The person would not be guilty of “sexual intrusion,” and there is no such thing as a crime of sexual intrusion. If you read the actual West Virginia Code, you would see that “sexual intrusion” is defined in the “Definition of terms” section, and is an ELEMENT of a number of sexual offenses, including:
§61-8B-3. Sexual assault in the first degree.
§61-8B-4. Sexual assault in the second degree.
§61-8B-5. Sexual assault in the third degree.
It is also addressed in the section §61-8B-10. Imposition of sexual acts on persons incarcerated or under supervision, penalties.
Isn’t the difference between a crime, and an element of a crime, something that actual attorneys are supposed to understand?
As for your question about whether a finger constitutes an object for the purposes of West Virginia’s criminal code, I’m going to say yes, firstly because I have trouble believing that any legislature, even the West Virginia legislature, would be stupid enough to write sexual offenses laws such that digital penetration would be excluded from the statutes.
Furthermore, this memorandum (PDF), issued by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in 2014, seems to make quite clear that a finger qualifies as an object for purposes of defining “sexual intrusion” under the state’s code.
The case involved a man who was convicted, among other things, of sexual assault. While the girl played with his penis, he did not penetrate her with his penis, but only with his finger.
Here’s the relevant section from the memorandum:
Despite all the terrible things he did, there is no suggestion that the offender had sexual intercourse with the girl. Sexual assault requires sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion. If he didn’t have intercourse with her, and he was found guilty of sexual assault, then he must have engaged in sexual intrusion. And since the only object he used to penetrate her was his finger, it stands to reason that a finger must be defined as an object under the statute, at least in the interpretation of the West Virginia courts.
Given that the phrase “inanimate object” is common and well understood would, at least to me, imply that there certainly things that exist that would be considered “animate objects” and that using such terminology, a finger would be considered an “animate object”. Since the statute does not require the object to be inanimate, then for the purpose of the statute, a finger would be considered an object. Although I am constantly surprised at people (not just lawyers) try to twist the words of statutes, regulations, and the like, I would be very surprised if someone could successfully argue that a finger would not be considered an object by this statute. Obviously, if the statute was intended to only apply to inanimate objects, and not all objects, it would have so stated.
I never said that sexual intrusion was a crime. And I never said that he gets away with it. It would be covered under sexual contact.
I’m tired of the “you’re a lawyer, you should know these things” fucking posts. I’m not writing a brief here, just thinking out loud and debating. Everything has to be so personal.
Thank you for your responsive and personal comment free post.
Your argument has much support. For example, sometimes a surgeon says, “We performed a successful surgery wherein we removed a foreign object from the body.”
By using a modifier, it implies that there could be objects inside the body which were natural and therefore not inanimate. But again, couldn’t a kidney stone be an object?
With regards to not being part of a larger object, is that not how it is always used? I have never heard a person say that a part of a larger whole is an object when it is attached to the larger object.
For example, a car steering wheel is an object when it is on the shelf at an auto parts store, but when it is in front of you in the drivers seat attached to the steering column? I mean, possibly, but I have never heard the term used in that fashion.
Maybe you would use the term for something like a steering wheel which is a detachable part of a greater whole, but an undetachable part? Take a common table. That is certainly an object. Would any English speaker ask, “And what are those four objects attached at the bottom of the table?” They would ask something like "What are those four things “at the bottom” of the table or “the parts of the table touching the floor.” I mean, the table legs are not objects; the table is the objects of which the legs are an integral part. (Assuming non-detachable legs).
And I have never heard of a body part described as an object.
I am just looking for thoughts of common usage; not asking for anyone to do my homework, or have sympathy for my guy, nor do I care if you think that he should be punished harshly.
The question seemed pretty straightforward and did not need the snark.
Missed the edit windows: Suppose a woman is walking down the street and carrying a purse that has a unique design and someone asked her what the object was that was hanging from her shoulder. Would she say:
Oh that’s a purse; or
Well, I have two objects hanging from my shoulder. My arm here, and this purse.
