking, she is an active participant and has not said no. She is actively consenting to sex with her partner.

Implied consent is essentially where one party is unable to actually consent. Say she is unconscious. He then has sex with her and then says 'well, we have sex every night, we are married and living together, you never complained about our having sex before'.. He is attempting to argue that he had implied consent, because of their sexual history. Most common law jurisdictions do not recognise "implied consent" as a defense, even in marital rape cases.

 

[sideshowbob]

Most people recognise that if a woman does not consent, then it is rape.

Again, I was not the one who brought that up. It was somebody else who said that there is an implied consent between married people.

 

[parmalee]

Hence, no assault, no crime.

Bolding mine.

At least make a fucking effort.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

What I said was that drawings about children and stories about children should not be treated the same as photographs because there are no children (directly) harmed.

Well, me and others disagree:

• Possession of child pornography
  
  (4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of
  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
    
    
  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.
• Marginal note:Accessing child pornography
  
  (4.1) Every person who accesses any child pornography is guilty of
  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
    
    
  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-163.1.html

Why? Because people can and do make money off of harming children.

 

[billvon]

To use your example, a man and a woman who live together and have sex every night, have consensual sex. It is not rape. Nor is consent implied. Even if it is silent, with no talking, she is an active participant and has not said no. She is actively consenting to sex with her partner.

Note that I have said she is passive and prefers the man to "do all the work." She does not voice her consent; she does not actively participate. It is still not rape, and it is still consensual.

 

[sideshowbob]

Suppose you (or another passenger) were to report the man's actions to the police. What action do you suppose would follow? Suppose that the woman only became aware of the man's actions at the time when the attention of public transport officers or police was drawn to his activities. What then? And what if that particular woman left the scene before the man's activities were reported, but he was, for example, caught doing the same thing to another woman. Would it be legitimate for the police to raise the reported matter of the first woman in any prosecution, do you think, given that she was unaware that anything happened to her?

I think I agree with what anybody else would say about that example - but it doesn't apply to anything I've said.

Homosexuality was criminalised because it was considered harmful, have no doubt about that.

That's exactly my point. Ideas about "harm" can change.

Ask yourself the basic question: did the person who took your nickel act rightly or wrongly?

That's the thing. My answer might be different from the common run-of-the-mill answer because I'm not a fanatical believer in "private property". I think a man who "steals" a loaf of bread to feed his family has not necessarily done wrongly - and a man who sits on a huge pile of money while other people go hungry has done wrongly.

You write a law that says ... what? That it's acceptable to steal nickels?

We already manage to handle the situation in civil actions. The plaintiff who claims damages has to show that damage was done. It's easier to understand in cases of slander: If everybody already thought you were an asshole, you'd have a hard time convincing anybody that your reputation was damaged.

 

[sideshowbob]

'Cuz it's a benzodiazepine, and with adequate dosage one will forget the period surrounding ingestion--it ain't fucking cyanide, you imbecile.

So it's impossible for anybody to have an adverse reaction to benzodiazepine?

 

[billvon]

So it's impossible for anybody to have an adverse reaction to benzodiazepine?

You are REALLY stretching now.

 

[Bells]

Since you know what the doctor did, I can only conclude that the victims eventually found out too.

A large portion of the victims were babies. How would they know or understand.

Do you think he committed a crime against those children?

You're not listening. You might as well ask, "What if somebody breaks into my house and I don't find out about it until an hour later?" Come up with an example where they never find out that they have been "harmed".

You mean like many children and adults who were molested as babies and are never told about it to protect them?

Did their molester commit a crime in your opinion, if they are never told about it?

Say you have a 3 month old baby and someone sexually molests your child. Has that person committed a crime if your child is never told about it?

I mean, that is essentially what it comes down to.

Not too long ago, a man dragged a drunk and drugged woman out the back of a party and raped her as she lay unconscious on the ground. Two men who were riding past at the time, saw what was happening and tackled him off her and called the paramedics. Did the rapist commit a crime? Since she was unconscious and had no idea what was happening? Should the two men have not intervened because she was unconscious and according to you, would have suffered more harm for being told about what was done to her later?

I'm not going to address the arguments that you make up. Try addressing what I actually said.

That's the problem. I am. I am giving you real life examples of what you actually said.

Why are you unable to address them?

I didn't suggest that. I suggested that it would not be an assault specifically.

Assault is not a crime?

To suggest that raping an unconscious woman, say one in a coma, would not be an "assault specifically", in other words, a crime.. Because she is in a coma?

Somebody else confirmed what I thought, that an assault, specifically, requires a perceived imminent threat. There may well be a crime involved but it is not, as far as I can see, an assault or burglary or fraud.

Does the word "consent" mean anything to you?

If a woman is unconscious, she is unable to consent. Having sex with her in such a state is rape. It is a crime. It is not a case of "may well be a crime". It is a criminal act.

The same goes for children. By law, children are unable to consent to sex or sexual relations. If an adult touches them inappropriately, rapes them, penetrates them, etc, then it is deemed statutory rape. Because those children are incapable of consenting. Whether the child is aware of the offense or not. It is still a crime.

Otherwise, paedophiles who groom their victims, would never go to jail for their crimes, because the essence of grooming is to remove or negate "threat".

I cannot believe I am having to explain this to you.

You quoted what I said: "In the case of pornography in general, does it promote sexual abuse in general? Or does it provide an outlet for some that might prevent them from acting out against a real person? or both?"

Yes. It was your response to this:

in the case of children the further issue of potentially encouraging a market in something that leads to child abuse.

I'll be blunt..

To even suggest that child pornography could serve as a benefit for paedophiles is obscene. Actually, I don't think obscene even covers it. There are no actual words that could aptly describe the depravity of such an argument.

The reasons should be obvious. Perhaps not for all.

To the one, child pornography actively promotes children as sex objects. It sexualises children and it normalises the desire for paedophiles to have sex with children. It further pinpoints their beliefs that children are sexualised beings who can have sex with adults.

To the other, you completely ignore the damage done to children in creating these images.

There are also inherent dangers in suppressing questions. Most of what I have done in this thread has been asking questions. The only thing I have advocated is paying more attention to helping victims.

Your general stance here has been 'no harm no foul'.. Because the victim may not be aware or conscious during their abuse or assault, ergo, no crime was actually committed, since their lack of knowledge or understanding of the assault meant they did not feel threatened, which means there cannot be harm.

You even posited the notion that harm comes to the victim when the victim is made aware of it.

How you can believe you are advocating paying more attention to the victim now, after all these pages of you arguing for literally the protection of offenders if their victim is unaware of what they did to them, is frankly, beyond me.

 

[Bells]

Note that I have said she is passive and prefers the man to "do all the work." She does not voice her consent; she does not actively participate. It is still not rape, and it is still consensual.

Huh?

I did not say it was rape.

I simply pointed out that the defense of "implied consent" does not exist and is not recognised in the majority of common law jurisdictions around the world.

And I also explained that there is either consent or no consent. And why.

 

[sideshowbob]

You are REALLY stretching now.

How so? Somebody is suggesting that drugging a person couldn't possibly cause harm. I'm disagreeing.