As you are probably aware, Jussie Smollett, one of the actors on the show Empire, has been in the news lately. Initially, Jussie claimed that he had been assaulted but now it appears he might have hired his assailants. I don’t want to go into discussion of Jussie’s actions, because the matter is still under investigation and I want to know more before I jump to conclusions. As an aside, I’m a huge Empire fan, or I was until deadlines got in the way.
But this got me thinking. If I hire you to assault me and you do, can you still be charged with a crime?
My initial thought was no, since I’ve given my consent to the assault by paying you to do it. Entering a boxing, MMA, or wrestling match would mean you agree to be physically attacked and nobody is arresting boxers for repeatedly punching each other. However, when I asked this question on Twitter yesterday, someone mentioned that the state has an obligation to prevent violent crime and you can’t really consent to being harmed.
So the question for you today: can you give consent to be harmed and if you hire someone to beat you up, can they still be charged with a crime? Please let us know which country you are from when discussing particular laws so we don’t get confused.
Please be aware that all this might show up in a future book, so by posting here you give us consent to use your wise counsel for fiction purposes. đ
I’m curious to see this research. Definitely is an interesting topic.
USA:
So the legal definition of battery requires the victim to not consent. Since assault requires the victim to âapprehendâ physical harm, itâs a strong argument that having hired someone to beat you up makes it difficult to show this person was apprehensive. Assault/Battery usually go hand in hand. Assault doesnât actually require the physical harm to take place.
See below from Cornell Law website:
Battery exists in both the tort law context and the criminal law context. In tort law, assault is considered an intentional tort.
Definition
1. In criminal law, this is a physical act that results in harmful or offensive contact with another person without that person’s consent.
2. In tort law, the intentional causation of harmful or offensive contact with another’s person without that person’s consent.
Assault and Battery
In an act of physical violence by one person against another, “assault” is usually paired with battery. In an act of physical violence, assault refers to the act which causes the victim to apprehend imminent physical harm, while battery refers to the actual act causing the physical harm
Germany:
You can consent to bodily harm such as an operation by a doctor or tatooing. But only within the margin of paragraph 227/228 StGB. If the action you want to be taken against you is death threatening, such as an ordered, armed robbery against you or for example some sexual practices that stop you from breathing, you cannot give consent to them. It is against the “guten Sitten”. In the case of ordering someone to beat you up, one would have to look how high the abstract risk of death would be in this case, e.g. is the person armed, is there more than one person, how how severe is the beating you ordered.
I hope this ramble was of interest to someone đ
Comparing the two most pertinent city ordinances here in Colorado Springs, CO:
First, 9.2.101: FIGHTING
A. It is unlawful for any person to intentionally, knowingly or recklessly fight or brawl with another.
B. It is unlawful for any person to permit any of the above acts in any house or upon any premises under the person’s management or control when it is within the person’s power to prevent action.
C. For purposes of this section, it is not a defense that a person charged with a violation of this section was not the instigator or the initiator of the fight.
Second, 9.2.109: ASSAULT
It is unlawful for any person to knowingly or recklessly cause bodily injury to another person. For the purposes of this section, “bodily injury” is defined as physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical or mental condition.
Reading the two ordinances above, neither contains language that would make consent a defense. The fighting ordinance even seems to contemplate planned fights such as setting up a boxing ring in a bar in part B, and the barkeep would be guilty of a misdemeanor if he let two consenting fighters go at it in his ‘house.’ Here in Colorado Springs, at least, the city government has passed laws that would protect its citizens from a breach of the peace, even if they were foolish enough to consent.
I prosecuted crimes like these for 11 years, and would not hesitate to go forward in the hypothetical case where the ‘victim’ had hired another to beat him up.
Scott Patlin
They person hired to assault you cannybe charged unless they âaccidentallyâ kill you during the assault. On the other hand, you can be charged for a false police report and be made to pay for the time they spent on your case. Each state has different âripper-cushionsâ for filing a false report but in most cases itâs a felony with fines and jail time. (I love that term â€ïž)
Hi! Lawyer from Canada here (we have a national criminal code). While I’m a personal injury lawyer, I did study criminal law in school, and what I remember is that you can’t consent to be harmed. So, in this case, the assailants would be charged with assault, but you would also probably be charged with something, possibly fraud. That is a vast oversimplification, but that’s what I think would happen. Thanks! Love your books, and I totally give you consent to use any and all content of this post. ?
+1 to Laurenâs post. Iâm Canadian also and her non legalese break down of legalese, make sense, Eh?
+ 1
In Canada, outside sports, you cannot consent to assault.
The exception for sports is murky and evolving. Someone else here made good comments about whether it happened during play or after; those comments seemed reasonable.
Okay – I believe by “hiring” someone to attack you, you’ve technically entered into a verbal contract. The attack would then be an agreed upon “service” provided by the hired person. Just to make things interesting, if Person A “hires” Person B to rough them up and then Person A fails to pay after the service has been completed I believe Person B could sue for breech of contract.
I’ll double check with my roommate after she gets home later (she is a first year law student).
Could person A therefore also sue if person B did not assault them to their satisfaction? Questions I never thought Iâd ask.
No. You can’t sue for breach of contract in an illegal activity. At least that is what Judge Marilyn Milian says….
Follow-up here (after asking the actual law student in the house):
Contract thing does not apply, as you cannot contract an illegal activity (as Sooz has pointed out).
The party hiring the individuals to commit the illegal activity can be charged with solicitation (similar to solicitation for murder and other illegal things).
The ones committing the battery are still responsible and can be charged with battery.
All parties involved can be charged with conspiracy to commit the illegal act.
How everyone is charged depends on the local jurisdiction.
This is just my very non-lawyer short version of a lengthy conversation that included my roommate pulling out no less than three legal textbooks and saying “it depends” about six times. On a side note, I would love to read Barabas’ explanation
My opinion is that the assailants and you can be charged… you are guilty by plotting harm to yourself otherwise arresting the assailants seems to be entrapment even if not iriginally by the police.
I would think yes because assault in its various forms is focused on inflicting damage or the threat of it, rather than intent of the attacker. In NC v Wade, the defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon because he tried to pass a car on a double yellow line. It seems the common law focuses on result rather than intent?
I would liken it so signing a waiver when you get new piercings, tattoos, or any other body modification â scarification, dermal implants, âelf earsâ, etc., youâre saying, âYes, you may hurt me and I will not sue you for it later.â
If his assailants didnât make him sign said waivers, well…..
This is a conundrum. I immediately thought of the field of Dominatrix having recently saw a rerun of Conan in Germany and saw a Buzzfeed video of people who specialize in spanking. People pay for this service and I’ve not heard of any of them being arrested for assault.
This is a conundrum. I immediately thought of the field of Dominatrix having recently saw a rerun of Conan in Germany and saw a Buzzfeed video of people who specialize in spanking. People pay for this service and I’ve not heard of any of them being arrested for assault.
Further research indicated that in most states, if there is money changing hands, it’s illegal to be assaulted even if you give consent.
There are legal cases where consenting parties involved in BDSM activities, even as mild as spanking, were told that there is no consent to assault and the spanker was arrested. https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-xpm-2001-03-09-0103091567-story.html
In the US, someone can be convicted of a crime (manslaughter? murder?) if they help a person to suicide outside of the few states in which assisted suicide is legal. And in the case of âofficialâ assisted suicide, there are significant constraints and rules that much be followed. I know itâs not the same as being beaten up, but you can consider suicide as the most severe end of that continuum.
Iâm no lawyer (âIâm a doctor, Jim, not a lawyerâ), so I canât quote the specific laws, but I believe that aiding suicide is considered a felony in all 50 states in the US. I also believe that the person who aids in suicide would be tried under state law, not federal.
Iâm in the US, obviously.
Oregon has legal assisted suicide when someone has a terminal disease and is of sound mind, and I believe working with a licensed physician
In civil law (most of Europe) all contracts regarding an illegal act are null. You cannot invoque a legal binding if the thing the parties agree on is something criminal (which assault is). We enter a very grey area when it comes to consensual sexual harm for kink purposes…
You can be charged with conspiracy even if the conspiracy was against you (the law is weird like that). In the context of paying a person to physically assault you in a public place, the person who commits the assault is guily of the assault and conspiracy to commit same. The venue is not a posted area for consenting adults to beat each other up. Additionally, by *paying* the person to assault you, you are offering a monetary incentive to break the law (prizes in fighting donât count for reasons), which is a separate illegal act…
Perhaps most importantly, a contract to commit a crime is not a valid contract. It is not enforceable and (if you were dumb enough to put it in writing) can be used against you and your co-conspirator at trial. So saying âitâs all good, it wasnât assault cuz we both agreed to do itâ is not a valid defense. It *is* a confession, though…
(Illinois & Ohio USA. My da is a lawyer and we get into this sort of discussion of hypotheticals fairly regularly. In reality, the two guys might get a small fine or something, but nothing will really happen to them because CELEBRITY.)
I am from the US and don’t have a legal background, but did have some thoughts on the topic. I like the point of you can’t arrest a boxer for hitting someone in the ring. I wonder if part of the difference is that there are agreed upon rules in sports and precautions in place to treat injuries and stop things from going too far. On the street these wouldn’t be in place. You are also hiring someone to do an illegal act of beating someone up so you both may be charged and the fact that one of you is the victim is ignored. It may be treated as if you hired the person to beat anyone up instead of yourself.
And aren’t underground fight rings illegal?
Boxing is different, boxing is licensed by the state the fight happens in and fighters are lucensed by state boxing commisions. Also note that a boxer using his hands outside the ring to hit someone is considered to be using a deadly weapon (or used to be) and could be charged with that unless it was self defense.
I would say In the US it is still illegal and you could be charged. However whether you would be convicted is a whole other issue. I think a jury would be unlikly to convict you, especially if the person you assaulted testified on your behalf or you had a contact. My guess is they would offer a deal for a lesser crime to avoid a trial. However if you accidentally kill the person who hired you that would be a whole other issue, as in the US you cannot concent to be killed.
You can give consent. But can revoke that consent at anytime during said assault..if you choose not to be a witness they have very little that they can prosecute you with., most witnesses that were assaulted choose not to come to court and the state has to dismiss the case for lack of evidence.. in NC this is true.. was a Bailiff for 8 years and have been a cop 19.. people do not wanna deal with the legal system and are often disappointed with the results..
In Germany, there is a limit to consent.
Rather official translation of the German Criminal Code:
Section 228 : Consent
Whosoever causes bodily harm with the consent of the victim shall be deemed to act lawfully unless the act violates public policy, the consent notwithstanding.
If I had to translate it with my own words:
You will be charged with crime even if your victim has given his consent to bodily harm if the actions are deemed unethical/unconscionable/immoral.
The following question “what means unethical/..” is mostly answered by established law practice.
Just an interessing “side”-fact, in Germany Jussie Smollet would definitly be charged with the following misdemeanour (not a felony because of Section 12 (2) misdemeanours are unlawful acts punishable by a lesser minimum term of imprisonment or by fine.) :
Section 145d (of the German Criminal Code)
Misleading the authorities about the commission of an offence
(1) Whosoever intentionally and knowingly misleads a public authority or an agency competent to receive criminal complaints about the fact
1. that an unlawful act has been committed; or
2. that the commission of one of the unlawful acts under section 126 (1) is imminent,
shall be liable to imprisonment of not more than three years or a fine unless the offence is punishable under section 164, section 258 or section 258a.
(2) Whosoever intentionally and knowingly attempts to mislead one of the authorities indicated in subsection (1) above about the participants
1. in an unlawful act; or
2. in an imminent unlawful act under section 126 (1)
shall incur the same penalty.
(3) Whosoever,
1. commits an offence under subsection (1) No. 1 or subsection (2) No. 1 above or
2. intentionally and knowingly misleads one of the authorities indicated in subsection (1) above about the fact that the commission of an unlawful act indicated under section 46b(1) No. 2 of this Code or under section 31(1) No. 2 of the Drugs Act is imminent, or
3. intentionally and knowingly misleads one of these authorities about the participants to an imminent offence under No. 2 above, in order to benefit from a mitigation of sentence or a discharge under section 46b of this Code or section 31 of the Drugs Act, shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years.
(4) In less serious cases under subsection (3) above the penalty shall be imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.
In Germany, there is a limit to consent.
Rather official translation of the German Criminal Code:
Section 228 : Consent
Whosoever causes bodily harm with the consent of the victim shall be deemed to act lawfully unless the act violates public policy, the consent notwithstanding.
If I had to translate it with my own words:
You will be charged with crime even if your victim has given his consent to bodily harm if the actions are deemed unethical/unconscionable/immoral.
The following question “what means unethical/..” is mostly answered by established law practice.
