# Law People: Let's do this again. Is a finger an object?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925
**Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
**Created:** [November 3, 2018, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925 "2018-11-03T05:27:19Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2018, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925/1 "2018-11-03T05:27:19Z")
Here is the statute:
> [@Relevant Part](#):
>
> “Sexual intrusion” means any act between persons involving penetration, however slight, of the female sex organ or of the anus of any person by an object for the purpose of degrading or humiliating the person so penetrated or for gratifying the sexual desire of either party.
A defendant is proven to have penetrated a female’s vagina with his finger. Is he guilty of sexual intrusion?
I say no. An object seems to me to be, first, an inanimate item, not a part of a human being. It further seems to be an item on its own and not the greater part of a whole.
What say ye wanna be legal scholars? Oh, and, this is not about the morality of such a thing. The question for MPIMS is: does a finger (or two or three fingers or even a fist) count as an object?
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2018, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925/2 "2018-11-03T05:34:08Z")
Missed the edit window: Obviously the crime will be “sexual intrusion” without her consent, because she is underage, because she is mentally unable to consent, because of X, Y, Z. As I re-read the OP, I didn’t mean to give the impression that consensual penetration with an object was a crime.
---
### Author:  [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2018, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925/3 "2018-11-03T05:37:21Z")
For the purposes of the “purpose” named in the law you quoted, any matter (in physics terms) is an object.
Unless you mean to say “no, because it was a body part it’s rape and not intrusion”.
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2018, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925/4 "2018-11-03T05:47:04Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#):
>
> For the purposes of the “purpose” named in the law you quoted, any matter (in physics terms) is an object.
>
> Unless you mean to say “no, because it was a body part it’s rape and not intrusion”.
In my state, sexual intrusion and “sexual intercourse” are the big baddies (when the above provisions apply). Here is sexual intercourse:
> [@Definition](#):
>
> “Sexual intercourse” means any act between persons involving penetration, however slight, of the female sex organ by the male sex organ or involving contact between the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another person.
If you are not guilty of the two big baddies, You may be guilty of “sexual contact”:
> [@Definition](#):
>
> “Sexual contact” means any intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the breasts, buttocks, anus or any part of the sex organs of another person, or intentional touching of any part of another person’s body by the actor’s sex organs, where the victim is not married to the actor and the touching is done for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either party.
Clearly a finger is “sexual contact.” Sexual contact is a much less penalty. My guy would like sexual contact and not sexual intrusion. I think it is pretty clear that “sexual intercourse” does not apply.
---
### Author:  [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2018, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925/5 "2018-11-03T05:54:59Z")
It’s intrusion because there was a penetrative aspect to it. Penetration using what, is not relevant - except in cases that make your fellow’s situation worse, not better.
---
### Author:  [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2018, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925/6 "2018-11-03T05:58:38Z")
(making it worse would be: rape, aggravated assault, etc.)
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2018, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925/7 "2018-11-03T06:01:41Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#):
>
> It’s intrusion because there was a penetrative aspect to it. Penetration using what, is not relevant - except in cases that make your fellow’s situation worse, not better.
Yes it is relevant. Read the law. It must be penetration using an “object.”
Perhaps in physics, individual electrons are objects, but in law? I’ve never heard anyone refer to a body part as an “object.”
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2018, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925/8 "2018-11-03T06:08:00Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#):
>
> For the purposes of the “purpose” named in the law you quoted, any matter (in physics terms) is an object.
>
> Unless you mean to say “no, because it was a body part it’s rape and not intrusion”.
I just read this again. The “purpose” clause is to make sure the law is only applied to an intentionally degrading or gratifying conduct. A doctor delivering a baby, or a mother applying a suppository to her child are not covered under the law.
---
### Author:  [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2018, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925/9 "2018-11-03T06:30:23Z")
Flashback to first year Crim. :eek:
Has “object” been defined elsewhere in the section?
---
### Author:  [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2018, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925/10 "2018-11-03T06:56:21Z")
> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> I just read this again. The “purpose” clause is to make sure the law is only applied to an intentionally degrading or gratifying conduct. A doctor delivering a baby, or a mother applying a suppository to her child are not covered under the law.
So, if it’s intentionally degrading or intentionally gratifying, AND a [piece of matter according to physics but not a penis in particular] was used penetratively, then it’s intrusion.
