Sexual assault was your funniest moment???

The BBQ Pit
261

[QUOTE=whole bean]
This tea-bagging dude is an asshole, as are those who watched;
This tea-bagging dude commited what I am sure is a punishable criminal offense in his jurisdiction;
**I don’t think this tea-bagging dude would be convicted of a sexual assault of any stripe most places ** and personally I don’t think the crime he committed was sexual (but we can differ in opinion on that)
[/QUOTE]

Please clarify this. In my previous post I clearly demonstrated that the suspect here would be guilty of the crime of Aggravated Criminal Sexual Contact in the New Jersey state criminal code. A post which has been widely ignored. There are a couple of lawyers who have chimed in about their state laws. Two or three? So we have at least one state where this would be a serious sex crime and two or three where it would presumably not be. You are making a big jump to “most places”. We don’t even know about the jurisdiction where this hilarity supposedly took place. We have a few people citing the Kentucky criminal code but no one who is familiar with the precedents of that state or it’s sodomy laws.

262

[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
But you also seem to want serious jail time for the incident under discussion. Which strikes me as being less seroius by an enormous margin.
[/QUOTE]
(ignoring the obvious poor comparison) Not-so-serious jail time. A mark on his semi-permanent record as a sex offender. Make him register for a few years as a reminder.

263

[QUOTE=dropzone]
(ignoring the obvious poor comparison) Not-so-serious jail time. A mark on his semi-permanent record as a sex offender. Make him register for a few years as a reminder.
[/QUOTE]

Is it possible to only be registered as a sex offender “for a few years?” I thought getting put on those registries was a permanent gig.

264

I am uncomfortable with the idea that her victimization is lessened because she was unaware of the violation. This seems to decrease the severity of molesting patients under the influence of anaesthesia, molesting the developmentally disabled and retarded, or even children too young to comprehend the nature of the abuse. The woman was unable to give consent. Whether she was unable to give consent because she was asleep or she was unable to give consent because she was gagged and held down do not seem to be important issues.

265

[QUOTE=Maeglin]
I am uncomfortable with the idea that her victimization is lessened because she was unaware of the violation. This seems to decrease the severity of molesting patients under the influence of anaesthesia, molesting the developmentally disabled and retarded, or even children too young to comprehend the nature of the abuse.
[/QUOTE]
And you think it doesn’t, in my bolded example? To ask a reverse question, do you think it is not more severe to attack the fully cognizant (disregarding those who know but do not understand)?

Of course, in many instances there is more chance of physical harm, or the perpetrator would be more likely to graduate to worse offenses (given the less-sexual nature of the attack in the OP,) but I do believe that morally it is a lesser offense to take advantage of the unaware than the aware, even though I have not thought about it enough to decide whether I support lesser penalties for it.

266

[QUOTE=Maeglin]
I am uncomfortable with the idea that her victimization is lessened because she was unaware of the violation.
[/quote]
Okay, but how would you describe the harm that she experienced?

Agreed. She did not consent. Was she molested? What is the definition of molested as you see it? Did she experience the same thing as someone fondling a child? It seems like a stretch and probably does more to inflame emotions than to help the discussion to suggest what we are talking about is like child sexual abuse.

I think it’s exceptionally different to gag and restrain someone than it is to approach them while they are unconscious.

267

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
… sometimes you just have to hope that there are decent people around who can tell right from wrong, and are willing to do something about it.
[/QUOTE]
what if you’re the lone voice among drunk footballers bigger than you are? what is the common sense to tell right from wrong when viewpoints range from ‘stupid pranks’ to ‘jail or worse’?

while agreeing to your post, to me the issue is some people’s perspective that this is funny and enough to warrant bragging on here; and the others who view this as a harmless prank when people objected to the first.

268

[QUOTE=Loach]
Please clarify this. In my previous post I clearly demonstrated that the suspect here would be guilty of the crime of Aggravated Criminal Sexual Contact in the New Jersey state criminal code. A post which has been widely ignored. There are a couple of lawyers who have chimed in about their state laws. Two or three? So we have at least one state where this would be a serious sex crime and two or three where it would presumably not be. You are making a big jump to “most places”. We don’t even know about the jurisdiction where this hilarity supposedly took place. We have a few people citing the Kentucky criminal code but no one who is familiar with the precedents of that state or it’s sodomy laws.
[/QUOTE]

We’ve had a representation that under Michigan and New Jersey law the actions might be prosectued as some sort of felony or misdemeanor sexual assault. From the Kentucky criminal code links, it looks like it wouldn’t fall into the category of sexual assault – anti-sodomy laws aside. I could be wrong. I would surprised if I am. Additonally, I don’t recall whether you’re citation required a showing of “sexual purpose”, but some certainly did. I don’t see a sexual motivation here. Like minds can differ, but I don’t see a prosecutor taking the more difficult path in an instance such as this where another conviction is more readliy attainable.