Just an interessing “side”-fact, in Germany Jussie Smollet would definitly be charged with the following misdemeanour (not a felony because of Section 12 (2) misdemeanours are unlawful acts punishable by a lesser minimum term of imprisonment or by fine.) :
Section 145d (of the German Criminal Code)
Misleading the authorities about the commission of an offence
(1) Whosoever intentionally and knowingly misleads a public authority or an agency competent to receive criminal complaints about the fact
1. that an unlawful act has been committed; or
2. that the commission of one of the unlawful acts under section 126 (1) is imminent,
shall be liable to imprisonment of not more than three years or a fine unless the offence is punishable under section 164, section 258 or section 258a.
(2) Whosoever intentionally and knowingly attempts to mislead one of the authorities indicated in subsection (1) above about the participants
1. in an unlawful act; or
2. in an imminent unlawful act under section 126 (1)
shall incur the same penalty.
(3) Whosoever,
1. commits an offence under subsection (1) No. 1 or subsection (2) No. 1 above or
2. intentionally and knowingly misleads one of the authorities indicated in subsection (1) above about the fact that the commission of an unlawful act indicated under section 46b(1) No. 2 of this Code or under section 31(1) No. 2 of the Drugs Act is imminent, or
3. intentionally and knowingly misleads one of these authorities about the participants to an imminent offence under No. 2 above, in order to benefit from a mitigation of sentence or a discharge under section 46b of this Code or section 31 of the Drugs Act, shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years.
(4) In less serious cases under subsection (3) above the penalty shall be imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.
Hello! I am from Ecuador, in South America, and here you can not renounce rights either. Human rights; those rights that are inherent to the individual and that are granted by the State for the simple fact of existing, are inalienable. Among these rights are: the right to life, to liberty, to physical, psychological and sexual integrity, etc. Civil and political rights, such as the right to vote, to be a candidate for popular election, to have property, to freedom of contract, are also rights that can not be waived. The rights that can be waived are subjective rights – those that arise from a contract, the law, or the will of the parties, and that only affects you and no one else – and are usually of a patrimonial nature. The law must clearly establish that these rights may be waived; and the primary condition to do so, is that they do not affect public order or third parties. An example of a right that can be waived, would be to renounce my right to the inheritance of my father, my grandfather, etc. As the inheritance would only be received by me, I do not affect anyone if I decide not to accept the inheritance.
If it helps, here is the article in the Ecuadorian Constitution that states this:
TITLE II
RIGHTS
First chapter
Principles of application of rights
Art. 10.- Individuals, communities, peoples, nationalities and collectives
they are holders and will enjoy the rights guaranteed in the Constitution and
in international instruments.
(…) 6. All principles and rights are inalienable, irrevocable,
indivisible, interdependent and of equal hierarchy.
German lawyer here – in Germany you can consent to be harmed (tattoo, any medical procedures, boxing match). The result of the consent is that the act is not punishable because of the consent (Einwilligung). You cannot consent to be killed (the famous carnibal case of Rotterdam). You cannot consent if the assoult is against Bonos Mores (the public sense – Sittenwidrig). This is the case if the assault could cause your death (illegal fight clubs), if the assoult could escalate and thus you could not revoke your consent (2 groups are meeting for a fight) or otherwise against the public moral sense.
If you consented to a body harm – you can revoke your consent
– you are informed correctly while giving the consent (I am paid for this xxx)
– you cannot procecute the attackers.
Rotenburg, not Rotterdam ?
For those of the BDH who want to know more: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes
Not for the faint of heart.
However, in Germany, you can be prosecuted for faking a criminal act. I guess this would apply to both to the one who organized the fake assault and the paid aggressors. Unless they were deceived e.g. by being told the scene would be for a movie…
Okay, I am not a lawyer, but from my understanding: there are two different methods of basically having someone charged with assault in the US. 1) the victim expresses the desire to press charges – ie, goes to the police, says “I was assaulted” the police investigate, etc. 2) the police/prosecutor pursue “evidence based prosecution”, wherein they prosecute a crime without a victim’s cooperation – this is used pretty much exclusively in domestic violence cases where the victim can’t/won’t cooperate with the investigation. In the first case, if the persona consented to the assault, they could simply not go to the police. If they did go to the police, they could be arrested for providing false statements. In the second case, the victim essentially can’t consent – it’s literally set up to work around a victim who might be uncooperative or completely averse to seeing the person prosecuted. I might add that in researching this (because of course I researched, I’m a librarian), I ran across this article in Canada’s National Post saying that legally, people can’t agree to be seriously hurt https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-law-imposes-some-limits-on-freedom-to-consent-to-violent-sexual-activity and this article (https://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Schumann.pdf) in the US’s Illinois Law Review about BSMD consent, the gist of which is that you can’t legally consent to violence except when a) there isn’t extensive harm and/or b) any violence is considered in keeping with social good – ie – sports, but laws are changing, and often it comes down to what the individual states and courts have to say. It’s really a very interesting article.
It really depends on the context I would think. In terms of BDSM in your own home consent is no defense. “the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court clearly has stated that, if a dominant person ends up being prosecuted for assault associated with sadomasochistic activity, then the submissive partnerâs consent is not a valid defense.” http://www.daylaw.com/blog/2015/2/16/fifty-shades-of-defending-christian-grey-is-consent-a-legal-defense-to-consensual-sm We in the US are very inclined to prosecute for sexual activity. If the spanking was for a gag practical joke on someone, the police would not care. But I assume you are thinking more in terms of the Jussie Smollett case where a person reports the assault to the police. If not reported, then that would be a totally different case, as false reporting would not apply. You could try to explain it to police as a trial run for a movie, boxing outside a ring, or something. But making a public claim of assault would lead to possible criminal charges.
I’m a doctor in the UK. No legal expert. But if someone hired a person to assault them, I would have serious concerns about their mental health and their resulting legal capacity to make this descision. If no capacity, then any contract they thought they had with the ‘assaulter’ would be void. So assaulter can be prosecuted.
In the UK at the moment a man is being prosecuted for GBH (assault) for performing tongue splitting, and other body modifications on consenting adults who signed waivers.
He’s being prosecuted for not having the right qualifications (I.e. not a doctor), performing irreversible procedures in non-clinical settings without anaesthesia, not having medical and psychiatric information on clients and not having life-saving equipment available in case things go wrong!
If he was a specialist plastic surgeon carrying out these procedures after lengthy counselling, in hospital, with anaesthesia, he … probably … wouldn’t be prosecuted. Probably.
In UK law generally a person cannot consent to being harmed, so if two people agree to fight each other, that consent cannot be used as a defence in law.
There are exceptions where consent to be harmed CAN be given:
properly conducted games and sports (as long as players abide by the rules) – hence boxing and wrestling;
reasonable surgical interventions – hence surgical operations;
cosmetic enhancements if carried out by an appropriately qualified individual.
Consent to harm for sexual pleasure is NOT valid in law (not sure why).
From the UK and here assault is considered to be non consensual full stop. You would probably be arrested yourself as well for insiting violence as well so nope not legal here. The bdsm crowd have a similar problem as no matter how you put it, verbally or written, it is still illegal and if you are hurt badly enough to go to the hospital they are legally required to report it even if they know the cause(which they probably do).
I sent a link to this to a friend of ours who is a judge in the Fort Worth area. Hopefully, he’ll take a look and weigh in. His Twitter usage is spotty. =)
Hi, Iâm a criminal attorney licensed in 3 states. The answer is, it depends on your stateâs laws. For example, in Hawaii, you cannot consent to assault in the second degree, no matter the circumstances.
Dear BDH,
I just want to say I am so impressed with all of you for staying on topic and giving answers to the questions asked. Not one went off into side conversations or rumor sharing about the inspiration for this question.
Cheers!
I am a german law student, so I can only give my thoughts on that matter regarding german law. I apologize for grammatical errors etc.
A. We have a national criminal code. Section 223 is about causing someone bodily harm, which obviously is not allowed.
B. However in section 228 there is an exception.
‘whoever causes bodily harm with the consent of the victim shall be deemed to act lawfully unless the act violates public morality/ common decency.’
The law is not clarified any further
So it depends on the follwing:
I. Requirements for consent itself :
1. Must be given freely and without coercion or under duress.
2. The person needs to be old enough ( not necessarily a legal adult) to be able to judge the consequences of giving consent.
II. What does public morality/ common decency mean? ( Gute Sitten in German)
1. It is a broad term based on the rules of morality of a society at a certain point in time. So in the ends it comes down to a case by case decision.
2.There are however cases decided by the BGH (which is Germany’s highest criminal court.)
Most of the time it depends on the intensity of the future assault and the extent of the injuries. If there is a good chance that you will die or suffer permanent injury such as losing a limb it probably violates common decency and any consent is null and void.
This is the case in group fights because there is always the inherent danger of escalation.(due to group dynamics)
However sporting events etc do not violate common decency because generally there is a rule book and a referee present.
Certain sex fetishes are okay as long as there is no real danger of death.
I’m also a german law student (and I’m happy to see that an another german law student is part of the Book Devouring Horde đ ). I agree with your presentation (I also found the same translation of the German Criminal Code by the way).
Do you also agree that in Germany Jussie Smollet would definitly be charged with the following misdemeanour? (not a felony because of Section 12 (2) misdemeanours are unlawful acts punishable by a lesser minimum term of imprisonment or by fine.) :
Section 145d (of the German Criminal Code)
Misleading the authorities about the commission of an offence
(1) Whosoever intentionally and knowingly misleads a public authority or an agency competent to receive criminal complaints about the fact
1. that an unlawful act has been committed; or
2. that the commission of one of the unlawful acts under section 126 (1) is imminent,
shall be liable to imprisonment of not more than three years or a fine unless the offence is punishable under section 164, section 258 or section 258a.
(2) Whosoever intentionally and knowingly attempts to mislead one of the authorities indicated in subsection (1) above about the participants
1. in an unlawful act; or
2. in an imminent unlawful act under section 126 (1)
shall incur the same penalty.
(3) Whosoever,
1. commits an offence under subsection (1) No. 1 or subsection (2) No. 1 above or
2. intentionally and knowingly misleads one of the authorities indicated in subsection (1) above about the fact that the commission of an unlawful act indicated under section 46b(1) No. 2 of this Code or under section 31(1) No. 2 of the Drugs Act is imminent, or
3. intentionally and knowingly misleads one of these authorities about the participants to an imminent offence under No. 2 above, in order to benefit from a mitigation of sentence or a discharge under section 46b of this Code or section 31 of the Drugs Act, shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years.
(4) In less serious cases under subsection (3) above the penalty shall be imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.
I’m also a german law student (and I’m happy to see that an another german law student is part of the Book Devouring Horde đ ). I agree with your presentation (I also found the same translation of the German Criminal Code by the way).
Do you also agree that in Germany Jussie Smollet would definitly be charged with the following misdemeanour? (not a felony because of Section 12 (2) misdemeanours are unlawful acts punishable by a lesser minimum term of imprisonment or by fine.) :
Section 145d (of the German Criminal Code)
Misleading the authorities about the commission of an offence
(1) Whosoever intentionally and knowingly misleads a public authority or an agency competent to receive criminal complaints about the fact
1. that an unlawful act has been committed; or
2. that the commission of one of the unlawful acts under section 126 (1) is imminent,
shall be liable to imprisonment of not more than three years or a fine unless the offence is punishable under section 164, section 258 or section 258a.
(2) Whosoever intentionally and knowingly attempts to mislead one of the authorities indicated in subsection (1) above about the participants
1. in an unlawful act; or
2. in an imminent unlawful act under section 126 (1)
shall incur the same penalty.
(3) Whosoever,
1. commits an offence under subsection (1) No. 1 or subsection (2) No. 1 above or
2. intentionally and knowingly misleads one of the authorities indicated in subsection (1) above about the fact that the commission of an unlawful act indicated under section 46b(1) No. 2 of this Code or under section 31(1) No. 2 of the Drugs Act is imminent, or
3. intentionally and knowingly misleads one of these authorities about the participants to an imminent offence under No. 2 above, in order to benefit from a mitigation of sentence or a discharge under section 46b of this Code or section 31 of the Drugs Act, shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years.
(4) In less serious cases under subsection (3) above the penalty shall be imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.
Hi! My husband is a lawyer in South Carolina and he said to the point could they file charges – maybe, but nobody would charge those guys in SC. If they did he would argue it was a paid performance.
The waiver would only negate personal responsibility, that is the person cannot sue the ‘assailant’. But the State, another interest party to the matter with the vested interest to keep the peace, can still bring charges. US
I think they should both be charged. One paying and planning for the commission of the crime and the other for committing it. Also, for filing a false police report. Both should also be charged with a hate crime. One for committing it and the other for lying about what they said because it causes hate to the group for what they said and they are innocent of saying it.
I live in Chicago and I wish Chicago Police could respond to this. I feel like the bigger issue here is police resources being used up by investigating this “crime”. The low number of police detectives is actually a main talking point of the mayoral election on February 26th. I wish that those police resources could have gone toward solving a real crime and bringing justice for a real victim. Crime is a big issue here in Chicago. The murder rates are dreadful but so are other crimes that need investigation.
You can pay someone to beat you up but you can’t file a false police report. If you do pay someone to bear you up you should mention that fact the first time you have contact with the police.