If you’re going to try to convince a judge that a finger is not an object, why are you asking us?
If you’re going to try to convince a jury that a finger is not an object, and you’re querying us to see what potential jurors might think, then yes, a finger is an object, and trying to define it as not an object is the kind of legal pettifoggery that pisses off people when they read about this shit in the newspaper.
The fact that there are two different statutes, one that explicitly refers to use of the hand, and one that refers to inserting objects, makes me believe that the original intent was to set up non-overlapping offenses.
Again, I am not writing a brief or making oral argument. I thought that this board enjoyed these types of legal discussions. If not, I’ll stop posting them. Nobody said that you had to post here if you didn’t like the question.
Incorrect. Please read above. The worst statute refers to penetration with a penis or contact with genitals by the mouth or anus of a person. (A rather legalese way of saying, no sex!, but don’t be Bill Clinton here, sex also includes oral sex and anal sex).
The second worst statute refers to penetration with an “object” which is what we are discussing here.
The third worst statute talks about sexual touching.
If a finger is not an object, then the third worst applies. If it is an object, the second worst applies.
I agree. The statute could have read penetration “by any other method not referred to in the definition of sexual intercourse” and it would have been clear.
One other thought: In life, we hear sometimes that women are “objectified” and that men treat them like “objects.” If we use the definition promoted by the majority in this thread, shouldn’t the response be: “Well, yes, you are an object”?
To answer your substantive comment, the argument was not raised in that case as to whether a finger qualified. The Court assumed that it did, and apparently the parties did not argue it, so there was no holding regarding my question. That’s how law works. If the parties don’t raise an issue, the Court typically does not consider it. Despite your condescending tone, that cite does not hold what you claim it does.
Now, maybe it is a damned stupid argument to raise. But it popped into my head, and it seems that since there has been some substantive back and forth on it, it is at least arguable–and nothing yet convinces me that it is not the correct one as a matter of law.
Prosecutor: “And when you saw the defendant, often known as Petey “The Hammer,” down by the lake on August 21st, what did you observe him do?”
Witness: “I saw him throw a large object in the lake, and it make a tremendous splash.”
Prosecutor: “How large was this object?”
Witness: “About the size of you or me.”
Defense attorney: “Your Honor, I move for dismissal. The sole prosecution witness says an OBJECT was thrown in the lake, which is by necessity not a human!”
It doesn’t work like that. There’s a big difference between parsing words in the text of a statute and parsing words of someone’s testimony.
It’s very possible that the people who wrote the statute about “inserting objects” were not thinking of the perpetrator inserting his or her own finger.
It seems apparent to me that by any ordinary definition of the words that inserting your finger into a vagina is encompassed by the concept of touching a vagina.
I don’t think this is a stretch at all to think that this is a simple, mutually exclusive set of offenses—1st worst is for penis in orifice and mouth or anus or genital, 2nd worst is for things, that is, not body parts, inserted, and 3rd worst is for hands and fingers (whether or not inserted).
I don’t think you have to argue conclusively that a finger can never by any definition be a “thing.” You can just say it’s obvious that the touching statute is intended to encompass all things done with the hand and fingers, and the set of three statutes are clearly meant to refer to exclusive sets of actions.
But the cite does contain literally the only evidence that has actually been presented in this debate. You have provided nothing but rank speculation and specious reasoning, and now you’re dismissing literally the only evidence provided in this thread that might shed some light on the subject.
Here’s what we know, based on the statute and based on the court’s memorandum about that court case. Follow along with me here.
The man is question was convicted of first degree sexual assault.
A conviction of first degree sexual assault requires either “sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion.”
The man in question did NOT have intercourse with the girl.
The man in question DID insert his finger into the girls vagina.
There is no mention of the man inserting any other object into the girl’s vagina.
Because he did not have sexual intercourse with the girl, and because the jury in the criminal trial found him guilty of first degree sexual assault, the jury (and the trial court) must have determined that he committed an act of sexual intrusion. And because the only thing he inserted into the girls vagina was his finger, the jury (and the trial court) must have defined a finger as an object under the statute.