269

[QUOTE=Miller]
Is it possible to only be registered as a sex offender “for a few years?” I thought getting put on those registries was a permanent gig.
[/QUOTE]
Here, you either register for life or a period of ten years, depending on the nature and severity of the crime. With violent or otherwise serious sex offenses you register until you die, but if you get two indecent exposure convictions, you register for ten years. A DA can offer to waive the registry requirement as part of a plea agreement, but that only happens in very, very compelling circumstances.

270

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Okay, but how would you describe the harm that she experienced?
[/quote]

I fully agree that this is problematic.

I am not certain that harm should be the correct standard. It is not up to the law to provide a remedy for the harm she received but to punish/rehabilitate the perpetrator who committed an act that society deems criminal.

It is perfectly reasonable to find that the crime is not sufficiently heinous to merit a really tough penalty. Juries do that all the time. But choosing the right punishment to fit the crime is different than selecting the right criminal category that the act falls into. I believe this is based on the act itself and on the mens rea of the perpetrator, not necessarily on the harm endured by the victim.

I mean, if you sneak into someone’s house, rifle around and steal something but return it the next day, are you any less guilty of theft because you did not really cause the victim much harm? This isn’t a rhetorical question. White collar criminals are typically punished even after they return the money they looted and undid the harm that they caused.

I use “molested” in a broader sense here, not just to describe a specific kind of sexual molestation. Sorry about the ambiguity.

I do not mean to suggest that this is anything like child sexual abuse. I only suggest that the fact that the victim does not necessarily know that she has been victimized should not decrease the seriousness of the crime, because it is conceivable that a molested child may not immediately know the seriousness of his victimization and that clearly does not decrease its significance.

The severity of the two cases are in no way comparable and I do not intend to suggest that they are.

Qualitatively, I think you are right. But in both cases, the perpetrator denies the victim the ability to consent. Suppose there is a crime called “assault on dignity” that fits the bill for teabagging and short range ass blasting. The perpetrator who caught the girl asleep would be guilty of assault on dignity alone, whereas the perp who held her down is guilty of assault on dignity as well as vanilla assault and battery.

I use these terms loosely since I am not an attorney, but I hope that my reasoning is sufficiently clear all the same.

271

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
I agree with this, and would just clarify that if she never became aware of it, I cannot see how she was harmed in any way. [Obligatory note to the faint of knee-control: That is independent of my beliefs about Mr. Lipton, the tea-bagger.]
[/QUOTE]

I think she was harmed. I am probably saying this wrong (using incorrect terms) but isn’t there some kind of rule/law/code that speaks to the inviolat nature of the body? I mean, we can’t just do whatever to anesthetisized people or dead people–those are prosecutable, right?

We can (and have) argued about the sexual aspect of this act, but I think most are agreed that at the minimum (which is all it can be, depending) it IS battery. So, even if no “harm” comes from this battery, it still is battery.

There was a GYNE here about a decade ago, who diddled women while they were under light sedation for office procedures. Now, most had no memory of this occurring;the few that did–perhaps they weren’t sedated enough or he was rougher than usual–prosecuted him and he went to prison and rightly so.

But, if his “diddling” was no more intrusive than a routine digital exam for the annual Pap smear and check up most women have–what “harm” was done? It comes down to intent, to my mind–and these asshole’s intent in the diddling and teabagging was to humiliate and harm, and (in the case of the Lipton jerk, if she had woken up) to scare her.

Or am I talking through my hat? Lawyers-does this make sense?

RE if permanent harm was done to her–I highly doubt it. I am concerned that this might be accepted as some kind of normative behavior and therefore tacitly accepted.

272

Seems like it’s hard not to segue back into the issue of the perpetrator’s behavior in discussing harm. I’ve already stipulated what I think about the behavior. I’m just curious about the harm aspect. Is it possible to describe what her harm was independent of his behavior?

It should be, shouldn’t it?

273

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Seems like it’s hard not to segue back into the issue of the perpetrator’s behavior in discussing harm. I’ve already stipulated what I think about the behavior. I’m just curious about the harm aspect. Is it possible to describe what her harm was independent of his behavior?

It should be, shouldn’t it?
[/QUOTE]

I get that she was unconscious during the episode. I get that she didn’t have scratches, bruises or other physical results from being touched. But you don’t see that some one can feel violated (ie harmed) by some one doing something objectionable to them while they sleep?

I find that astounding.

I can think of any number of things ‘touches’ that I’d find objectionable, violative, etc that even if I was unconscious, I’d still be outraged. For example -

I find Cheney repulsive on any number of levels. I would certainly feel sickened to know that he had any kind of physical contact with me, even if I was unconscious at the time.

another example - if I were sedated, and some one I found objectionable ** groped me, even if they failed to leave bruises etc. I’d still feel harmed.

