(really asking)
Isn’t there a legal difference between a sanctioned sport (like professional boxing) and two guys agreeing to beat the snot out of each other on the street (e.g. they are in a bar and agree to “take it outside”)?
It’s going to vary by location, but in many cases a few friends roughhousing is not a crime. Actually putting someone in the hospital as a result, sure. But throwing a few punches when everyone involved is fine with it?
Did you ever have friends who’d punch each other in the arm as a game? I did. If I did that to a stranger it would be battery. To my friend who does it back and we’re all in agreement that it’s a game? Not a crime.
What happens if one of those people decides to press charges? They agreed to the fight, got their ass kicked and in a fit of pique called the police. Is it battery/assault then?
Right but in that example no killing takes place. The point is that you cannot recover your money because the contract was illegal. Substitute “hitman” for someone hired to commit ANY crime. You hire someone to steal your wife’s car, or to burn down a rival’s bakery, or to cut your mom’s tires. They don’t do it. You cannot recover your money through the legal system.
Probably not, no. The battery law in California doesn’t mention consent, for example, so if you punch someone and they don’t want to press charges but the prosecutor does and they don’t need the victim’s testimony, they could certainly go after you. Illegal contracts notwithstanding.
No law blocks you from putting consent in writing, but the fact that you did so would have no bearing on whether the state could prosecute her or not.
Because the fulfillment of the contract requires an illegal act (assault, which is illegal regardless of consent)
In my state at least, nothing about the battery law would make that “not a crime”. Now, if no one is calling the cops or getting hurt, charges aren’t going to get pressed. But theoretically if you and your bhddy are punching each other in jest in public, are caught on camera, and a cop walks by - you totally COULD be prosecuted and convicted under the law, AIUI.
In parts of this country, some types of fighting still have a kind of formalized procedure almost like old duels. You agree to a time and a place, show up with your friends and other onlookers, and get to business. And in this day and age, video is being recorded long before the first punch is thrown. It’s very obvious when a fight is consensual, although cultural pressures certainly discourage people from backing away from fights in these situations. But nobody’s going to admit it, not to their friends and certainly not to the police.
What state is that? Can you point me to the battery code?
IIRC there was a legal case in Great Britain that effectively outlawed BDSM sexual practices (this despite the people involved very clearly telling the court that they consented and liked it). I can’t find it now but I think their notion was no one sane would consent to being abused like that so, therefore, it was illegal. If you are not sane you cannot give consent.
But, as @pkbites noted above, where is the line drawn? Is spanking your partner too much even if they like it (so consent is given)?
The laws vary widely by state, and also vary based on the details around the battery.
I have a friend who is into BDSM who has looked into it, and in some states his sex life is in violation of the law, and in others it’s completely legal. (I believe his sex life includes restraints and pain, but not any permanent damage. And of course, he is very careful about consent.)
Every state allows you to consent to have a surgeon open up your body and cut out a chunk of your bowel. So there are circumstances where you can consent to permanent damage to parts of your body. Or maybe the law doesn’t consider it to be damage if it’s being done to improve your overall health. But still – the devil is in the details.
California Penal Code 242 reads:
242.
This is a bit vague because of the term “unlawful”, but from the reading I’ve done (and again IANAL) lawful use of force relates to police officers making an arrest, self defense, etc - I found absolutely no references to “consent”.
But for comparison here is Ca Pen 244:
244.
No exceptions here. If you signed a contract with someone where they paid you $1,000,000 to drip acid on them, you are in violation of this law regardless of their consent.
Seems like you’re arguing in two opposite directions here. It’s obvious that a fight is consensual, but also, even if it’s not, it’s hard to tell because people will lie and say it was for other reasons.
I think the latter claim is true, and not the former. It is in fact not obvious when a fight is consensual because people have good reason to lie about whether it was consensual.
Well, then it’s a big ol’ mess and someone (DA? cops?) has to figure out if it really was consensual and someone had regrets or if it wasn’t, and was criminal. And of course it will depend on exactly what the local battery law says.
FWIW, in my state, Oregon, consensual fighting is illegal unless it is regulated by the Oregon Athletic Comission. So punching your buddy in the arm would be assault (Oregon code doesn’t seem to have an “assault/battery” distinction).
But tattooing is generally legal.
I read that as “butt tattooing”.
I’ll show myself out.
I don’t think that’s what is meant - I think the idea is that it’s obvious when the people consented to the fight but that social pressure makes it difficult not to consent.
Intersstingly I had the same thought as I read through the rule. And under some interpretations (say, Orthodox Judaism) tattoos are definitely “disfiguring”.
Let’s stick to the law in my state where the battery statute mentions consent. I take this to mean one can consent to being battered.
My OP is how far can this go?
My wife can consent to me slapping her fanny.
Could I consent to her breaking arm? If not why not? It’s already been established that I can consent to battery. What is the limit.
The point I’m making is that if both parties steadfastly claim that the fight was consensual and there’s no evidence of one person trying to surrender or tap out, nobody’s getting charged with battery. Certainly societal pressures encourage people to fight who might not otherwise want to, but that’s a tale as old as time and is going to be impossible to prove if nobody is cooperating.
Oregon appears to be unique in this regard, or at least unique enough to warrant its own section in the Wikipedia article.
WAG:
Does disfigurement enter into it?
And I’m saying that depending on the level of social pressure, you didn’t really consent. Imagine two possible internal monologues of our reluctant fighter.
“I’m a man, and as a man, my culture demands that I stand up and fight for what I believe in” is consent.
“This guy demands I fight, and I don’t want to fight him, but if I say that or refuse to fight, or even worse, tell the cops I didn’t want to fight, the consequences to me will be much worse than just taking a few punches and suffering in silence” is not consent.
It’s not easy for an outside observer to differentiate those, but the difference exists and is legally relevant.
Practically, the limit is actions that sufficiently offend the public that the cops/DA decide to arrest/prosecute you for it. There isn’t going to be a brighter line than that.
Sure, as omniscient observers. But realistically, how is anybody going to catch a charge in the latter example?
In any case, I can tell you that the line of reasoning* is more often, “well, x y z was said and now I have to do what I have to do.” It’s like eating your vegetables or standing up for your little brother. You do what society tells you to do. I’m not saying it’s right or noble, but cultural pressures are cultural pressures.
*in my personal experience, which is a fairly hefty sample size in a very specific place