Why the harsh?

[chui]

If you keep in mind that the forum does have a rule regarding endorsing illegal activities, and in many places making someone sneeze by blowing something in their face would be considered a form of assault*, which is illegal, then it is already covered under the current Constitution. The Constitution does not list every possible crime/legal issue, nor do I really see a reason why it should, as the law is, as Vetinari said, different between different states and countries. Its just a "use common sense" approach, as well as the Staff handling individual situations in the most efficient manner, which they do quite nicely.

*remember the scares with "white powder" and terrorism?

[SomeoneRandom]

i agree with most of the stuff here.

i just want to add that i think the subject should be allowed in stories. that's where people express a lot of their fantasies, including ones that they would never try out. personally, it's not really a fantasy of mine. but since many do, i think there's no harm in expressly stating that, while questions about how to engage in a potentially illegal activity will not be tolerated, feel free to express your desire in story form in the appropriate board.

[resolution]

Well I retain the position I've always had on the matter.

The types of activity in question are objectively speaking, usually the equivalent of a practical joke, and should posses a moral status basically equivalent to it from a social standpoint.

What the person is thinking is irrelevant, I am not a believer in thought crimes. Sneeze powder for example, is mass marketed for playing practical jokes. Why does it matter what is running through the persons head when they are using it when the behavior in itself is identical?

Ofcourse even if someone's intent was to play a practical joke, if they throw Pepper in the face of a stranger, it would be assault.

This approach seems to be getting undue attention though, it is something that I think neither Greycat, Count or anyone else were thinking about condoning.

[count tiszula]

I suspect resolution is right. I can never resist looking the law up, and it seems that such behaviour could never be a sexual assault as it does not involve touching sexual parts, and of course sneezing is not sexual anyway. The common law definition of assault is largely what is perceived by the victim, that is, whether he feels that he is in danger of actual bodily harm. So the reasonable man would feel that he is being physically threatened if attacked with pepper or pepper spray. He would not if exposed to perfume, air freshener and so on, unless it were aggressively sprayed in his eyes or something. Sneezing powder is obviously a practical joke type of thing, so the reasonable man would not generally consider it to be an attempt to harm him physically. Unless surrounding circumastances led him to think it was [in a robbery or something].

The leading case seems to be that a silent phone call can be an assault, as the reasonable man would believe it was a threat of violence.

So don't do anything that could be seen as aggressive, basically.

[chui]

The types of activity in question are objectively speaking, usually the equivalent of a practical joke, and should posses a moral status basically equivalent to it from a social standpoint.

What the person is thinking is irrelevant, I am not a believer in thought crimes. Sneeze powder for example, is mass marketed for playing practical jokes. Why does it matter what is running through the persons head when they are using it when the behavior in itself is identical?

Ofcourse even if someone's intent was to play a practical joke, if they throw Pepper in the face of a stranger, it would be assault.

Ok. To address a few points, for a fetishist to do this, it's not always a "joke." It is attempting to gain something which would result in sexual gratification for the "pranker."

While you may not be a believer in thought crimes, in American law "intent," or the thinking and planning behind an action is a serious component in many crimes. Case in point, the difference between first and second degree murder is the planning and intent.

And technically, in the US, it would not be assault to pepper someone in the face as a prank, as there is no intent to harm or do violence to the person. Incidentally, sneezing powder is now illegal in many states.

I suspect resolution is right. I can never resist looking the law up, and it seems that such behaviour could never be a sexual assault as it does not involve touching sexual parts, and of course sneezing is not sexual anyway. The common law definition of assault is largely what is perceived by the victim, that is, whether he feels that he is in danger of actual bodily harm.

There might be some differences between American and British law, as the definitions seem to be somewhat different.

Assault is the act of violence by one human being to another or the threat of violence by a show of force, but there must be the intent to harm for it to translate into violence. That being the case, the pepper incident would not generally be considered assault, unless one is deliberately intending to harm the other person.

