5 ms·

It is assault (and in Canada at least, would be sexual assault). The trouble with both offenses is that 1. They are broad, 2. They are hard to prove criminally

by graeme 9y ago

It is assault (and in Canada at least, would be sexual assault). The trouble with both offenses is that 1. They are broad, 2. They are hard to prove criminally Broad isn't a problem per se. What I mean is that the system is set up to make the offense as wide as possible, but not to prosecute every case. This occurs with regular assault, not just sexual. For example, I'm sure most people reading this have had someone shove them at one point. I'm also sure that crime was not reported to the police. Even most cases of punching probably aren't reported. Next, the proof. The problem with both types of assault is that generally there is no evidence other than the words of the victim. Convictions can happen, but it makes it hard to do so in the less serious cases, which leave no mark. So apart from non-seriousness, that's why shoving isn't prosecuted. Whereas attacking someone and leaving cuts, bruises or broken bones provides definite evidence something happened. It both increases the gravity of the case and the provability. I've used examples from regular assault to show that low rates of prosecution/conviction aren't merely an issue of sexism. Assault/sexual assault are fundamentally hard offenses. However, this absolutely has a disproportionate effect on women. Generally speaking, people don't go around assaulting people, and so low rates of prosecution for assault is not really a problem in most cases. (What I mean here is that not enough people commit unprovoked common assault for it to be a common experience on the receiving end. Domestic abuse is likely the biggest place our system has a gap in this regard.) But, enough people sexually assault women that it is a common experience, especially for offenses which fit the category of: 1. Leaves no mark or lasting physical harm, 2. Has no outside evidence, 3. Is nonetheless psychologically traumatic. I don't know what to do about this. I think the solution probably starts by recognizing the nature of the situation, which is why I've spelled it out.

Sir_Substance 9y ago
>What I mean is that the system is set up to make the offense as wide as possible, but not to prosecute every case. Which is terrifying, because it undermines the notion of a jury trial.
- graeme 9y ago
  How? This has been an intrinsic feature of common assault since time immemorial. I imagine most cases of assault in the middle ages were not brought to trial either. But, if something does go to trial, it's still up to the jury to decide.
  - Sir_Substance 9y ago
    >How? If you make the offense definition broad on the assumption that not every instance will be prosecuted, then you take the power of conviction from the jury and hand it to the state prosecutor. If the state prosecutor elects to prosecute, the conviction is guaranteed because the law is not specific. It varies nation by nation as to whether a jury is allowed to directly ignore the letter of the law when passing a judgment, but even in nations where it is not, jury nullification is uncommon. Thus, the conviction rests on the prosecutors decision to move ahead or not, not on the judgment of a jury of the defendants peers. >I imagine most cases of assault in the middle ages were not brought to trial either. Fuck me dead buddy, I hope you're not seriously attempting to use the middle ages as an example of how a justice system ought to be? >But, if something does go to trial, it's still up to the jury to decide. In Canada, it is considered the duty of the presiding justice to attempt to prevent the jury from performing jury nullification[1]. So yes, it's up to the jury, but the jury is under pressure from the justice to not consider the ramifications of this system you seem to like so much too deeply. Since we all know very well that humans are easily manipulated by perceived authority to harm their peers[2], I stand by my statement: that sounds like a terrifying way to write laws. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#Canada [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
    - graeme 9y ago
      You're reading the least charitable interpretation of what I said. I meant that what's true of assault now has been true the entire history of the English judicial system - that's why the sentence preceding the one you quoted said the system has been like this since time immemorial. So it's not a new law. Can you point to a time in the past when common assault was treated differently? I think it's something intrinsic to the offense itself. This has nothing to do with jury nullification. That's a situation where conviction is certain, unless the jury finds the law unjust. Assault is far more likely to be a situation where there is reasonable doubt and no conviction, because of the lack of evidence typically associated with the offence. In short, I think you're believing me to be saying something quite different than I am.
AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> Generally speaking, people don't go around assaulting people, and so low rates of prosecution for assault is not really a problem in most cases. But, enough people sexually assault women that it is a common experience That can't be the right distinction, because with that broad a definition of assault, people do go around assaulting each other all the time.
- graeme 9y ago
  Thanks, I updated my comment. I meant that due to the comparatively low number of aggressors, most people aren't on the receiving end of common assault. At least, not assaults serious enough to worry about. (Poking is also assault, if unwanted) To clarify, in high crime jurisdictions, lack of prosecution for common assault or petty robbery actually does become a societal problem. It's still not the case that most people commit crimes, but enough do that all people worry about it. In most parts of North America, crime has dropped enough that common assault and muggings aren't realistic worries for most people, most of the time. Sexual assault is still done by enough people that all women have to worry about it on a regular basis. So I think the distinction depends on how many people commit the offense, which affects the percentage of the relevant population which is a victim of the offense or realistically has to worry about it.