New Jersey (civil, not criminal) attorney here. Obviously, this is not legal advise, nor is there an attorney-client relationship in the following comment:
At its core, batter is the intentional unwanted touching of another. The reason why consent is a defense is that it goes to the “intentional” element. If I tell you my abs are awesome, beg you to punch me and you do, you did not intend to touch me “unwantedly.”
In this scenario, there are a few quirks to using consent as a defense:
(1) Did the defendants know the victim consented? In other words, did this guy hire them anonymously or let them know when hiring that he will be the victim. If the latter, then consent is a defense – the defendants did not have the right state of mind (think Elle Woods explaining mens rea). If the former, then the defendants intended to commit battery and consent was never conveyed to them.
(2) Did the “victim” revoke consent? Consent can be revoked anytime (this is for you, fans of kinky stuff. That 50 Sades of Gray contract is useless). If I beg you to punch me in the stomach, you wind up, and I say “no, no stop!” but you punch me anyway, well, you committed battery. I revoked consent. So if the “victim” in our scenario started telling the defendants that he changed his mind or started screaming stop or whatever, he very well may have revoked consent, which would be a question for the jury.
(3) Was the “victim” competent to consent? So, if I hire you to break every bone in my body (but not kill me; can’t consent to homicide), most prosecutors will argued that I am too mentally ill to give consent, and that the defendants should have known that based on any reasonable person in their position seeing that I am not in my right mind to request that.
With regard to the twitterer who argued that policy have a duty to prevent violent crime – not really a thing. Criminal charges must be clear and statutory. If they are vague or arbitrary, they are not constitutional.
I am sure there is something out there the defendants would be charged with – conspiracy to defraud, disturbing the peace, conspiracy to file a fake policy report, etc. But not assault and battery unless there was no consent.
My thoughts took a slippery slide defense approach. If consent can be given and the assailant not charged, could a savvy defense attorney turn a domestic violence situation into implied consent. I therefore think the smart think to do is charge the assailant.
Law student here, UMKC School of Law
You can sue this person in civil and you can have the prosecutor’s office bring charges in criminal, but you would most likely not be able to recover.
For civil cases [the requirements of which are mostly the same across states], the consent would take out one of the elements of battery, that the contact on your person be unpermitted. The legalese regarding consent, specifically, is:
no one suffers a legal wrong as the result of an act to which, unaffected by fraud, mistake, or duress, he freely consents or to which he manifests apparent consent. One can consent to a personal invasion even if such contact is immoral or harmful to oneâs own interests. To be effective, consent must be (a) by one who has the capacity to consent or by a person empowered to consent for him, and (b) to the particular conduct, or to substantially the same conduct [Note, this is a Common Law (case law) summary of the basics of consent in intentional tort liability].
To put it plainly, you can consent to being harmed. Unless you can’t consent or the consent was made under circumstances to invalidate the agreement, you can pay to have someone beat you up, but you would be unable to recover in a civil court. Even if they beat you up more thoroughly than you actually wanted [this is what’s called the “Thin Skull” Rule]. For civil cases, the Plaintiff has the burden to meet all the elements of the claim, and you would be unable to meet the “unpermitted” element because you gave consent, you permitted the contact.
In sporting matches – which people always bring up with regards to battery and consent – there is consent given to enter the match and also an implied assumption of risk. You know going into an MMA, boxing, or rugby match that there is the very real, very possible risk of bodily injury. Not only is this implicitly stated in the vast majority of professional sports contracts, but it is also obviously implied. The courts take a dim view of people who say they didn’t realize they’d get hurt if they fought another person, or didn’t realize they’d get scared in a haunted house [a surprisingly common complaint, btw]. The courts say: you knew the risk, idiot, so no, you can’t recover.
For criminal cases, consent is considered a defense to be brought up by the defendant, where the claim is “he wanted me to do it, so there was no crime.” For instance, a defendant might argue that his friend loaned him the car, therefore he had consent, therefore no theft took place. It is the defendant’s burden to bring this defense, and the defendant would have to prove the consent existed and was valid.
This is in part considered a policy issue. The courts do not want to encourage consent by fraud, misrepresentation, or deception, so consent is often scrutinized more closely in criminal cases. There are limits to how far consent can go, but those limits usually involve minors or consent given in dubious circumstances. Some courts have attempted to determine where a person’s consent becomes ineffective or invalid, but they’ve struggled with setting this bar. It’s often a case by case determination for the court or jury.
Another policy the court has to grapple with is false accusations. The court does not want to encourage false criminal allegations, as prison is no laughing matter. They also don’t want to encourage false claims in civil court, where the goal might be to swindle insurance companies. there’s a lot for a court to consider, but the base rule is that if you can’t meet the elements of an action, you can’t recover.
Apparently there is a magic phrase, âwithin scope of consent,â that allows assault. If you play sports, you allow assault âwithin scope of consent.â It follows that paying someone to assault you is within the scope of that consent.
When I read this I thought of two things: a scene from Dirty Harry where the villian pays a guy to beat him up and then blames Harry; and the myth that Harry Houdini died from an unexpected punch to the gut. https://www.wildabouthoudini.com/2013/10/time-to-rethink-rethinking-on-houdini.html
Here’s what National Coalition for Sexual Freedom says –
https://www.ncsfreedom.org/component/k2/item/580-consent-and-bdsm-the-state-of-the-law
Well if you hired them to say those things and harm you for sure there would be no hate crime which In California the racial comments make it a hate crime. If there is no hate crime then everything eles is a misdemeanor which is basically a ticket. Filing a false report is a misdemeanor as well. There would only be charges if the victim pressed charges. If he did press charges then it would probably go to trial and there would have to a burden of proof that he hired them. If found he hired them he would be charged with false statements/report which again is a misdemeanor and they would be charged with nothing if he dropped charges which he mostly likely would. In California this is almost not a crime at all unless the hate crime is proven.
In Israel assault is considered assault when done without the consent of the victim or when done with the consent of the victim in cases of fraud or deceit.
It doesnât go into what consent of the victim in cases of fraud or deceit means and there is a separate clause for sporting events stating that in cases such as boxing, wrestling, judo etc… there is no justification for assault unless the case goes beyond what is considered ânormal sporting activityâ.
So I guess in cases like these it really depends on what the police or prosecution wish to do…
UK
That’s a good question.
On one hand you’re hiring someone for a service and the terms of that service is between you and them. If you do it in public then you’ll probably get charged with disturbing the peace or something. I don’t know that it would be a problem unless you actually pressed charges, and unless they had some sort of proof you hired them for that purpose probably not a lot of people are gonna believe that.
Although I know it’s technically illegal to harm yourself threaten your own life (gives police the authority to break your door down if they think you’re going to commit suicide). I’m going to ask my policeman friend.
Lawyer here. Standard disclaimer: this is not legal advice, we donât have an attorney client relationship, and you need to check the law of your own state which is almost definitely not mine. There are two types of assault or assault/battery offenses. One is in tort. This is a civil wrong between two people. You did not ask about that; you asked about crimes. Therefore, we will not be discussing torts. In the criminal law area, many states called the offense of touching of one person by another âbattery.â In my state, it is âassault.â Be advised that in those other states, assault means merely a threatening motion, not an actual blow.
The vast majority of crimes need for elements: a âbad thoughtâ by the defendant (mens rea), a âbad actâ by the defendant ( actus reus), causation, and damages. Criminal law is largely defined by statutes, although case law applies interpretation. I will be using the Hawaiiâs statutes as an exemplar.
First, there are degrees of assault. In Hawaii, there are at least three. Notice the differences between assault in the first and assault in the 3rd°:
Hawaii Revised Statutes
 §707-710 Assault in the first degree. (1) A person commits the offense of assault in the first degree if the person intentionally or knowingly causes SERIOUS BODILY INJURY to another person. (emphasis added as this is a legally defined term as shown below)
 §707-712 Assault in the third degree. (1) A person commits the offense of assault in the third degree if the person:
    (a) Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes BODILY INJURY to another person; or
    (b) Negligently causes bodily injury to another person with a dangerous instrument.
    (2) Assault in the third degree is a misdemeanor unless committed in a fight or scuffle entered into by mutual consent, in which case it is a petty misdemeanor. (emphasis added)
The terms substantial bodily injury and serious bodily injury are defined in the statute and are pretty much what they sound like: HRS 707-700:
“Serious bodily injury” means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.
“Substantial bodily injury” means bodily injury which causes:
(1) A major avulsion, laceration, or penetration of the skin;
(2) A burn of at least second degree severity;
(3) A bone fracture;
(4) A serious concussion; or
(5) A tearing, rupture, or corrosive damage to the esophagus, viscera, or other internal organs.â
Now we get to the defenses, because clearly there something hinky going on in your scenario.
In Hawaii, there is a limited defense of consent:
â §702-234 Consent to bodily injury. In any prosecution involving conduct which causes or threatens bodily injury, consent to such conduct or to the infliction of such injury is a defense if:
    (1) The conduct and the injury are reasonably foreseeable hazards of joint participation in a lawful athletic event or competitive sport; or
    (2) The consent establishes a justification for the conduct under chapter 703.â
This does not seem like a sporting event under paragraph 1, so we must go to chapter 703 for more info on paragraph 2.
Iâm trying to wrap this up more quickly, so I will just give you an excerpt of the statute that defines unlawful consent â when a person is not legally allowed to consent:
… 703-300
â”Unlawful force” means force which is employed without the consent of the person against whom it is directed and the employment of which constitutes an offense or would constitute an offense except for a defense not amounting to a justification to use the force. Assent constitutes consent, within the meaning of this section, whether or not it otherwise is legally effective, except assent to the infliction of death or serious or substantial bodily injury.â
This means that a person could not consent to assault in the first- degree or in the second degree, with their requirements of bone crunching types of injury, but could consent to assault in the third degree, which merely requires âbodily injury.â
Now, what if the person was crazy or drunk when they asked to be assaulted, could they consent to even assault in the third degree? Hawaii has an answer for that.
  â §702-235 Ineffective consent. Unless otherwise provided by this Code or by the law defining the offense, consent does not constitute a defense if:
    (1) It is given by a person who is legally incompetent to authorize the conduct alleged;
    (2) It is given by a person who by reason of youth, mental disease, disorder, or defect, or intoxication is manifestly unable or known by the defendant to be unable to make a reasonable judgment as to the nature or harmfulness of the conduct alleged;
    (3) It is given by a person whose improvident consent is sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense; or
    (4) It is induced by force, duress or deception.â
These are a lot of potential exceptions to work through (this is why you probably shouldnât ask legal questions of non-lawyers). This is also, as you can see, why it is necessary to check the laws of each state in which you are planning your assault. Now that you know all about how what you all, please feel free to schedule your assault in Hawaii and make sure to fit in some time for a site visit! Drinks are on me.
They could be charged with assault, conspiracy and fraud, but in the great USA we have a right to trial by jury. If they can give reasonable doubt to the jury they are off the hook.
To go in a completely different direction. .. what about the health care associated with “self-harm” from a contracted assault? Because this was pre-planned harm and was not pre-approved by the health insurance, can the insurance company press charges of fraud?
USA
So they can be charged with conspiracy to commit fraud, not assault.
However, if he/they did more damage than what was ârequestedâ, such as breaking his back, he would have to admit he hired them, but they exceeded what they were hired to do, then itâs possible they could be charged with assault.
How would you determine how much assault either party is signing up for? I mean, if weâre playing in a world with you could hire someone to beat the crap out of you b/c reasons, could the client sue the person hired to assault them if they didnât get a bad enough beat down to accomplish whatever it is theyâre up to? Could be fun . . . ?
Man…both should be jailed. By hiring someone to beat someone up (irregardless if it’s yourself or other people) is already againsts the law…
I don’t know if this is really relevant or not…
The whole “consent to be harmed” thing made my mind go to BDSM (possibly because of the sex house thing a few posts ago). Anyway, in a law class I fell into last semester (SUPPOSED to be a psych class, and yes, I’m still bitter) we got to talking about BDSM, and did you know apparently the community has courses on things like how to talk to the police if caught in the middle of a scene so you DON’T get arrested for assault/rape? From the way I remember it explained, it was basically how to communicate that you did actually consent to whatever is going on, even if it looks like you wouldn’t possibly have.
In the UK you cannot consent to assault unless it is a legal sport, licensed and allowed by law. Or if it is a necessary medical procedure or a cosmetic one which is allowed by law. There were a number of high profile cases here where BDSM group memebers were charged with having committed assault on each other when some private tapes of their sessions were leaked. All parties were adults and had consented to be hit, burned, punctured or whipped yet the laws do not recognise the consent so all were charged. Likewise, only last week a body modifier was charged with assault for consentually removing a man’s nipples. He was found guilty and awaits sentence despite his clients consent and testimony in court. Therefore, if a person higher education someone to harm them or gave consent it would be irrelavent. By UK law the a person cannot consent to assault so their attacker would be prosecuted and they too could also be prosecuted for procuring harm and conspiracy to commit.