Sexual assault can be anything that causes or influences unwanted sexual contact or attention on another human being, without their knowledge or will, with the intent for the sexual gratification of the offender. It is NOT restricted to physical contact. This is exactly what happens when a fetishist tries to make someone else sneeze without their consent.

[Vetinari]

Sexual assault can be anything that causes or influences unwanted sexual contact or attention on another human being, without their knowledge or will, with the intent for the sexual gratification of the offender. It is NOT restricted to physical contact. This is exactly what happens when a fetishist tries to make someone else sneeze without their consent.

This quotation from the Herald Banner regarding the recent pepper blowing incident seems not to back up this explanation, although I realise laws can vary from state to state. And of course I may have misunderstood you, please feel free to clarify if I have.

Crews said the nature of the incident could not be considered as a sexual assault. However, as the employee was taken to Hunt Regional Hospital in Commerce for an irritated throat and arm, the suspect was arrested for aggravated assault causing serious bodily Injury.

[resolution]

Edit: Hey, I missed Vetinari's post.

Well anyway, here was my original post as I had first typed it.

Ok. To address a few points, for a fetishist to do this, it's not always a "joke." It is attempting to gain something which would result in sexual gratification for the "pranker."

While you may not be a believer in thought crimes, in American law "intent," or the thinking and planning behind an action is a serious component in many crimes. Case in point, the difference between first and second degree murder is the planning and intent.

And technically, in the US, it would not be assault to pepper someone in the face as a prank, as there is no intent to harm or do violence to the person. Incidentally, sneezing powder is now illegal in many states.

From what I recall the man that did this in Texas was arrested for aggravated assault (causing bodily injury with a "weapon" ) and the police remarked that he was not to be charged with sexual assault despite his admission.

Many a teenager has been arrested for actions that were as far as he/she were concerned "just a prank". Labeling something as a prank we know does not necessarily absolve the prankster from prosecution.

The legal decision here is understandable. Clearly, spraying pepper spray directly in someone's face would be assault (it is itself used as a defense against assault). This is a similar ingredient, just not in liquid form. Tossed directly in some one's face it can be a considerable irritant. On the other hand, when the mere residue of it just happens to be in the air during cooking, or under other circumstances in one's home it can be virtually ignored save for one or two sneezes.

Sexual assault can be anything that causes or influences unwanted sexual contact or attention on another human being, without their knowledge or will, with the intent for the sexual gratification of the offender. It is NOT restricted to physical contact. This is exactly what happens when a fetishist tries to make someone else sneeze without their consent.

The "unwanted sexual attention" term which is routinely included in definitions of Sexual Assault in the United States today, as far as I know, was added to address voyeurism, as well as the unwelcome exposure of another's body or exhibitionism.

I am sensitive to your concerns here but interpreting the language of the law in the way you describe makes it almost unworkable from a practical standpoint. a "hey baby" on the street by a construction worker might equal sexual assault.

[chui]

This quotation from the Herald Banner regarding the recent pepper blowing incident seems not to back up this explanation, although I realise laws can vary from state to state. And of course I may have misunderstood you, please feel free to clarify if I have.

Crews said the nature of the incident could not be considered as a sexual assault. However, as the employee was taken to Hunt Regional Hospital in Commerce for an irritated throat and arm, the suspect was arrested for aggravated assault causing serious bodily Injury.

Thanks for that, it's been a very long time since I read the article. Given that the woman was taken to the hospital, it can move the crime into the classification of regular assault, as harm was done to her, and aggravated, as it was done with a "weapon." However, there was still no intent to harm the woman.

Keep in mind, there are various levels of crime classification, and someone might not be arraigned under the same charge they were initially arrested under, especially considering plea bargains and the like. It is also possible that the police chose aggravated assault as opposed to sexual assault to prevent potentially labeling/legal stigma of the man, or that they did not understand the implications of the fetish. How many people have we told about the fetish who simply did not grasp the full sexual nature of it? You might also want to consider the penalties involved, from jail time and community service to fines, varying between the two crimes, and the more preferred to the police being chosen. There are numerous reasons why the man could have been charged with aggravated assault as opposed to sexual assault, but it does not mean that aggravated assault was the actual crime committed.

