# Is it a crime?



## wainscottbl (Aug 20, 2015)

Douchebag at a bar tap a waitress on the butt. Is it a crime? I mean can charges be filed? 

I know it varies from state to state on the nature of the matter, but in general. The novel takes place in Oregon. I can find nothing in the Oregon Revised Statutes under either sexual offenses or assault that would allow this act to be called a crime, but I would think it is. So any lawyers or paralegals here, I would love your help!


----------



## popsprocket (Aug 20, 2015)

From a quick search it seems like it would either be a third or second degree sexual abuse charge:

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.415


> Where complaint alleged that defendant touched victims buttocks, facts could constitute sexual abuse in sec*ond de*gree. State v. Williams, 96 Or App 543, 773 P2d 25 (1989), Sup Ct review denied



http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.425

Sexual abuse in the second degree is a Class C felony, maximum sentence being 5 years prison and $125k fine. Sexual abuse in the third degree is a Class A misdemeanour, maximum sentence being 1 year prison and a $6250 fine.

http://www.myoregondefenselawyer.com/criminal-charges/

Which means that it would depend on the judge and the complainant's distress as to how harsh the sentencing would be.


----------



## Sam (Aug 20, 2015)

Tap or slap? Day or night? 

Bars are crowded places, with everyone doing their own thing. Especially at night, it would be nearly impossible to prove that it was anything other than an accident. You'd need witnesses -- and pub-goers are not reliable witnesses -- to corroborate your claim. 

That said, yes, it is a crime in parts of the world. I've never heard of a case in the UK, but I've read of three or four in the U.S., where it's considered a felony in some states.


----------



## shadowwalker (Aug 20, 2015)

First, what you're talking about is battery, not assault.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-battery-overview.html

And here's Oregon:

http://www.assaultandbattery.org/oregon/

And based on this - http://www.oregonlaws.org/glossary/definition/sexual_assault - it doesn't sound like it would be construed as sexual assault.


----------



## wainscottbl (Aug 21, 2015)

popsprocket said:


> From a quick search it seems like it would either be a third or second degree sexual abuse charge:
> 
> http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.415
> 
> ...



You're  kidding right? . I looked at all that two or three times and I guess I just missed it. I mean the specific element about the buttocks. Well thanks. Now I know I can't get away with that...


----------



## wainscottbl (Aug 21, 2015)

Class C. I misread it.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Aug 21, 2015)

> You'd need witnesses -- and pub-goers are not reliable witnesses -- to corroborate your claim.


I think the gent has his answer, so I hope you don't  mind me going off topic slightly. Someone did some research recently, connected with rape cases, it had always been assumed that information from women who were drunk was not reliable, and a lot of women who claimed rape  were drunk. They gave women alcohol (there was a proper control group and stuff}  and asked them to remember things at different time periods. Basically they found that the alcohol interfered with them remembering, they were liable to forget, but did not interfere with the accuracy of what they did remember. An interesting result that is going to change police attitudes to evidence from intoxicated women according to the police authority that commissioned the study.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 21, 2015)

Sam said:


> Tap or slap? Day or night?
> 
> Bars are crowded places, with everyone doing their own thing. Especially at night, it would be nearly impossible to prove that it was anything other than an accident. You'd need witnesses -- and pub-goers are not reliable witnesses -- to corroborate your claim.
> 
> That said, yes, it is a crime in parts of the world. I've never heard of a case in the UK, but I've read of three or four in the U.S., where it's considered a felony in some states.



Nah that isn't true.  If a woman says it happens and she can pick a guy out of a lineup, police will take it seriously.  It's just the way it is today in the U.S.


----------



## wainscottbl (Aug 24, 2015)

Olly Buckle said:


> I think the gent has his answer, so I hope you don't  mind me going off topic slightly. Someone did some research recently, connected with rape cases, it had always been assumed that information from women who were drunk was not reliable, and a lot of women who claimed rape  were drunk. They gave women alcohol (there was a proper control group and stuff}  and asked them to remember things at different time periods. Basically they found that the alcohol interfered with them remembering, they were liable to forget, but did not interfere with the accuracy of what they did remember. An interesting result that is going to change police attitudes to evidence from intoxicated women according to the police authority that commissioned the study.



Able to work both ways. The politics of this issue is very heated, so...but in regards to the objective scientific, it can work both ways. If a woman cannot recall things, it can lead to no charges (lack of evidence) or an acquittal due to lack of evidence, or more convictions. However, sometimes false ones. It's a complicated matter. One, even in the heinous crime of rape, the law is in favor of the accused because innocent until proven guilty/burden of proof on the accuser. And sometimes the bad guy gets away, and that is horrible. Luckily, I think juries usually get it right. 

Two, consent is not simple because the question of sex is not directly asked, and if both parties are drunk, how can the possible rapists have _mens rea _(guilty mind) which is required for there to be a crime? Of course there is _mens rea_ be because drunk drivers can be accused with homicide. But if a woman cannot consent to sex when drunk, then it creates an unfairness for the man.  I am not talking about the politics on this by the way, but the fairness regarding law. The law must be fair to both parties. The rapist, even if he is objectively guilty, has more rights than the raped because he is innocent until proven guilty. I know the _mens rea _of an offender is not the same as the consent of a woman who is assaulted (or allegedly as it would be in the case), but they are on equal enough ground for the point. Consent of the will is the substance of the matter. 

This novel actually deals with a prostitute being raped. He pays her, but he forces her beyond that with blackmail. But it is not going to get into the legal aspect of that. This is sort of a side shoot to build some depth. He slaps a waitress on the butt one night in a bar. A guy with mental problems beats the crap out of him. Meanwhile, he is being investigated for a rape (not of the prostitute). So the detective tricks him into admitting the sexual assault, which gets him arrested for a short period, though the charges are dropped. It's more to show the "evil" of this character. 

Another question about writing is created there I think. Villains--can they be too evil to the point of a caricature or straw man? Yes, but villains without redeeming virtues is fine, as they are found throughout literature. The complicated bad guy is another way to go, but the straight up bad guy is fine, too, I believe.  We just have to be careful not to create that straw man. But that's a thing with all characters. I am worried about a character in my other novel, an anti-heroine of sorts, being flat. It's frustrating. The other characters a pretty fleshed out, but this important character is flat and lacking development. I'll go back an add later after the rough draft is finished.


----------