Likewise again, in the UK if a specific sport doesn’t allow for certain types of contact then you can still face legal repercussions. E.g in rugby which is a notoriously physical game players in lower leagues have been victims of ‘illegal’ tackles which breach the games rules and players have been cautioned by police and even charged when reports have been filed. Proving intention often leads to said cases being thrown out but never the less it shows even in sanction contact sports you can only consent to harm withing the rules.
In general you cannot consent to be harmed here in the US, so if someone hires someone to beat them up the person doing the hurting would be charged. The level of charge might be different, might carry a different sentence (not a lawyer, hence the might).
There is a gray area with BD/SM, some jurisdictions have charged people for otherwise consensual activities,depends on the jurisdiction. Over time that has evolved to where consensual activity where there isn’t major physical damage (like broken bones, hemorrage,etc) is not likely to be seen as assault, but it isn’t guaranteed to be true. The fact that BD/SM clubs and houses of domination are legal in a lot of places (as long as they don”t violate sanitary and sexual health based laws) tells to this.
What about BDSM? Once we accept the idea that “if it is a matter between consenting adults, then it’s no-one else’s business”, then the crime in the Smolletts case (assuming the battery was consensual) would be not the assault & battery, but rather the (under those circumstances) falsified police report and the attempt to redirect the blame for the battery…although,sadly, there are a number of consensual acts that are illegal in some places and legal in others.
I am not a lawyer or judge or police officer but to me common sense says if you hire someone to injure, rough you up or generally cause you harm you have given consent for this to happen to you they should not be charged for anything but stupidity as some one who hires you to do this is crazy. Now if the person hiring you claims damages from insurance or reports to the police it should be considered fraud and punished accordingly
Hi! I practice in a different legal area but my husband is a prosecutor at the San Marcos DA’s office (I assumed you would be more interested about Texas law in particular) so I happily punted this question to him. Just off the top of his head and without doing more legal research, they can always be charged with assault, but they’d plead the affirmative defense of consent. There is nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure that puts an affirmative duty on the government to prevent violent crime such that your consent is not actually effective (plus, ability to control your own body is pretty paramount).
That said, if he did stage an assault and reported it, that’s filing a false report, which is a misdemeanor here. Blows my mind that it’s only a misdemeanor considering the huge waste of resources.
I believe youcan tive consent – however that does not preclude the government from issuing other charges against you. (For example reckless endangerment and such). The only reason I would question against all those who say that in the US giving consent makes it legal – what about those states that do not allow assisted suicide? It has a similar quandary in the law – youâre killing someone but at their behest. As such in most states still assisted suicide is considered manslaughter. I think that as with any law there is wiggle room in the interpretation of the crime by the prosecutor.
Retired country lawyer here. The letter of the law and the observation that a lot depends on jurisdiction has been beaten to death. I would just point out the practical aspects as a former prosecutor. Almost every department has way too much to do. If individuals engage in private consensual activities and no one is hurt law enforcement is not going to spend time working that case up instead of trying to bust the meth house across town. Filing a false report is quite a different mater for analogous reasons. Resources are wasted that could be used effectively elsewhere. In the case being alluded to it is even worse because it whips up political and social strife.
Richard-
Well written and it matches what I as a non legal professional have observed. Prosecution usually happens when someone files a complaint about BDSM play,either they went beyond what was agreed to or in some cases freak out,or if someone sustains a serious injury. The other x factor can be ideology, a prosecutor in a conservative area going after ‘deviants’ to score points (I wonder now that serious crime,often associated w drugs, has hit a lot of formerly sleepy places if a prosecutor would still do this) or one ideologically on the left who believes it is abuse,esp when it is a female sub/male IME. It seems like anything even remotely hinged to sexuality muddies the water.
Richard and Bill said it well. It starts with filing a complaint – and that complaint is a sworn statement as to its truthfulness. If you lie, the State’s Attorney can pursue felony charges. The choices of what to pursue can be guided by what the state’s Attorney General wants to be pursued. It can be very political.So it will be interesting to see if
Smollett et al will be charged.
In Florida you can have charges brought against someone if they simply communicate a threat to you that can be substantiated ,for example, “I’m going to break your arm”.
It’s a felony offense..
It seems to me that you are asking several really interesting social questions:
(1) does the consent of participating individuals over-ride what society deems acceptable?
(2) what constitutes consent?
(3) if consent can over-ride social acceptability, is this true in all cases?
(4) does society need to care unless the consequences of the actions affect others?
I think that jurisdiction matters because different societies will come to different answers to each of these questions according to what their underlying morals and values dictate.
Some examples to illustrate the questions. I am trying here to show that there are differences between societies, not that any one activity is tolerable or not.
(a) As Ilona pointed out, physical battery is unacceptable where there is no consent, but in a boxing ring, limited fighting (with rules reducing violence depending on country) is accepted because consent is considered given.
(b) In most modern societies slavery is forbidden, but there do seem to be some where a person can consent to give him/herself in slavery, eg. to escape crushing debt.
(c) Sexual violence involving physical pain, bondage, etc, is not socially acceptable in many countries, but in many ‘liberated’ countries, such as the USA, if the parties consent, then their consent over-rides social acceptability.
(d) Until relatively recently, sexual activity outside of marriage (ie between two individuals who are not married to each other) was considered socially unacceptable, but now in many countries if the two individuals consent, it is accepted. Indeed if there is no marriage, it is now tolerated or facilitated.
(e) taking another person’s life has until recently been absolutely forbidden, but some countries are now allowing for assisted suicide in certain extreme cases.
What then is consent?
(a) does only ‘yes’ mean ‘yes’ (the slogan now used to determine whether sex between non-married adults is acceptable)? Or can an existing relationship or situation indicate consent, such as fighters entering a boxing ring, or an adult accepting an invitation to a bedroom?
(b) does an established relationship imply consent? which is why marital rape is problematic to enforce.
(c) if it is accepted that a child cannot give consent, then at what point does a person cease to be a child?
(d) are there situations in which consent cannot be given? What then is the possibility of a student, technically an adult, giving consent to a teacher for an unacceptable act?
Consent over-riding social norms in all cases.
Even in the most liberated jurisdictions, where sexual violence between consenting adults is allowed to over-ride social acceptability, consent to take another’s life is not accepted.
Society caring.
Here, it seems to me is where there is even more diversity around the world, even between states in the USA. For example, the rate at which teachers are prosecuted for having sex with students does not appear to be homogeneous among the states of the USA.
But it does also appear that the attention of law enforcement or segments of society is highly influenced by the wealth and status of the ‘consenting’ individuals. What a white person can do and not be punished for is different to what a black person can do. The different actions of law enforcement in response to the actions of citizens of different kinds is not related to the question of consent, but the question of consent can be used to justify such actions.
There is another thing about society and law. Some societies, such as France and Russia, create laws at the upper end of what is acceptable, in a sense using law to urge citizens into more acceptable behaviours. In such countries, breaking law is more common and more socially acceptable because everyone knows many humans are weak. In other societies, such as the UK and the USA, law is set at the lower end of social acceptability; in a sense law is used as a filter against truly unacceptable behaviour. It is more difficult to break law, and so breaking the law is in itself unacceptable.
Canada – potentially, in sports such as hockey (hey, I did say Canada, didn’t I?), it may make a difference if the alleged assault occurred during game play, or after the whistle was blown. During game time, the players can be seen to have consented to being mowed down by an enforcer, or otherwise robbed of their few remaining brain cells or natural teeth (though said brutal enforcer – or, as the courts sometimes call them, gladiators on ice – may still end up in the penalty box). Once the ref blows that whistle, though, the mow-down might be an assault.
As for all the qualifying coulds, mights and maybes, the law isn’t really the LAW, it’s more of a guideline. Otherwise we wouldn’t need lawyers, judges or juries to argue, analyze or otherwise twist beyond all meaning these deep life questions.
Also, there is the “legal” (arguable) concept that you can’t contract outside of the law. That means you can’t do something illegal just because you have a contract with someone saying you can do it.
Actually he could be charge with assault,conspiracy to commit a crime and being paid/paying for a crime is illegal even if the crime isn’t committed. On the other hand the chances of a prosecutor actually laying charges in this case is very slim. Forgot to mention Alberta,Canada.
If one of the parties to the contract is
a. a minor
b. mentally impaired (drunk, dementia, even on-set, early stages; etc)
c. contracting for an illegal act
the contract is null and void.
U.S.
Just looked this up:
https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Consent
(Canadian, indeed)
It seems that while yes, consent to some harm can be given in a fight/sports, that if the harm is intentional, then it can be against the law. So if someone agreed to play hockey, and another player uses that as an excuse to break their legs, then the consent to playing hockey does not apply to the harm that was caused, as the breaking of legs is not part of regular game play (one would hope). I would think that the intentionality of the harm would be hard to prove though depending on the circumstances and the harm.
Two other things:
1. I wonder what the difference in laws is, if any, between countries that have socialiazed medicine versus not? I would think the state (ie all of us) would care more about this issue if it/we are paying for any hospital visits. Whereas countries on the no socialiazed medical care end of the spectrum would show an equal disinstrest in injuries from a consensual fight, as that person has to pay for their own medical care. Maybe they are two expressions of the same value scale – communal vs independent?
2. Wondering how this question would be answered by the Tea as Consent video. Which you should all watch – it’s funny/heartbreaking (that something like this is required).
https://youtu.be/oQbei5JGiT8
And also,
I was thinking of the area of effect of the fight/harm.
If I were to see this on the street, I would be upset, and possibly traumatized (depending on the severity of the assault).
I would consider:
1. Are there minors present?
2. Was there any chance of bystanders being harmed?
3. How much of a distraction could this have been to motorists – could this have caused an accident?
4. Did the fight spark civil unrest like a riot, or brawl? Was it meant to?
5. Was this an attempt to get pain medication?
6. And anything else illegal you can think of….
And another Also,
One of the reasons that BDSM injuries are not considered of interest to the state is that the participants don’t include the general public. Even in a boxing match, the area of effect is contained. If you go to see a match, there’s no complaining about witnessing violence, as that’s why you go. Whereas I don’t expect to see that level of violence walking down the street.
So just like how we don’t force our sexuality or religion on other people, we don’t force others to witness violence.
What’s interesting about that is where each culture sets it’s threshold of acceptability (for PDA’s, etc.). This has changed over time as, for example, they used to have public hangings, and the whole family would go – it was like a carnival (!!!).
So just a thought…plastic surgery, you are paying someone to physical hurt you and change your face but can usually only sue if they mess up the surgery
I donât know how it is in the US, but for Germany:
Not only plastic surgery, ALL forms of medical interventions are counted as assault UNLESS the patient gives his/her consent. Someone draws your blood without your consent? Assault. Not to speak of any kind of surgery. Any medical intervention is counted as assault – only justified by the patient’s consent. Technically, if you as emergency personnel are called to an emergency site and deliver first aid to an unconscious patient, it is counted as an assault. Of course, even if someone took you to court over this, no judge will convict you: one can reasonably assume, that the patient WANTS to be treated before he dies from his injuries and therefore consent is implied. If on the other hand said patient regains consciousness in intensive care and withdraws his consent to treatment, you are bound by his wishes, otherwise: Assault.
Certainly the person who reports being beaten up could be charged with conspiracy to commit a crime along with those who assaulted him and/or falsely making a report to the police. it really depends on the DA and their interpretation of the law as well as the judge and juries. Having friends in the BDSM community they would say that safe play for them does not involve breaking of bones, inflicting of wounds or causing marks that do not fade after a week. Most of them aren’t into breath play or burns either. Safe words and safe signals have to be used and respected. It is definitely a question of context. In the case of paying to get beaten up so you generate more buzz for a commercial venture by reporting the crime then I would say both sets of parties get charged. Otherwise it is difficult to say. You have people who do MMA fighting; they are consenting to the possibility they can get radically beaten. Hockey is a violent sport but when fighting in hockey goes beyond a certain level that the refs can control the police can and do get involved. The Common law says people cannot consent to abuse. That they have some mental flaw that causes them to improperly give consent. But that brings up questions of if they want it and enjoy it is it really abuse? Also how far can consent go? There is the case in Germany of a person who consented to be killed and eaten by a person into cannibalism. The alleged cannibal was charged. For most communities the idea of consentual and non-consentual makes all the difference and for most they are unwilling to prosecute consentual situations unless it is a case of severe physical harm, ie broken bones, wounds or death. It is definintely one of those circular arguments.
A friend of mine who used to practice law in Pennsylvania said, “Under Pa law, it is still a crime but with a lower grade penalty.”
Not a lawyer, but from what I’ve heard, think it depends on damage done. U.S. who swung first, and damage done. How much, a lawyer wants to push this, all parties can be guilty of something. Fighting, disturbing the peace,, etc…plus conspiring to commit a crime.
California lawyer here – The elements of criminal assault in California: under PC 240, all of the following must be true:
The defendant did something that was likely to result in the use of force against someone else;
The defendant did so willfully;
The defendant was aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that this act would directly and probably result in force being applied to the other person; and
When the defendant acted, s/he had the ability to apply force to the other person.