[Lynne]

Whether the assault is considered sexual or not, it's still assault, therefore illegal and therefore forbidden by our forum Constitution.

[resolution]

This quotation from the Herald Banner regarding the recent pepper blowing incident seems not to back up this explanation, although I realise laws can vary from state to state. And of course I may have misunderstood you, please feel free to clarify if I have.

Crews said the nature of the incident could not be considered as a sexual assault. However, as the employee was taken to Hunt Regional Hospital in Commerce for an irritated throat and arm, the suspect was arrested for aggravated assault causing serious bodily Injury.

Thanks for that, it's been a very long time since I read the article. Given that the woman was taken to the hospital, it can move the crime into the classification of regular assault, as harm was done to her, and aggravated, as it was done with a "weapon." However, there was still no intent to harm the woman.

It might simply come under "negligent assault" in that case.

As I said before, there have been plenty of pranksters that have learned that an absence of an intent to harm was no excuse.

The general question of intent is a complex one though, and i suppose the answers really depend on the approach to law one takes.

Your example of First and second degree murder may not have been the best illustration of your point because the term "intent" in that case can be said to merely function as a means of assessing a general category of objective human conduct that is already considered a crime. "Intent" here would not be used to constitute criminality but to classify crimes .

The difference between murder and accidental murder would however be a good illustration of your point. The role that intent really plays here though, as I said above, is a matter of Philosophy. Does one believe that the purpose of law is to "punish absolute evils" or to secure society? If it is to secure society then the concept of intent might be a method of predicting and preventing the recurrence of crime. a Person who kills because they get upset with someone and wants to end their life is a threat to society. a person who kills because they were on a movie set and mistook a gun full of real bullets misplaced, with a gun full of blanks (or any other accidental death scenario you can come up with) is not a threat to society. Thus crime formally would be about certain categories of objective predefined human conduct and Intent would simply be a concept used to determine the likelihood of recurrence and therefore the potential threat to society embodied in the individual that has committed the act.

This interpretation works very well with understanding American laws on involuntary manslaughter. How can someone with clearly no intent to murder be guilty of a class of murder?

If we use the "punish absolute evils" approach to understanding the law and intent, it makes no sense and is unjust. If a person had no intent to kill, then it should not be possible to charge him with anything that comes under the heading of murder. But if we use the "secure society" approach it is simple. He can be charged with murder because (a) His behavior came under a certain category of objective predefined human conduct and because the negligence of the act indicates the presence of an issue of personal character that may lead to it's recurrence. This alone established that he is a threat to society, and that society is less secure with him in it as he is. It is unnecessary to establish that he had any intent to commit murder.

Does the "hey baby" by the construction worker violate the rights of the woman who becomes the unwitting object of his sexual attention or would punishing him for the act violate his rights? I am definitely in the camp that concludes the latter, and i do not see how one can escape concluding the former with the broad definition of sexual assault that some advocate. I am sensitive to the concerns of women who face situations that are more of a close call than the construction worker scenario, but a line of legal reasoning in the wrong direction can have serious consequences.

[chui]

I went and looked into this a bit more, just for personal edification. All citations are from Texan Criminal Law: Felonies & White Collar Crime

According to Texas Law Sexual assault is intentionally or knowingly penetrating the anus, female sexual organ, or mouth of another person, without that person's consent. So, this would explain why the man was not charged with sexual assault, and why they chose Aggravated Assault.

Aggravated Assault

Under Texas law, assault is a misdemeanor; however, assault becomes the more serious crime of aggravated assault if the offender uses a firearm or other deadly weapon, the assault causes serious bodily injury, the assault is in retaliation against a witness or informant, or the assault is against a government employee acting in his or her official capacity. Generally, assault is defined as intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly injuring or threatening to injure a person or the person's spouse. Additionally, assault includes intentionally causing physical contact with another person if the offender knows the physical contact will be offensive to the victim.