Read for meaning, not for lexemes. If you start reading for lexemes, you’re lost.
Parsing more closely than the writer intended you to parse is not careful, not responsible, not wily, just a stupid error.
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2018, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925/11 "2018-11-03T11:59:02Z")
So, wait. If we come up with a sufficiently persuasive argument that a finger isn’t an object, the guy who did this basically gets away with it?
No thanks. And do your own homework.
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2018, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925/12 "2018-11-03T13:06:21Z")
I’d look for a different criminal violation that addresses inserting body parts.
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2018, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925/13 "2018-11-03T13:10:59Z")
> [@AK84](#):
>
> Flashback to first year Crim. :eek:
> Has “object” been defined elsewhere in the section?
Nope.
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2018, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925/14 "2018-11-03T13:26:45Z")
The objection seems to be that, if a finger is an object, then so is a penis. Which in turn would mean that every instance of sexual intercourse is also an instance of sexual intrusion\*. But is that actually a problem? After all, every instance of murder is also an instance of assault, and that doesn’t cause any difficulties in the law.
\*Technically not quite, since “sexual intrusion” also requires that it be for purposes of gratification or humiliation, but it’s quite rare for a penis to be inserted into a vagina for any other purpose.
---
### Author:  [@markn\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markn_1)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2018, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925/15 "2018-11-03T14:32:15Z")
I ain’t no “law person”, but I know that words sometimes have specialized definitions in law. But if, as stated in #13, there is no specific legal definition of “object” to use here, and we have to rely on normal English usage, then we can look at some dictionaries:
[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/object?src=search-dict-hed): Something material that may be perceived by the senses.
[Oxford Dictionaries](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/object): A material thing that can be seen and touched.
[Cambridge English Dictionary](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/object): A thing that you can see or touch but that is not usually a living animal, plant, or person.
[MacMillan Dictionary](https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/object_1): A thing that you can see and touch that is not alive and is usually solid.
MacMillan gives some support to the OP’s idea that an “object” is by definition is not alive, but none support the notion that it must not be part of a larger object. However this means that in the common phrase “inanimate object”, “inanimate” is redundant. That doesn’t feel right to me. I’d go with the majority of dictionaries and say a finger is an object.
---
### Author:  [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2018, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925/16 "2018-11-03T15:06:35Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#):
>
> So, wait. If we come up with a sufficiently persuasive argument that a finger isn’t an object, the guy who did this basically gets away with it?
>
> No thanks. And do your own homework.
This. No thanks.
---
### Author:  [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2018, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925/17 "2018-11-03T15:08:47Z")
I like how a lawyer is intentionally trying to misread the law in favor of sexual assault.
---
### Author:  [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2018, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925/18 "2018-11-03T16:50:00Z")
> [@Acsenray](#):
>
> I’d look for a different criminal violation that addresses inserting body parts.
Yup. I find it very unlikely that a modern criminal code would not have a provision covering this act.
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#):
>
> I like how a lawyer is intentionally trying to misread the law in favor of sexual assault.
:rolleyes:
What the actual fuck are you talking about? This is a fairly common legal discussion of whether a certain act comes within the ambit of a particular provision of law. Its done thousands of time daily.
And FYI, its a standard in criminal law that ambiguities in a statute are always construed in a manner most favourable to an accused.
---
### Author:  [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2018, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925/19 "2018-11-03T17:20:13Z")
Are you billing your client for the hours you wait for us to answer?
---
### Author:  [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)
#### Post date: [November 3, 2018, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925/20 "2018-11-03T17:42:59Z")
1.) If you tell your client that you are developing his defense by crowd-sourcing on a web site, can you record it? I’d love to see his reaction.
2.) You could make the argument that your client was attempting to play [kancho](https://www.google.com/search?q=Kancho+game&oq=Kancho+game&gs_l=mobile-heirloom-serp.3..0l2j0i22i30l3.1776.10392.0.11124.12.11.0.1.1.0.1065.5043.0j1j1j3j2j1j1j1.10.0....0...1c.1.34.mobile-heirloom-serp..6.6.1841.ZMUaQ2GIL9I) and misinterpreted the rules.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-people-lets-do-this-again-is-a-finger-an-object/823925.md?page=2)