Being hired by the victim to perform the assault is not a defense in the criminal arena. It may be a defense in a civil suit.
USA: I think it depends on a few things
1) Main one is if it gets reported to the authorities. You are wasting public resources – manpower, time and money – having an investigation conducted into the matter. If you lie during the course of the investigation and you had reported it as an assault you can be charged with a felony – filing a false police report and perhaps conspiracy.
2) Are you getting some sort of financial gain out of it? Filing an insurance claim? Filing for disability? Using it as evidence in a divorce proceedings (hire someone to assault you and claim your ex did it). Insurance Fraud etc.
3) Does it result in medical care where they are required to report to the authorities? If you lie – see 1 & 2 above.
4) If you lie by going on tv and playing the vicitim when you are not this may not be a crime but can result in public opinion turning against you / loss of job & wages etc.
People hire Doms for BDSM scenarios or are into that scene, people do boxing, MMA fighting, wrestling etc and I would not expect criminal charges unless someone goes to the extreme (Mike Tyson biting off a chunk of Hollyfield’s ear) or results in medical care – see 2 above.
Hi I’m from Australia, something I remember discussing back in high school, was a difference between Australian and US law, (however I’m not sure how correct this is, as it was a commerce course).
In the US the criminal law is based on the concept of limitations, basically their is a list of things you can’t legally do. undertaking such an act is a crime against the state.
While in Australia the criminal law is based on the concepts of rights, this means that a member of the public has the right to press charge against a person commiting the act but the act in and of it self isn’t a crime. With the exception of acts which would render the victim unable to press charges in which case the state does so on the victim’s behalf.
Let’s consider Indecent Exposure, the definition in both the US and Australia is similar, however in the US the act itself is illegal even if it doesn’t bother anyone or cause problems, a public camera montied for illegal activity by an AI may identify you and you get charged with a crime, while in Australia the act itself is considered inappropriate behaviour, and if a third party is upset by it they may call the police to press charges against you, however being identified by the AI would be insufficient to charge you with a crime as there is no complainant. (This is a modern explanation of the example we discussed in school)
Now I’m not sure how this may apply to assault, by paying someone to assault you you have their by given permission and it could be argued you therefore don’t have the right to lodge a complaint about the act. On the other hand it could be argued that the act of consenting is evident of mental illness and thus the victim didn’t have the ability to give consent and the state could press charges on their behalf.
————————————————————————————————
Next I’ll discuss a legal concept I’ve been working on for a story I’m writing, which is relevant, in a truly free society you could legally consent to anything, given you prove you have the ability to understand what your consenting to and it doesn’t cause harm to any third party who hasn’t consented, i.e. none of our so called free societies are truly free in. In such a society you could legally agree to something such as being enslaved if that was your wish simply by writing a contract that would define the terms of your enslavement. However the key limitation is that you could agree to things that would result in death, or cause brain damage (While Euthanasia would be legally it would require appropriate medical ruling, i.e. some one who has lost a leg could reasonably get approved for it but not someone who was completely healthy.) The final requirement is that for certain thing i.e. enslavement, things that would cause harm you must prove your are of sound mind and understand the consequences of your agreement, and were not being manipulated in any manor. Under such laws you could write a contract to be assaulted but for the contract to be legal you would have to have a phycologist sign off on the contract stating you are of sound mind and understand what your agreeing to (the phycologist couldn’t use the act of agreement itself as evidence of lack of sound mind thought). Since most of your stories are set in alternate time lines you could making something like this possible.
Prosecutor from Washington State here. Criminal law, as others have noted, varies a LOT from state to state in the U.S. Also, it’s important to remember that the words of a statute are not always the only thing that matters–common law principles (e.g. the judge-made unwritten laws that used to govern most of our legal system at the founding) still sometimes play a significant role in interpreting criminal laws (and those vary less from state to state). Washington follows the most commonly used rule that, as our court of appeals put it, “consent is not a valid defense if the activity consented to is against public policy. Thus, a child cannot consent to hazing, a gang member cannot consent to an initiation beating, and an individual cannot consent to being shot with a pistol.” So if you hired me to spank you because that’s your kink, in Washington I probably couldn’t be prosecuted because consensual kink that doesn’t actually harm anyone isn’t against public policy (and even if I technically COULD be prosecuted, remember that prosecutors get to pick and choose what charges they want to file. Unless you’re in a super conservative county what prosecutor would think filing charges in a case like that is a good use of resources?). But if you hire me to beat the crap out of you, I could definitely be prosecuted, at least in Washington.
Former lawyer in Ontario, Canada. . A famous CBC radio host, Jian Ghomeshi,got his sexual jollies by choking, slapping, biting, punching and generally assaulting his ‘dates’. He was acquitted at trial, where more than 20 victims testified to these actions. He was acquitted, not because they consented, but because the trial judge found the complainants’ testimony not credible. (Sound familiar?)
What is relevant to this discussion is the issue of consent to assault in the context of BDSM: ” The Supreme Court [of Canada] has said that a person cannot consent to an assault that causes bodily harm. While the cases have typically arisen in the context of bar room brawls or hockey violence, other courts have applied the same reasoning to the sexual context. So, if a sexual activity causes bodily harm, a person cannot consent to it.
This is pretty problematic from the perspective of the BDSM community. Carefully negotiated consent is rendered irrelevant, and effectively criminalizes all those who derive sexual pleasure from activities that involve physical pain, if it leaves a mark. But, it’s the law.
The Supreme Court has said that consent that is given only in advance isn’t determinative â consent is an ongoing process and a person must be in a state of consciousness to be able to withdraw that consent at any time. The case involved what’s known as erotic asphyxiation â basically, where a person is choked to the point that they lose consciousness. It’s a controversial practice within the BDSM community.
But, those who practice it do so with carefully negotiated consent in advance.”
The full article is here:https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-ghomeshi-question-the-law-and-consent/article21315629/
I have nothing to contribute legal-wise, but this is a very fascinating topic. And isn’t it weird how laws can very between states? Countries makes a bit more sense, but state variances I find weird.
Guess that’s why someone came up with that “ignorance of the law is not a valid defense” statement, assuming that’s not an urban legend.
Note to self… Study the law in my state carefully before committing any crime.
And is it weird that I’m getting so many helpful criminal tips from this blog? ?
Fundamentally, united States. The states set most of the laws, only those that effect foreign relations, military and interstate commerce fall to congress. We just have allowed Congress to define interstate commerce very very broadly.
It gets worse – in Washington State, traffic laws can vary by municipality. Which I didn’t know until I was about thirty and violated one that would have been legal the next city over (where I lived.) (I wasn’t cited, but I was pretty horrified.)
Iâm not any sort of lawyer or police officer, Iâm just impressed with the amount of collective legal knowledge in the BDH! And yes, I totally want to hear Barabas explain this one.
+1 Totally impressed. But I often am with the BDH.
Agree! I’m ashamed to say that my brain can’t keep up with the current topic discussed. I will just wait for the dummy/simple version of the conclusion if it will ever appear in future book(s) hehe.
As a follow up to my previous post, here is the relevant section of the Texas Penal Code, according to my husband:
Texas Penal Code 22.06 â Consent as Defense to Assaultive Conduct
(a) The victimâs effective consent or the actorâs reasonable belief that the victim consented to the actorâs conduct is a defense to prosecution under Section 22.01 (Assault), 22.02 (Aggravated Assault), or 22.05 (Deadly Conduct) if:
(1) the conduct did not threaten or inflict serious bodily injury; or
(2) the victim knew the conduct was a risk of:
(A) his occupation;
(B) recognized medical treatment; or
(C) a scientific experiment conducted by recognized methods.
(b) The defense to prosecution provided by Subsection (a) is not available to a defendant who commits an offense described by Subsection (a) as a condition of the defendantâs or the victimâs initiation or continued membership in a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.
Happy to discuss the exceptions listed above in more detail, it’s an interesting legal question. đ
Wow, love the interesting question and the great discussions, I feel like Iâm a kid again at the family dinner table. The best, funniest, intellectual conversations always took place there ?. Just saying…..
legal assistant in Alberta here, this is a very fascinating conversation
Lord love a duck. This sounds like a question for Darwin Awards. If you pay someone to beat you up you NEED better financial advice. You can get most rednecks to thump you good just by insulting ….well: Mom, trucks, trains, John Wayne, the list really is endless.
Seriously? Couldn’t find anymore stereotypical bs to blather? Isn’t there enough hatred in the world?
Sorry but why is this comment ok? Isnât this the 21st century? When ideally racial epithets should not be tolerated: like the heinous n word, but snotty red neck comments are ok? No, it is not ok. Why canât we dream of a world where one is not judged by the color of their skin or please forgive me Dr King for interpolating , or by their religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity but by the content of their character? Wouldnât that be grand?
In parts of the US and Britain, the term “redneck” has lost its connection to ethnicity and is used to describe a person’s character. An unfortunate word choice for a wider audience, but likely not intended as the ethnic slur it would be in the South.
My whole point is using a denigrating term which implies negative stereotypical ideals in the way it was used in the aforementioned comment is just as unacceptable as a racial or ethnic slur. Are there ignorant narrow minded folks whose neck was reddened by working in the sun? Sure there are just as there are kind loving ones. Are there ignorant narrow minded mean spirited people walking the hallowed halls of academia or those whom consider themselves to be elite?Sure there are just as there are kind living ones. But couldnât we of the bdh not bring that type of ugliness into this blog?
@Samantha
Aaaaah! The last ethnic group that itâs âokâ to disparage:(
Have a question what if Law enforcement sees this activity take place?
I sat on a jury once and a big part of the case was that the deputies saw him hitting his wife as they drove up to the house.
I am from California if it makes a difference
Not an attorney- but say you hired someone to kill you- maybe because your life insurance wouldn’t pay if you committed suicide. That would probably be prosecuted because the D.A. wouldn’t want someone to think they could get away with that. (Would insurance look at that as assisted suicide? Hmm. Interesting)
ANYWAY, according to online sources, in the state of Alabama, unless the injuries are serious, the charge would be 3rd degree assault, which is a Class A misdemeanor. If there were actually proof that the victim hired the perpetrators, I don’t know if the D.A. would consider that a good use of resources to prosecute the case.
I live in Florida, US. The laws define assault and battery as two different offenses. Assault is defined as a threat of harm that leads to the victims fear of imminent harm. Battery is when there is actual physical contact. It also says that a defense for either crime is consent. If the person assaulted/battered consented to the act, that cannot be considered a crime unless the extent of the act exceeds the consent given.
I live in New Jersey. I googled whether it is legal here to consent to assault here. It is not. This is an explanation.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/dGJYPXm7TdHdqhAs7
I posted a link before, but I’m not sure it’s allowed, so I have the attachment from an NJ law website. It is not legal here.
Good grief!
Iâm not an expert, but isnât it more difficult to prosecute people if the victim wonât participate? Unless itâs a minor then I think they will try.
You cannot be contracted to do something that breaks the law. Any contract that does so can be considered null if you try to fight it. This happens a lot in employment contracts filled with scary legalese. Most of the time stuff like non-competes aren’t enforceable, but you think it is when you sign it so you don’t try to get away with it. In California there are strict labour laws about what makes a contractor vs employee, but you’ll see contracts that try to treat one like the other all the time. When it’s in everyone’s benefit no cares, but one call to the labour board can shake up a whole workplace.
That said, if you hire someone to go out and hurt you and they do it then yes they can be charged, but so can you for hiring someone to commit a crime. It gets murky in the realms of mutual consent though. This is also where people get a bit grey on date-related assaults, not just in kink. If you have a prosecutor who is keen though, they’ll be able to create a convincing argument so you could at least see a court room either way.
This also brings to mind the stories from a while back about underage girls who sent ‘inappropriate’ photos to their boyfriends or such and how they ended up registered as sex offenders because they ‘distributed’ images classified as CP.
UK – while I don’t have a brilliant knowledge of the law to flaunt here, I’m pretty sure that the assailant would still be arrested for GBH etc. That fact that they were hired to commit assault is neither here nor there, they made the pre-meditated choice to carry out the offense and that is what they would be in bother for. I dare say the employer in this case would then also be in bother for inciting violence and inciting others to commit a crime, wasting police time, and interfering with an investigation.
Put it this way, if you aren’t allowed to hire someone to help you to die (paid assisted suicide – where both parties end up in trouble), I doubt they’d let you get away with a paid beating.
The idea in UK law is that there is a public interest in not allowing members of society to be physically injured, even with their consent. There is a tension between this public interest and individual bodily autonomy, and much of the case law concerns sadomasochism. There are limited exceptions to the rule including organised sport, cosmetic surgery including tattooing and body piercing. Actually there has just been a court case about this, where a trained tattooist and piercer has been convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm for carrying out body modifications (tongue splitting, removal of the visible ear) with consent. One of the main concerns was these procedures were not being carried out in a medical setting by a qualified and regulated medical professional. Of course, there is also the practical issue that if these are private acts which don’t require medical attention afterwards and do not otherwise come to the attention of prosecuting authorities, then how will there be legal consequences? Although I would assume if you pay someone to assault you without it being for personal gratification, you would be intending to publicise it… It’s an interesting area theoretically, and as a law student 25 years ago it certainly opened my eyes with the details of some of the case law!