Ok, it is a bit of a stretch to consider pepper a "deadly weapon," but that appears to be the reason this was elevated to aggravated assault, as opposed to what would fit the definition of sexual assault in some other states. From my research, I cannot find any classification for "negligent assault" in the state of Texas. It is found in other states, like Ohio, but not in Texas.

I would contend that it is impossible to view the law under only one of those views. Criminology is the study of both law making and law breaking and the social reaction to law breaking. You cannot study law breaking, without looking at the consequences for doing so, nor can you write the laws without studying the purpose of protection and deterrence. Whether or not intent is a complex question or not, it is a major determinant for many index crimes, and cannot be neglected in consideration simply because someone finds it difficult to ascertain. And Lynne is of course correct, irregardless of what manner of crime he is classified as committing, it is still a crime and still not allowed by the Forum's Constitution.

And to answer your question about the construction worker, yes the man violated her rights and yes, the man can be punished for it. It is rare that someone would push that issue to legal ends, but he did in fact commit a crime, whether he feels like he did or not. If you commit a crime, even something as "minor" as sexual harrasment or public misconduct, you must be prepared to pay the consequences. It is not a violation of someone's rights for them to pay the legal consequences for a crime they knowingly and willingly committed.

[Nicole]

Does the "hey baby" by the construction worker violate the rights of the woman who becomes the unwitting object of his sexual attention or would punishing him for the act violate his rights? I am definitely in the camp that concludes the latter, and i do not see how one can escape concluding the former with the broad definition of sexual assault that some advocate. I am sensitive to the concerns of women who face situations that are more of a close call than the construction worker scenario, but a line of legal reasoning in the wrong direction can have serious consequences.

Agreed.

[resolution]

I would contend that it is impossible to view the law under only one of those views. Criminology is the study of both law making and law breaking and the social reaction to law breaking. You cannot study law breaking, without looking at the consequences for doing so, nor can you write the laws without studying the purpose of protection and deterrence. Whether or not intent is a complex question or not, it is a major determinant for many index crimes, and cannot be neglected in consideration simply because someone finds it difficult to ascertain. And Lynne is of course correct, irregardless of what manner of crime he is classified as committing, it is still a crime and still not allowed by the Forum's Constitution.

In my last post I described an alternative understanding of the notion of intent that makes it an integral part of the law, but does not force us into what i believe are the extreme conclusions that the "punish absolute evils" approach does.

I believe that relative to most of the rest of the law, it is possible to take the second view alone.

It seems that the concerns here revolve around one area of law (sexual violence/assault) that we must decide from the outset to see as a case that demands a special attention and criteria.

And to answer your question about the construction worker, yes the man violated her rights and yes, the man can be punished for it. It is rare that someone would push that issue to legal ends, but he did in fact commit a crime, whether he feels like he did or not. If you commit a crime, even something as "minor" as sexual harrasment or public misconduct, you must be prepared to pay the consequences. It is not a violation of someone's rights for them to pay the legal consequences for a crime they knowingly and willingly committed.

I have to say that although i couldn't disagree with you more, I have a tremendous amount of respect for your intellectual consistence, that is rare today.

Oh and I think you're right about negligent assault laws in Texas.

[MissMercy]

Just kinda wanted to give my two cents here >_>

For me, the fetish is very personal and very sexual. The only person I have really ever tried to make sneeze is my SO and that was after many long talks about my fetish and his explicit permission for me to have that right. Now, being with him for so long I know what the lines are and when not to cross them, I know that at times mass sneezing can get painful for him and give him a headache, and certain things he is allergic too may make him sneeze but also make him feel sick.

This being said, although I may fantasize ( and even hope for) other people to sneeze, I wouldn't do anything to cause it.

Why?

Well, one because I love the unexpected but also because I would feel wrong making them do that. That's why I write fic's or even draw, then I can really fulfill my desires without the feeling of wrong. I'm not that paranoid that I might really harm someone because of it (no offense meant towards anyone here) but I think it is an issue of morals, at least to me.

I think that's what it comes down to anything really.