Does this single case tell us what the intention of the legislature was regarding the definition of a finger as an object? No, it doesn’t.
Is there a definitive ruling wherein a West Virginia court says, explicitly, that a finger counts as an object for the purposes of defining sexual intrusion? I haven’t been able to find one.
But absent such an explicit declaration, I don’t know what else you would expect to find here. All we have to go on is the fact that a man was convicted of sexual assault after penetrating a girl with only his finger. Even if that case has no value in the court system as legal precedent, it does tell us how things went on this one particular occasion. And, as I said, it’s far more evidence than you’ve provided in your own thread.
It’s not even clear what you’re after here: a legal debate, or a philosophical one.
Because if you want a legal debate, it’s up to you to make an argument based on evidence and analysis, something you have spectacularly failed to do. And in legal cases, in the absence of explicit rulings or clear statutes, all we have to go on is what actually happens when a case comes to trial. And the only evidence so far presented is that, in at least one case, a person was convicted of sexual assault based on a definition of a finger as an object in the act of sexual intrusion. If you have any better evidence than that, I’m happy to read it and evaluate it, but you’ll need to actually do some legwork rather than offering vague and unsupported assertions.
If you want a philosophical debate about whether a finger is an object, then legal evidence is irrelevant. And in that case, I’m telling you that a finger IS an object. The fact that it happens to be an object that’s also a connected part of a human body is irrelevant. And my definition is one I will hold to particularly strongly in this case, precisely because it seems incredibly unlikely that any lawmaker, even one from West Virginia, would be stupid enough or malicious enough to write a definition of sexual assault that would preclude a conviction based on the fact that penetration was digital.
For the first time in this thread, I’ll agree with you.
Ah, so you are asking about a matter of law, not simply a matter of philosophy. Well, dazzle us with your legal acumen then. If you really are interested in this as a matter of law, then make an actual argument based on evidence from the legal record.
I understand that West Virginia law and the federal code are not the same thing, but I just thought you might like to see at least one place where the law defines a finger as an object.
Adding this citation also has the benefit of introducing another piece of actual evidence to the discussion. Again, something that you haven’t yet managed to do.
Manufacturing ambiguities from whole cloth, ambiguities that are not actually in the statute, is a different thing. I suppose there is a soon-to-be defendant, and I suppose his name is not Bill Clinton.
When a statute appears vague to you, have a look at how it is interpreted by the courts in that jurisdiction. Appellate decisions on point can be particularly helpful. For example, take the case that was presented to you and have a look at how the the appeal court treated it.
If you follow the matter, you will note that the finger issue was specifically addressed in appeal, where the Court determined that a finger is an object for the purposes of the act.
If you still believe that penetration by a finger does not constitute penetration for the purposes of a W.Va. sexual assault conviction, then have a look at how other jurisdictions have handled your issue, e.g. the feds as set out up-thread, and your neighbouring state of Virginia, that specifically includes a finger [not a physical finger – a literal finger] in its statute to avoid having to repeatedly fuss about with people who are under the impression that a finger is not an object just because it is a body part.
Anyway, I hope this helps in answering your question, and I encourage you to start nosing about in statute and case law when you have questions on how any particular issue is treated in law. Hopefully you will enjoy it.
Correction: I should have stated "specifically includes animate objects in its statute [e.g. a finger, – although the text is not a physical finger – it is a literal finger.] I apologize for my confusion and trust that you will not pull my finger.
Wait, so do you have a client or not? Earlier you said:
Which is why you’re getting a lot of “Holy shit, you’re going to try to get this degenerate criminal off by claiming a finger is not an object?” replies.
If it’s purely an exercise in legal semantics, you may want to make that perfectly clear in your OP, especially if you’re talking about sexual assault laws and not corporate tax laws. Since the former tend to bring out a somewhat more emotional response than the latter.