Common sense from me here, non-lawyer person…first thoughts from me, is that it depends on state and federal law, if the victim (or not victim if they hired someone) was legally allowed to hire someone to do that to them. Second, if the assualters go beyond the scope of the contract, then prosecution obviously is warrented/needed.
Above all, I think mentally health professionals honestly need to be brought in, regardless of the legality of it, as soon as it’s discovered. Why would a person hire someone to do that to them? That, to me, is the most important thing to figure out, just for the safety of the victim (or not victim, again).
Why hire someone to assault you? Publicity? Good or bad it’s still publicity so personal gain and media frenzy.
If in the spirit of Perry Mason or Boston Legal it was done to put the blame on someone else, a personal vendetta or accuse a specific group as in a hate crime. Maybe even cover up something they did along the same lines. Or perfect alibi being hospitalized.
I would think it is illegal in a few ways in some places, if you can you find a DA willing to spend the time and money to go after said person. If the people hired did a good job then that person got what they paid for. At the very least the worst done is keeping police officers and EMTs away from others that need help. That seems like the crime. (USA)
Or maybe it was done as research for a tv show, movie, or something else? and they had a permit.
What about euthanasia? Someone gives consent to be killed because of their illness. Currently, most states (and I think my state of PA is one) prosecute the person who performs the deed – no matter the reason.
In a recent interview with Jussie , he stated that he received a threatening letter at work, and he didn’t feel that the threat was taken seriously enough by his employers; that could be why he would want to set up a scenario where he gets attacked. He just wanted to have the threat (real or perceived) taken seriously, and he felt that this was a way to achieve his goal.
Illinois, if the person was hired to attack for any fraud purposes, then they would also be guilty of fraud, or conspiracy for whatever the bad act would be. I donât know if they could be arrested for the original act unless it goes past what was agreed upon originally or excessive damage/death occurs. Example inspired by the Shades of Grey house, consensual adults agree to some extreme activities. In IL itâs no ones business but theirs, unless someone ends in the hospital or morgue from the activity, not talking Heart attack cause he should be on Viagra, but some thing like choking to death because the couple was playing at erotic aphixiation. I think there was a SVU that dealt with that kind of story
Canada
My daughter and I made a three hour road trip last week and she entertained me with the details of a movie she is fond of called, “Bulworth.” It was a comedy.
A politician hires a hitman to kill him so that his family can collect his insurance .
There’s a really old black and white movie with a similar theme, so it looks as if fiction preceeded truth even though in this case it was a beating, not a murder.
I’m not an attorney. I took the required Business Law courses for undergraduate and graduate business degrees decades ago. Reading the comments it appears a person cannot enter into a contract for an illegal purpose. Therefore no contract exists. An illegal activity was planned by one person influencing other persons to perform an illegal act of bodily harm for the purpose of fraud. That is a Federal Crime under the RICO laws. The fraud itself appears was for the purpose of causing dissension in the USA also a Federal crime. I am from Texas, USA.
Hi,
I’m from Germany.
This is not an easy answer and please bear with my second hand english.
If you agree to the Assault, bevor it is happening, then you give consent. But you have to agree to almost everything, the extend, which things to be used, when, where. This can happen unspoken, with the common sense, like haircutting, visiting a doktor and such (legally Assault, gut you consent to it) or with actual rules (the BDSM scene, for example)
The state is usually not allowed to interferent. But there are those dies, where it can be diccsussed. For example, if the assault goes over the agreed part ( like, you issued a safeword end then it would be ignored by your partner, or you agree to a beating and it escalades).
Usually you have a right to do with your life and Body as you wish (Art. 1 GG).
In reaaaaaally rare things, the Stade can intereference. With minors. And if the “WĂŒrde des Menschen” is in danger. A very Good example it the Case of the canabilism of Rothenburg. The victim agree to be killed and later to be eaten. Thus is where the state can take offence in.
I hoped this helped a little bit.
I personally don’t think you can write away your human rights, regardless off legal shanangians in whatever country you live in. This is of course a moral, not legal, stand.
But I think my moral standpoint might be coloured by the society I grew up in, so I’d be interested in what people from other countries think âș
I have a vague notion my “doesn’t matter what you sign, no one can use or abuse you” is reflected in Swedish law too.
For example, we don’t criminilize prostitutes, but we DO criminilize the John’s and pimps. It isn’t illegal to be desperate and sell your body, but it is illegal to use someone elses desperation to abuse them. Our law also means we criminilize buying somone else, even if you comitted the crime in a country that legalize prostitution. It also doesn’t matter if you are a swedish citizen. You can still be prosecuted in Sweden for buying a human for sex abroad.
We also don’t allow the buying of women’s bodies for reproduction. Although that can’t be prosecuted if you do it in a country that does, which has made some unscupeolous buisnesses starting selling services from such countries, which is a grey area. Personally I think we should interpret that law like the prostitution law, punish those who make money off it, definently, and maybe penalize those who go abroad to break the law, at least with societal shaming, like fines and maybe restricted access to social benefits like parental leave, although that would punish the innocent child too, so, not that I suppose, but something that clearly says: Your beahaviour is not morally ok, we as a society condemn you for it…
Iâm from Israel, so Iâm not sure about other countryâs laws, but lets look at the extreme cases for a sec: I know that in Israel and a lot of other countries, aiding someone in committing suicide is definitely a crime, and you could be charged with murder, even if not in the first degree. So consenting to being killed really doesnât matter in this situation… so following this logic, if someone was severely harmed in an assault, even if it was consensual, the attackers could still be charged? But specifically in this case, he claimed he was assulted based on his sexuality and skin color, and possibly caused a lot of social damage, so I think he should be charged rather than the people he paid
My layman view is that you can’t consent to illegal activity. Boxing, in your example, is legal, so consent is no issue. Plastic surgery is legal, but performing that surgery at home is not legal, and doctor in such case can be arrested, even if patient consented to be treated at home, and surgery went well. Same goes to assault.
Hi, am in the UK and my sideways connected brain made a jump to a recent story about a body modification practitioner who has been charged with and pleaded guilty to GBH (Grevious bodily harm ) with intent after being prosecuted about a body mod he did (warning icky content, scroll past if you have a fragile constitution)…
*******
He cut off someoneâs nipple at their request
*******
So, I think it looks like even if they consent to it you can still be prosecuted.
The body modder has not been sentenced yet.
Hi from Argetina,
I am not an attorney and this is my second language, please sorry in advance for any mistake.
If it can be proved that the attack was arrenged. Both part, the muscle contracted and the person who hired it, will have to face charges in the criminal justice.
If you like to be beatened, you can go to a gym or practice MMA. that is legal and take place in authoprized spaces.
I’m going to sit back and read the comments. This is fascinating! ?
Hello, i am a pharmacy magor, so no backround in law, just posting my two cents. I feel like this isnât even something that can be covered under the law, or at least part of it cannot. Like she said, fighters give consent to be attacked and monetary payment is consent of the highest order, because you are prompting the action. To express a little bit of my nerd, if you send a sample of a disease somewhere with not promping, you can be charged with assult with a deadly weapon,( disease), but if a university pays for a sample of a disease, and recieves it in the mail, they cannot claim they were attacked because they prompted it with payment/consent. Now, false claims/ possible false claims about assault are a whole different matter, and iâm not about to touch that, but i feel like paying for something is expecting something for you money, which equals consent. ?ââïž
I have to point out that sending a sample to a university has to be done in a legally proscribed way so it is analogous to fighting in a ring (opposed to on a street) in my opinion. If you do not follow all the legal rules and it is discovered, you have committed a crime.
in other words you can not send a sample to any university and deliver it in any way you please
Switzerland (and no legal profession)
I think that a lot of our laws aim to protect people from doing harm to each other or to themselves. Harm meaning to act against the basic set of rights which are catalogued in the constitution or the European Convention for Human Rights (protection of your life, sexual integrity, freedom of speech etc.). So basically any acts against those rights are forbidden. As usual our society agrees that there are exceptions to the rule.
In Switzerland we allow euthanasia. It is forbidden to kill someone (of course), but you are permitted to aid a person to commit suicide if you have no ulterior motive and certain conditions are met. Rules and procedures are in place to ensure this is the case.
Back to your question: Doesnât each society decide for itself, what is permissible and what is not. There are still societies that think that a so-called honour killing or blood feud is ok. If the legal system reflects this then no prosecution. The Lees have their code of honour that guides what stuff they would or wouldnât agree to do. What if their god was the right of free contract and their law would require them to fulfill any contractual obligation? No contest.
Hi! I’m from France.
I’m not an attourney so I’ve been ready up and this is more or less the gist of French law regarding the subject at hand:
1. If the agressor, whatever his motives, has ill intent, (i.e. cause bodily harm), it wil be considered an assault., except during violent sports where physical assaut is tolerated as long as it is done during an active phase of the game and following that sports rules and regulations. After, French law puts various degrees or levels of sanctions depending on the kind of physical assault (i.e. the amount of physical damage caused to the victim). Also in this case there are aggravating circumstances since the perpetrator does it volontarily. And another agravating circumstance since it is done with premeditation.
On the other hand if you are in a car accident and it was your fault but it wasn’t on purpose and there are victims, you have unvolontarily caused bodily harm, this is not considered as an assault.
Once again, intent is everything here.
I’m ONLY mentionning physical assaut here, I’m not going into hazing, harasment sexual of otherwise, sexual assaut and psychological abuse that is also considered a kind of assault. Those have their own particulars in French law.
French law is also clear on one thing, if the victim has ordered the assault and if this is proven, he will be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit an offense, (there is a difference in France between and offense and a crime), even on himself.
Physical assault, in France, is mostly an offense as long as the victim doesn’t die, then it becomes a crime.
A little extra tidbit I found. You cannot consent to your own murder in France since euthanasia is illegal here.
An assisted suicide will make the assistant become a criminal.
We have had a very famous case recently (2003) where a young man, tetraplegic , mute and blind (following a terrible car accident), and who could only communicate by moving his right thumb, asked the French president if he could be helped to die. There was ample medical proof that there would be no way for him to regain any mobility or improve his life in any way, he was traped in a prison called a body with no way of getting out and he was just 22 years old, (19 at the time of the accident), with decades ahead of him. Finding his life unbearable, he wanted to commit suicide, but could not do it himself since he could not move. (Suicide is authorised by law in France since you can dispose of your own life as you wish). The president refused because, by law, he couldn’t say yes. That would be conspiracy to commit murder.
His mother announced on TV that she would help her son to die. 3 days later, she injected him with huge doses of pentobarbital but, unfortunately, a male nurse saw it and the doctors managed to keep the boy alive, but now in a deep coma and in the ICU.
The mother is sent to jail but her son’s book comes out the next day and, under the public and media pressure, she is out on bail. (Yes the boy wrote a book, painstakingly, letter by letter with various helpers speaking out the alphabet and he would tap his thumb when the right letter was announced…. It took him 3 years…. called “Je vous demande le droit de mourir”. Loosely translated: I ask you for the right to die.)
The head doctor of the ICU, speaks to the family and after getting their written consent, decides to stop all medical support and injects the young man with potassium chloride, causing his death.
He is arrested and is accused of: “poisoning with premeditation” which means that if found guity, he will be sentenced to life in prison.
The mother and the doctor fight by asking for the creation of a law called the “Vincemnt Humbert law” ( her son’s name) where they ask for decriminalization of medicaly assisted suicide in France. 300 000 french people sign her petition and the law called: “Rights for patients and end of life ” is set in front of the French National Assembly.
The mother and the doctor were sent in court. They never denied their actions and stood by their choices which created a huge ethical and legislative debate about euthanasia which, in turn, finally created a law against therapeutical obstinacy which had caused the problems for the poor Vincent in the first place. (this is 2005)
As for the mother and the doctor their case was dismissed. The juge said that even if they were both guilty by law, it had to be taken into account the very particular circumstances of this case, between the family and media pressure, and that they were both “forced” to do it in a way….
Sorry for the way out of subject here, but I thought this was a touching story where the law becomes almost a villain and it takes the courage and determination of a young man, the abnegation and unconditional love of a mother and the sacrifice and nobility of a doctor to get the government to finaly address the issue of Therapeutical Obstinacy in France, and this, not long ago.
Thank you, Ilona Andrews for the thought provoking question. USA, southeastern Bible belt. Here the family is divided. No it is not split between milennials versus older generation which is what I thought would happen. Nor is it pro life versus other. It boils down to society and what society as a whole deems acceptable or not acceptable. Then the discussion got derailed by politics aka “discussion” of President Trump and law. Sigh.