by graeme 9y ago

Sir_Substance 9y ago

>What I mean is that the system is set up to make the offense as wide as possible, but not to prosecute every case. Which is terrifying, because it undermines the notion of a jury trial.

graeme 9y ago
How? This has been an intrinsic feature of common assault since time immemorial. I imagine most cases of assault in the middle ages were not brought to trial either. But, if something does go to trial, it's still up to the jury to decide.
- Sir_Substance 9y ago
  >How? If you make the offense definition broad on the assumption that not every instance will be prosecuted, then you take the power of conviction from the jury and hand it to the state prosecutor. If the state prosecutor elects to prosecute, the conviction is guaranteed because the law is not specific. It varies nation by nation as to whether a jury is allowed to directly ignore the letter of the law when passing a judgment, but even in nations where it is not, jury nullification is uncommon. Thus, the conviction rests on the prosecutors decision to move ahead or not, not on the judgment of a jury of the defendants peers. >I imagine most cases of assault in the middle ages were not brought to trial either. Fuck me dead buddy, I hope you're not seriously attempting to use the middle ages as an example of how a justice system ought to be? >But, if something does go to trial, it's still up to the jury to decide. In Canada, it is considered the duty of the presiding justice to attempt to prevent the jury from performing jury nullification[1]. So yes, it's up to the jury, but the jury is under pressure from the justice to not consider the ramifications of this system you seem to like so much too deeply. Since we all know very well that humans are easily manipulated by perceived authority to harm their peers[2], I stand by my statement: that sounds like a terrifying way to write laws. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#Canada [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
  - graeme 9y ago
    You're reading the least charitable interpretation of what I said. I meant that what's true of assault now has been true the entire history of the English judicial system - that's why the sentence preceding the one you quoted said the system has been like this since time immemorial. So it's not a new law. Can you point to a time in the past when common assault was treated differently? I think it's something intrinsic to the offense itself. This has nothing to do with jury nullification. That's a situation where conviction is certain, unless the jury finds the law unjust. Assault is far more likely to be a situation where there is reasonable doubt and no conviction, because of the lack of evidence typically associated with the offence. In short, I think you're believing me to be saying something quite different than I am.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago

> Generally speaking, people don't go around assaulting people, and so low rates of prosecution for assault is not really a problem in most cases. But, enough people sexually assault women that it is a common experience That can't be the right distinction, because with that broad a definition of assault, people do go around assaulting each other all the time.

graeme 9y ago
Thanks, I updated my comment. I meant that due to the comparatively low number of aggressors, most people aren't on the receiving end of common assault. At least, not assaults serious enough to worry about. (Poking is also assault, if unwanted) To clarify, in high crime jurisdictions, lack of prosecution for common assault or petty robbery actually does become a societal problem. It's still not the case that most people commit crimes, but enough do that all people worry about it. In most parts of North America, crime has dropped enough that common assault and muggings aren't realistic worries for most people, most of the time. Sexual assault is still done by enough people that all women have to worry about it on a regular basis. So I think the distinction depends on how many people commit the offense, which affects the percentage of the relevant population which is a victim of the offense or realistically has to worry about it.