(** hell, even if they weren’t objectionable, to do that w/o my permission, I’d feel violated/harmed)

Harm is not always a physical thing.

274

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Seems like it’s hard not to segue back into the issue of the perpetrator’s behavior in discussing harm. I’ve already stipulated what I think about the behavior. I’m just curious about the harm aspect. Is it possible to describe what her harm was independent of his behavior?
[/QUOTE]

It seems like, independent of any physical harm she suffered (and I agree she doesn’t seem to have suffered any physical harm), at least she suffered harm to her dignity and reputation. Everyone who witnessed the incident, as well as anyone they might tell, will now know her as “the woman who was teabagged by X”, and it seems like others’ opinions of her will be affected by that.

275

Hentor, the lack of harm she received is barely relevant under the law and the fact that she was unconscious and unable to consent legally makes it equivalent to forced entry. By the Kentucky law that she did not receive grievous harm merely reduces it from First Degree Sodomy to Second Degree.

276

[QUOTE=wring]
I get that she was unconscious during the episode. I get that she didn’t have scratches, bruises or other physical results from being touched. But you don’t see that some one can feel violated (ie harmed) by some one doing something objectionable to them while they sleep?

I find that astounding.

I can think of any number of things ‘touches’ that I’d find objectionable, violative, etc that even if I was unconscious, I’d still be outraged.
[/quote]
Wouldn’t you have to know that it happened? How can you feel outraged about something you don’t even know happened? I’ve already said and agreed that, upon learning it, one might experience distress.

As a clinical psychologist, I was kind of aware of this already.

I agree with this - independent of her knowledge of the event, others might perceive her differently.

277

[QUOTE=dropzone]
Hentor, the lack of harm she received is barely relevant under the law and the fact that she was unconscious and unable to consent legally makes it equivalent to forced entry. By the Kentucky law that she did not receive grievous harm merely reduces it from First Degree Sodomy to Second Degree.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: Oh my good lord! This discussion is just not possible with some people. I’m not talking about the fucking behavior. Yes, it is goddamn reasonable to consider it a potential crime (albeit quite a minor one). I’ve fucking said so already. Do I need a fucking sticky?

What I do think is useful about this effort to try to discuss the actual harm she experienced is that it seems very difficult to put a finger on what the harm she experienced is, even for those most to the right on the outrage meter.

(But to respond for a second to one element of you post on the behavior: You’re just a sack of big dangling nuts if you think this is akin to rape (or forced entry).

278

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
blah blah blah, tons of sociopathic shit
[/QUOTE]
But it doesn’t matter what YOU think–by a strict interpretation of the LAW a fairly nasty crime was committed–go back to the post quoting the KY statute if you don’t believe me. You can dismiss it as spirited hijinks. Maybe the DA would, too. But the simple fact that the girl was unconscious and, by your sick and perverse thinking, was not harmed does NOTHING to make it less of a crime than teabagging and dickwhipping her to the same extent when she was awake.

279

Hentor --let’s flip it.

How is she NOT harmed?

  1. no physical mark/evidence of occurrence

  2. remains ignorant of act/event

  3. indeed, due to alcohol levels, has no memory of entire night (made up for purposes of discussion).

So, is it no harm, no foul? Let’s make her dead/anesthetized for illustration purposes:

  1. no physical mark/evidence of occurrence
    2.victim remains ignorant of occurrence for obvious reasons
    3.no memory due to no brain activity/deep sedation.

But we wouldn’t say that a dead person was not “harmed” if this was done, would we?

I don’t know if you can isolate one from the other so cleanly. I am not sure if it even needs to be demarcated into act/result.

This might get a bit crazy, say someone puts a sign on your back that says something humiliating about you. No one mentions a thing about it. You remain unaware. Unbeknownst to you, it falls off, unseen and un-noticed by all. Wouldn’t you say there was harm done–due to the intent of the act? (once you knew about it or heard about it happening to someone else).

280

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Wouldn’t you have to know that it happened? How can you feel outraged about something you don’t even know happened? I’ve already said and agreed that, upon learning it, one might experience distress.As a clinical psychologist, I was kind of aware of this already.

I agree with this - independent of her knowledge of the event, others might perceive her differently.
[/QUOTE]

I can’t imagine that she wouldn’t find out.

are you going for the whole “if a tree falls in the forest” sort of thing?

if she never was advised about it, has no memory about it, didn’t feel it, she might not feel she was harmed, but I would believe that she had been. Just like if a woman with a severe cognative disorder that didn’t allow her to understand that people were doing this to make fun of her, I’d still feel that she’d been harmed.

Kinda like I’d still believe that some one who stole a shirt from the store, the store didn’t catch them, didn’t realize the thing had been stolen, wrote it off to ‘shrinkage’, I’d still consider it a theft, a crime etc.