We are a mix of farmers, Red neck hunters who drive jacked up pickups and go to church on sunday, college grads, technical school grads, professionals [accounting, engineering, food service, military, nursing, parental units, teaching] and non professionals [college students, retail and fast food workers also college students, high school students who are all in ROTC if that makes a difference].. then there is our free spirit who changes employment annually … Well, except for 2 years he was a pilot because he wanted to visit every state in USA…he just has not found himself after 20 years post high school graduation. He is presently building docks while living on a sail boat. Last year he was a therapist. Next year who knows except some segment of family will be scandalized because he has not settled down, married and produced offspring. Shrug.
Whether that makes him a black sheep or not is open to interpretation. Personally i know he has never gotten arrested or done anything criminal.
Not a legal professional, but in Canada you canât consent to have someone kill you, unless itâs in the case of terminal specific diseases. MAID medically assisted death can be consented to in certain cases though. And thatâs relatively new. There are forms and itâs been done across canada. Other than that though I donât think you can consent to be harmed, in any meaningful way at least. Not counting ear piercings and tattooing which are consensual and hurt.
I havenât read through all of the comments, so this may be a repeat. But as a general matter contracts to break the law are typically against public policy and not enforceable.
So, setting aside whether someone could be charged for assaulting that someone âconsentedâ to have occur, the perpetrators likely would not be able to sue to enforce the contract (for payment or whathaveyou) because you typically cannot contractually agree (in the US) to break the law.
Iâm in Texas and happy to dive into this issue further if you like. (You can find me by googling my full name.)
I’m not a lawyer, but I am an auntie.
Kid 1: hit me.
Kid 2: (punches)
Kid 1: (runs crying to mom) KID 1 PUNCHED ME!!!
In the end, Kid 1 is a punk. Kid 2 was gullible.
There’s this:
“CAMBRIDGE — A former Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor yesterday was convicted of staging an elaborate hoax — which included shooting himself in the stomach — as part of a bizarre attempt to implicate his oldest son in a murder plot against him.
“The state’s top prosecutor called the actions of John Donovan Sr. on Dec. 16, 2005, a “corruption” of the criminal justice system, while the judge who presided at his trial called the millionaire “bizarre.”
“The 65-year-old Donovan was convicted of filing a false police report by Middlesex Superior Court Judge Kenneth Fishman, who sentenced him to two years’ probation following a jury-waived trial. “Mr. Donovan’s behavior . . . can be described as nothing short of bizarre and premeditated,” Fishman said of the Hamilton resident who has been feuding with his adult children for the past several years.
“I had nothing to do with the shooting,” Donovan told the Globe after the verdict. He said his conviction “was a complete surprise. An absolute surprise.”
“Donovan asserted he was targeted by Russian hit men as he sat in the Vassar Street parking lot of his Cambridge business office,,,.”
http://archive.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/08/18/ex_professor_found_guilty_of_staging_own_shooting/
i’m no lawyer but i’ve heard of cases where bdsm fetishists such as a dom, have accidentally killed a sub from a fetish activity. there’s one i read about where the dom hung his sub horizontally (bondage) went out to buy something and when he came back she was dead coz i think part of the rope constricted her breathing. i think he had documentation that she consented to that particular fetish activity but not sure if he was charged with manslaughter for it. could be an interesting area for you to research.
From what I’ve read, he paid the two men and rehearsed the “attack” with them. He then filed a complaint with the police, sworn statement and all.
I was pretty sure this was phoney when I read he redacted his phone records. I think he should be prosecuted and billed for all the wasted man hours with mandatory jail time. It’s past time for the lieing liberals who do this crap to pick up the price tag for their foul behavior.
No comments on the actual current legal issues. But this topic reminds me of a short story I read forever ago. I cannot recall the title or author.
It was set way in the future and probably on a different planet. There were three characters, all at an extremely high end restaurant. The “entertainment” was a young woman who was slowly being consumed by a large (alien) plant. Some of the story was told from this woman’s perspective, but the bulk was a conversation between two diners. One was aghast at what was being “allowed” to happen (murder, suicide, take your pick). The second diner was probing at this person’s take on the other society’s values. He explained that on this world, the young woman had every right to enter into a contract to die in this fashion. The compensation would go to her family and would pay for medical bills for her younger brother’s illness, which the family couldn’t afford to pay on their own. The plant was exuding some set of chemicals that numbed all pain and would eventually cause the woman to lose consciousness before actually dying–so there was no physical suffering. But she was definitely awake and her rationale was made public, which were key to the “entertainment” for the patrons, beforehand.
I found the story very difficult to read. Obviously, the young woman was not “saved,” which my younger brain very much wanted to occur.
Gah, that is awful. You gave me the willies or heeby-jeebies. There is a lot of disturbing there. Why is the girl’s life less important than her brother’s? I am most bothered by the thought of a society that watches death as entertainment. To much like gladiator pits and dehumanizing each other. Shudders.
Just to put forward a counter view – why is society at large allowed to decide the worth of anyone’s (the girl’s) life? If she values it herself as below her brother’s, then shouldn’t society accept that? (Kinda how vampires are made in kate daniel’s world). Society should always be such that each individual feels valued, safe, worthwhile, competent (knowing all choices – practical and moral) to choose serious life (and death) choices.
I personally do find the idea of the story horrifying, but maybe in a completely utopian world, where this wasn’t the *only* option, it has space to exist? Although, if there *was* literally *any* other choice to save her brother, why would the girl want to die, and not live to see her brother well?
If I go to a martial arts class & am injured during a practice it seems unlikely that I could get the police to file criminal charges or if filed that the other participant would be found guilty. Of course, most sporting/training facilities require a hold harmless form to be signed.
Hi! I only know how it works in Sweden (and it’s probably going to be similar in the other Nordic countries) but here it goes: In Sweden you can consent to being beaten up but only up to a degree, if the injuries are too serious the consent doesn’t “matter” anymore because the state has an interest and responsibility to prevent crime and keep its citizens from harm. So there’s a fine line between less-serious injuries that you can consent to and more harmful ones where consent doesn’t prevent the attacker from being found guilty of assault. In Sweden we call the lesser degree “ringa” (sort of a slight assault) and then there’s the normal assault and in nearly all situations you can consent to the lesser assault but not to a normal (or for that case the even more serious degree) assault. The difference between assault and say boxing (in Sweden, at least) isn’t in the fact that you’ve agreed to be beaten up (as the consent isn’t going to cover most injuries) but in the fact that we as a society have decided that boxing and other sports are okay and that we see them as socially acceptable. So as long as the competitors stay within the “idea” of the sport – they can even go beyond the rules as long as they don’t go completely nuts and go beyond the idea or spirit of the sport – that person’s actions will be socially acceptable and therefore not punishable.
Hope the answer helps!
// Law student excited at finally getting to use some knowledge outside of the classroom
I am from Greece, and the law in my country goes like this:
There are different types of injuries that can be incurred and, depending on those, there are different consequences.
If the injury is a simple one, meaning no real severity, then the victim’s consent means that the assault is not a crime, as long as the assault is not contrary to accepted principles of morality (which of course, is a matter of interpretation by the court, or the prosecutor who files the charges).
In any other case, i.e. when the injury occurs in a “dangerous” way (a way that could cause danger to the victim’s life, or a serious injury – for example, if you use your fist on someone’s face), or when the injury was severe, then the victim’s consent does not have any bearing on the filing of criminal charges. Of course, I suppose it will be taken into account when the penalty is decided by the court.
I hope my answer wasn’t too convoluted.
Hi! I’m from the U.S. and I’m involved with 2 different martial arts (Krav Maga and Brazilian Ju Jitsu), we try to be careful, but sometime accidents happen. I personally have never had worse than a black eye (which got me quite a few questions as I’m a rather small, young looking female, and my husband is large, grumpy looking military man). That said, one of my classmates had to go to the ER recently when she got her nose broken and possibly a concussion. She was asked by the police officers in the ER if she wanted to press charges, when she declined saying it was a training accident they were fine with letting it go at that. I’m not sure precisely where the line is drawn for legal consent, but so far it has been drawn further out than any of the training injuries I’ve seen. I really hope it stays that way.
My dirty mind went right to BDSM; in Switzerland (civil law tradition) it constitutes a kind of gray area. In any case there should be an agreement and ideally even a witness (to the agreement). Most agreed upon practices are ok, but grievous/serious bodily harm (like organ damage, for instance) and death (resulting from asphyxiation games or heart attack or whatever) are prosecuted ex officio (so there is going to be an inquest at the least); in general less serious bodily harm (like a blue eye or even a broken arm) is an offense that is only prosecuted upon request anyway!
With regard to contact sports and martial arts, even grievous bodily harm (including resulting in death) are not punishable crimes as long as it can be shown that (all) the rules were observed and necessary protective measures were installed. Even a slight breach of the rules might not be punishable if the perpetrator could not have foreseen the consequences (there it depends on the circumstances and the judge)…
I’m not sure if someone you hired to beat you up should be charged for that assault but it seems like if the guy who beats you up knows it was intended to stage and report a false crime they should be charged with that just like the so called victim should be. That’s a serious crime that wastes police time and effort and causes unnecessary stress on others who live in the area. It’s much more serious than a simple assault charges.
Also, in a case of hiring a thug to send a threatening letter to your place of business, that’s meant to scare everyone else, the fake victim knows it’s not real but his colleagues at his business don’t. So the fake victim can’t consent for his colleagues because he’s in league with the bad guy. The bad guy he hired created and sent a threatening letter though the Postal Service which is a federal crime in the US. So again they should both be charged with the same crime.
Pretty much yes, in the US. You don’t press charges, don’t file a false police report and don’t try to use it to defraud anyone for anything and they should be ok. Of course they can’t kill you, or the state will press charges.
There are some exceptions. Such as domestic violence, many jurisdictions the state/county/city will prosecute even if you refuse to press charges yourself or even corporate with them.
Thanks for stating the real reality.
I’m in the US. I think the idea of consenting to be harmed is a big gray area, because generally the law would not get involved if it was consensual (if you consented, you’re not likely to call 911).
S&M is a good example of consenting to be harmed. But…The law doesn’t say assault is illegal unless you have the assaultee’s permission, it says it’s illegal. I assume in cases of S&M, they just don’t define it as assault, even though by textbook definition, it is. This is why I say consenting is a gray area. I don’t think it’s consistent logic, because the law wasn’t really designed to deal with cases where people are being harmed voluntarily. If you take things a step further, what if you paid someone to kill you? Being paid and you consenting to be killed does not mean that they didn’t murder you (this is why euthanasia is so tricky).
Martial arts are activities that have a known/expected risk (rather than consenting to be attacked, it’s more like you accept the risk you might be harmed in the course of this activity). But if someone started beating you outside the accepted rules, then it could transform into assault. For example: a match has been declared over, and the winner keeps hitting the loser.
However, you certainly can’t pay someone to assault you and then report it as assault and not break the law. That’s an entirely different criminal issue – and if the assailants know that the intent is to make a fraudulent report, then they’re accomplices.
Take it one step further…what if you hire someone to “assault” you and they wind up killing you…are they innocent because you hired them?…..or a bystander sees this and jumps in to help, and is hurt or killed…or you use the “hire” as an excuse to murder the person you hired by responding to the attack with deadly force and killing the person you hiredâŠ..or….
Tennessee lawyer here (although I do commercial law, havenât touched criminal law in decades). Tennesseeâs criminal law says that you can be charged with assault, but itâs a defense to the charge if the victim gave consent and you donât seriously hurt them.
As other commenters have said, pretty much no one is going to be arrested unless somebody else complains. If the victim keeps his mouth shut and the assault doesnât happen in a busy, public place, then…pics or it didnât happen.
But if youâre hiring someone to beat the crap out of you in order to defraud your employer or insurer or whatever, you can still be charged with the fraud. I donât actually know if bully-for-hire can be criminally liable for helping you commit fraud, but they definitely can be liable civilly (meaning that the person you defrauded can sue you for fraud and sue the bully-for-hire for helping you with it) â thatâs a concept covered in the section 876 of the 2nd Restatement of Torts.
ââââââ-
TCA §39-13-104 – Effective consent:
When conduct is charged to constitute an offense under this part because it causes or threatens bodily injury, effective consent to such conduct or to the infliction of such injury is a defense, if:
(1) The bodily injury consented to or threatened by the conduct consented to is not serious bodily injury; or
(2) The conduct and the harm are reasonably foreseeable hazards:
(A) Of joint participation in a lawful athletic contest or competitive sport; or
(B) For any concerted activity of a kind not forbidden by law.
âââââââ
Restatement of Torts § 876 (1934 & 2004 Supp.):
For harm resulting to a third person from the tortious conduct of another, a
person is liable if he:
(a) orders or induces such conduct, knowing of the conditions under which the act is done or intending the consequences which ensue, or
(b) knows that the otherâs conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other so to conduct himself, or
(c) gives substantial assistance to the other in accomplishing a tortious result and his own conduct, separately considered, constitutes a breach of duty to the third person.
ââââââ-
I believe it could be argued that “assault for hire” is a crime unto itself, regardless of the intended victim
People consent to being harmed all the time. e.g. sado-masochism sessions, contact sports like American football, ice hockey, boxing, & fight clubs, participating Jackass type videos, body hair waxing, body piercings, tattoos, vanity surgeries, use of toxic chemical laden products such as cosmetics & perfume/cologne, knowingly ingesting painfully hot peppers
A lot of the assault complaints/indictments I see contain the phrase ‘without their consent ‘ suggesting that with consent it wouldn’t be a crime. On the other hand I’ve seen 2 guys convicted of battery who claimed they were only pretending to fight to see what the cops would do. Frankly, it probably depends which state you are in. You would not believe how much the laws and their interpretation vary by state!
Yes you can agree to be beaten up. Ask any hospital, people pay them to cut others up and nobody is arresting anyone.
All joking aside, in Germany, we explicitly have a thing that roughly translates as ~justification reasons (RechtfertigungsgrĂŒnde).
Among other reasons such as self-defence, consent is such a justification, rendering these acts not-punishable.
Now, I don’t know how serious whatshisname was beaten up, but there is a border beyond which consent doesn’t matter anymore. At the very latest assisted suicide is illegal, but I would guess the bar is lower than “lethal”, I just don’t know where it actually is.
In Romania, if you consent to be beaten or whatever, I’ m fairly sure the police will laugh their heads off and probably you’ll take one or two smacking from them too.
If you have a contract (legally binding, notorized, witnessed,or whatever) it shouldn’t be considered a crime, but who knows these days. People can sue you for almost anything anymore. Governments are able to twist some laws to their advantage. That was not meant as criticism of any particular country or government system, just a general comment. Please don’t be mean to me.? Personal opinion. US citizen.
The Czech legal system doesn’t give much wiggle room in this case. Individuals can write down the agreement. It will be valid, but faulty as this kind of agreement is considered illegal. The assailant can still be prosecuted, even if both sides agreed on the violence in writing. (Not much help, I know… but it’s very interesting to see how each country deals with this stuff.)
I’m not very good at the language of the country I am currently residing (Israel), but I found a partial translation of something from 1977 so there is a decent chance of it being outdated. Furthermore, the part regarding assault is missing.
In it, I think both the assaulted person and the assailant would be guilty of crimes. The assaulted person would be in violation of: enabling someone to commit an offense, procuring someone to commit an offense, and being in place for the offense to be ensured. In each of these cases, he would be guilty of actually committing assault himself.
But as other people have mentioned earlier, I think it mostly is if it gets reported. With the Jussie Smollett case, I think that if he gave consent then he is going to get screwed by either a law prohibiting consensual assault or a law about falsifying a police report.
In Canada, consent is a mean of defense, but it is restricted to the cases where the assault didnât cause any bodily harm or an aggravated assault. The concept of «bodily harm » is defined (art.2 Criminal Code) as any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature. For example, red marks or ecchymosis, as well as broken teeths are considered bodily harm.
To answer your specific question, in Canada, the person hired that beat you could be charged.
The reflexion about martial arts, specifically MMA or other combat sports, is interesting. In the last few years, a few important contests in Montreal were canceled last minute, because the police told they were going to arrest the participants if it take place. The art. 83 Criminal Code forbids prize fights and planned fights, but some sports, such as boxing are permitted. There is also a few athletes that were prosecuted following brawls. It was mostly hockey players and those brawls took place during official matches.
Hi ! I’m from France, I think here being hired to beat people up would probably get you in troubles with the law. From what I read in the precedent comments, I think it’s the same in other countries. The fact that you consented to being beaten up doesn’t matter, someone harmed you and I think depending on the situation and the injuries the verdict would change. But I am now law specialist.
Regarding sports, my brother mainly did Kung Fu and box. He’s into sports and martial arts. The possibility of harming someone during a fight is accepted but using your skills to beat someone up outside the dojo could get you kick out of said dojo (that and the fact that the victim can “file a claim” (?) (“porter plainte”?)
I’m absolutely not sure but I think in Japan, it’s the same with people learning martial arts in dojos. If anyone sees you using your skills outside the dojo, even without causing injuries, you’re expelled of the dojo. I’m not sure sure it would mean you have problem with the law but it would mean fighting for sports is ok, beating people that may not have the skills outside the dojo is not. I’m not Japanese and I’ve never been there, I could totally be mistaken, Ă prendre avec des pincettes donc ?
Don’t know if those reflections help haha
Sending positive vibes your way ~
I know in the U.S.A you have to sign a contract. I remember having to hand it out (I worked at a MMA studio for a bit) and then signing it again when I became an adult. If I remember the waiver correctly, you are simply signing and saying that you won’t hold the gym responsible for your injuries, if you have any. You’re not consenting to assault at all. I did get curious, and the legal definition of assault is “An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability” (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault). If you have a good MMA or other martial art studio, then they train you on how to avoid getting hurt. It’s inevitable for some injuries to happen, but the good places will work to minimize them. If you go on and do something like a boxing match, you have to sign another couple of forms. It’s an Injury Waiver and Release of Liability Form. So, basically, you’re being assaulted, but you’re signing away your right to charge your opponent for it. Additionally, because it is a sport and (hopefully) the people participating are involved in a legal ring (AKA, they follow the laws – medic present and other legal requirements) a certain amount of violence is expected (because sports aren’t tame. Ex: Hockey) so if the violence is retained in a certain area – or ‘field of play’ like a boxing ring, football field, hockey ring, and so long as the participants cease all violence between each other as soon as they step off the field of play, and so long as the violence does not exceed the acceptable level (they stop when they are told too. There’s really no set way to tell) then yes, the assault is legal. But, if it is not part of a sport, there is no field of play, and/or the use of force seems excessive to police, then it is assault and regardless of the victims consent, the DA can charge them. The victim can’t if he/she signed a waiver though.
Hi. I’m from Croatia.
As I understand the law (not a lawyer) the only difference is whether the assault will be considered with or without intent (planning to do a crime). If you do a crime and are unaware it is a crime you can get a milder punishment. And as others said, whether the assault is a crime will depend on the severity of the injury and the way it was done. Namely, it you disturb others with your actions it can be a crime but if it is considered part of a performance it will not. Also, it is stated in the law that inaction can be considered a crime as well so if you witness a crime and do nothing about it you are committing a crime even if it is of a lesser degree. Eg. someone is being assaulted and you just stand by any injuries they sustain are your fault to a degree as well. In the same direction, by just knowing an assault is going to happen and you do nothing, you are at fault.
To conclude, if the assault happened in public and/or there are injuries, it can go in front of a judge, even if both parties agreed to it. Both the person doing the assault and the person organising an assault are at fault but it can be consider without intent if neither was aware they were committing a crime.
I read all the comments so far and a lot of people mentioned BDSM. Basically it is illegal in a way any assault would be since it hasn’t been legally regulated in Croatia so far.
Another mention was tattoos and other procedures. It has been regulated in a way that no medical procedure is allowed to be done by a non licenced person and in a non licenced area. A tattooing and piercing are considered non-medical procedures (part of service industry) but most other procedures are.
A performance such as (sword) fighting, acting in a public place, a sports event and other requires prior permission from adequate authority.
Also, an activity that would be considered illegal can be done legally if prior consent is granted by the police. An example of this is running red lights and stopping traffic during private processions (funerals, weddings and such).
Finally, in Croatia, for any contract between two privat individuals to be legally binding, a notary has to approve it and you have to pay taxes if it involves monetary gain. One individual can be a company (called “obrt”) but a contract is in that case constrained to the work the company is registered to perform.
Oral contracts and contracts not notarised can be considered non-binding if contested.
This is a very interesting discussion..are these folks masochists that pay to be beaten?
Is it like Sand M behavior with a safe word?with out one ,try ouch?
I get the sport injuries ,heck I am not going to sue my horse if he accidentally hurts me..itâs my bad…and years ago I did a fairly hard form karate,so I got bruised under my blocking pads..
But wanting to get beat up for publicity , or to get pity.isnât that some kind of Munchhausen? Or means a very slagging career or a damn bad actor to me…
Cheers,there is the Equestrian angle
I know in Australia we have a legal principle that’s usually shortened to Volenti, from the latin phrase ‘Volenti non fit injuria’, which translates roughly as ‘to one who is willing, no harm can be done’. Basically if you consent to something, it’s not a crime.
But, as several other people have said, there’s a line the law doesn’t allow ‘harm’ to cross, I think (from what I remember) because it’s assumed if you consent to a certain level of harm, you’re not considered capable of making the decision. So you definitely can’t consent to someone murdering you, anything that lands you in the hospital is probably a grey area at least, but your doctor can chop off a limb with the right paperwork and training.
There’s a lot more that goes into it (as always, with the law) but basically you have to know the extent of the risks before you’re able to consent. So if you hired someone to punch you a few times and they kept going until you ended up in hospital, it probably wouldn’t count.
Likewise if your relationship with the person precluded genuine consent- say your boss or a family member or partner pressured you until you agreed to something.
Basically though- yeah, hiring someone to hurt you is allowed. They might get in trouble if they go too far, but you should be in the clear. Lying to the police about it is what would probably get you in trouble, and because of the news coverage it’s possible the attackers (if they were identificable) would have a case for slander.
I’d think it would revolve around intent. The person “assaulting” you wouldn’t be intending to inflict injuries on you out of malice. If it turned out you’d agreed with them to do it then I can’t see any jury in the world convicting unless an accident happens and you got more injured than intended. But then it would probably a different charge and you’d probably be held equally culpible. In theory the joint charge could be street-fighting. That is, the fight was joint and intentional and the fact that you hardly fought back and “lost” would be irrelevant.
Canadian here, which is probably why my first thought is “what about hockey?” In theory the fighting in hockey is against the rules and officially discouraged, and yet it happens all the time. How can you then not prosecute for assault? This is not boxing or martial arts. Hmmmmmm……
I am from the Philippines.
I am not a legal person but I have read a lot of instances where young people either sustain serious injuries or die as a consequence of hazing — an activity which most organizations find necessary for neophytes to undergo before they are fully accepted into the organization (e.g. fraternity/sorority, even the armed forces). If you chose to enter an organization with initiation rites it is understood that you consent to undergo such initiation. But if you get hurt excessively or die during the initiation, the perpetrators will be legally liable. Punishment depends on the damage that the person incurs. What kind of “damage” would merit legal action? Death, rape, sodomy or mutilation… if as a consequence of the assault the victim becomes physically and mentally incapacitated, impotent or blind.
Sadly, despite warnings and school sanctions, there are still a lot of young people who fall victim to this kind of violence.
This reminds me of that news article where a guy was charged with murder for killing and eating a “willing” victim he found by posting on the online forums.
I found his name:
Armin Meiwes
Pretty creepy wiki article
Yes you can consent to be harmed, but that doesn’t make the action condoned by the law. It’s wrong/illegal to assault another person (or animal). Hiring someone to burn your house down is illegal. The owner is fraudulent and the contractor is an arsonist, both committing crimes. Paying for a crime to be committed against their own person is instigating a crime. Accepting payment is agreeing to commit a crime.
From new Zealand. When two people are morons they both get in trouble.
In no civilized country can someone ask another for harm or worse, killing. In fact, all over the world, people go to jail for even assisting their dears with the most compassionate of suicides. This is about the Legal aspect. Of course Logic and Ethics could allow this.
*puts on librarian research glasses* (I’ve got the MA and work at the Bodleian I’m allowed them!)
Someone above made the interesting comment about doctors. So I’m just going to leave this news story from the BBC here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-47198786. Note the comment: “Surgical procedures must be carried out by properly trained, qualified and regulated surgeons or healthcare professionals,” So in the UK you can ‘assault’ someone as long as you have a doctors licence and are regulated.
On to martial arts. As someone who did Tae Kwon Do as a teenager (got to black belt) I was told firmly that sparring was not the same as fighting. I had the safety equipment and had been trained to not hit in ways which were overly harmful (plus y’know the pads). However I was also warned about fighting outside the class. So…
England has two sections to assault . Which amount to (I simplify) the threat of violence etc. and the actual act of physical violence. (Common Assault and Battery) and then you get into ABH and GBH which I think are about the severity. We also have a bit about intent in the law – mens rea + actus reus = crime. Thus confirming to me that English law is difficult to work out!
There’s some interesting debate in this case: https://web.archive.org/web/20071016125514/http://lawteacher.net/Criminal/Non%20Fatal%20Assaults/Consent%20R%20v%20Brown.htm which outlines some of the legalese. Any barristers or solicitors in the comments do please disagree with me if I’ve got any of my research wrong! (As an information management professional I strive to find accurate sources)
Note: This is NOT the same in Scotland, where consent does not condone assault. (as far as I can work out)
Thanks for the very interesting post and comments!
Both parties should be charged, the victim for requesting the hit on themselves, and the assailant for going through with it + extra 5 years for stupidity to both.
My understanding is that the “attackers” were not charged with any crime because no crime was committed by them. Smollett, however, committed a felony under Illinois law immediately upon calling the police. “Disorderly conduct is normally thought of as a low-level crime. In Illinois, however, making false reports to peace officers is actually a felony contained within the disorderly statute. A false report is a class four felony, punishable by up to three years in prison.” I’m from the US.