Grabbing ass isn't a "serious" offence: Judge

24 posts / 0 new

Tue, 2009-07-07 13:45

Michelle

Grabbing ass isn't a "serious" offence: Judge

I wonder whether the judge would consider it "serious" if a woman were to turn around and pound the living fuck out of some asshole like this who grabs her ass in a store. Probably.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/661931

Quote:

A Calgary judge has decided that federal legislation that prohibits conditional sentences for sexual assault offences should not be applied to a serial bum pincher.

Provincial court Judge Anne Brown said the objective of legislation was not to include such crimes.

"The Parliamentary intent is to address ... serious violent offences that involve maximum penalties of 10 years or more and are indictable," Brown ruled as she sentenced Francisco Amaya to nine months house arrest and two years probation.

Amaya, who has prior convictions for seven similar incidents, grabbed a stranger's buttocks inside a grocery store on in February of last year.

Now, I don't know that sticking this guy in jail for 10 years would be useful. But I don't like the reasoning behind the judge's decision, that grabbing women's asses isn't really a "serious" sexual assault. No, it's not the same thing as raping her, obviously, but it's serious. Feminists have fought hard to have this sort of behaviour recognized for what it is: assault.

BTW, I love this:

Quote:

Brown said while Amaya, 30, suffers from mental health issues related to his upbringing in El Salvador [b]and a diagnosis of frotteurism, a condition in which he gets aroused by touching others.[/b]

Oh, he gets aroused by feeling up women's asses? Gosh, how unusual! I've never met a guy before who gets turned on by feeling a woman up!

Tue, 2009-07-07 08:13

ennir

The last time someone pinched my ass I very politely told them to never, ever do that again. The next time they did it I kicked them, hard. LOL I don't recommend it but it was effective, he never pinched me again.

I agree with you Michelle, it is an assault. I am glad to see there were consequences for him but her comment regarding "serious sexual assaults" is offensive.

Tue, 2009-07-07 08:17

Michelle

I'd also like to know what the fact that he's from El Salvador has to do with anything. Gratuitous mention in the article, don't you think?

Good on you, ennir. :D

Tue, 2009-07-07 08:40

Caissa

http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Frotteurism.html

Frotteurism is a disorder in which a person derives sexual pleasure or gratification from rubbing, especially the genitals, against another person, usually in a crowd. The person being rubbed is a victim. Frotteurism is a paraphilia, a disorder that is characterized by recurrent intense sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies generally involving objects, the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner (not merely simulated), or children or other nonconsenting persons.

Description

The primary focus of frotteurism is touching or rubbing one's genitals against the clothing or body of a nonconsenting person. This behavior most often occurs in situations that allow rapid escape. Frottage (the act of rubbing against the other person) is most commonly practiced in crowded places such as malls, elevators, on busy sidewalks, and on public transportation vehicles.

The most commonly practiced form of frotteurism is rubbing one's genitals against the victim's thighs or buttocks. A common alternative is to rub one's hands over the victim's genitals or breasts.

Most people who engage in frottage (sometimes called frotteurs) usually fantasize that they have an exclusive and caring relationship with their victims during the moment of contact. However, once contact is made and broken, the frotteur realizes that escape is important to avoid prosecution.

Causes and symptoms
Causes

There is no scientific consensus concerning the cause of frotteurism. Most experts attribute the behavior to an initially random or accidental touching of another's genitals that the person finds sexually exciting. Successive repetitions of the act tend to reinforce and perpetuate the behavior.

Symptoms

In order for the disorder to be clinically diagnosed, the symptoms must meet the diagnostic criteria as listed in the professional's handbook, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. These symptoms include:

Recurrent, intense, or sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors that involve touching and rubbing against a nonconsenting person.
The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the fantasies or urges cause significant distress to the individual or are disruptive to his everyday functioning.

Demographics

Males are much more likely to engage in frotteurism than are females. Females are the most common victims of frotteurism. Most acts of frottage are peformed by those between 15 to 25 years of age. After the age of 25, the acts decline.

Diagnosis

Most people with frotteurism never seek professional help, but people with the disorder may come into the mental health system as a result of a court order. The diagnosis is established in an interview between the person accused of frotteurism and the mental health professional (a psychiatrist or a psychologist, for example). In the interview, the individual acknowledges that touching others is a preferred or exclusive means of sexual gratification. Because this acknowledgment can bring criminal charges, the disorder is underdiagnosed and its prevalence is largely unknown. In some cases, other people besides the accused may be interviewed, including observers or the victim.

Treatments

For treatment to be successful, the frotteur must want to modify existing patterns of behavior. This initial step is difficult for most people with this disorder to take.

Behavior therapy is commonly used to try to treat frotteurism. The frotteur must learn to control the impulse to touch nonconsenting victims. Medroxyprogesterone, a female hormone, is sometimes prescribed to decrease sexual desire.

Frotteurism is a criminal act in many jurisdictions. It is usually classified as a misdemeanor. As a result, legal penalties are often minor. It is also not easy to prosecute frotteurs as intent to touch is difficult to prove. In their defense statements, the accused often claim that the contact was accidental.

The primary goal of frotteurism is to touch the clothing or body of a non-consenting person. This behavior most often occurs in situations that allow rapid escape, and frotteurism is most commonly practiced in crowded places such as public transportation vehicles. (Patrik Giardino/CORBIS. Photo reproduced by permission.)

Prognosis

The prognosis for eliminating frotteurism is poor as most frotteurs have no desire to change their behavior. Since frotteurism involves nonconsenting partners and is against the law in many jurisdictions, the possibility of embarrassment may deter some individuals.

Prevention

Most experts agree that providing guidance as to behavior that is culturally acceptable will prevent the development of a paraphilia such as frotteurism. The origin of some instances of frotteurism may be a truly accidental contact that becomes associated with sexual gratification. There is no way to predict when such an association will occur.

Tue, 2009-07-07 09:18

Snert

Quote:
The primary goal of frotteurism is to touch the clothing or body of a non-consenting person. This behavior most often occurs in situations that allow rapid escape, and frotteurism is most commonly practiced in crowded places such as public transportation vehicles.

Frotteurs must just love Toronto. I've been squeezed into a streetcar with so many other people that I can't even reach a handrail, and have to hold onto the grimy vent on the ceiling. I often wonder who (besides the TTC) gets off on that kind of crowding, and now I know.

"For customer convenience, please move back... to where everyone is rubbing at least three strangers"

Tue, 2009-07-07 09:49

Michelle

Okay, Caissa, I figured it must be a real diagnosis. Sounds like some sort of obsessive compulsive type disorder.

So the guy's not an asshole, he's just sick. Still, I think it's really important that it be recognized that being grabbed sexually is "serious".

It's not really the sentence I have a problem with - I don't see any point in some huge punitive jail sentence - it's the reasoning behind it, that what he did wasn't "serious". Although, I would hope that the sentence itself would also include some major counselling intervention to help this guy deal with his problem since it appears that he's a repeat offender and so he clearly doesn't have it under control.

Tue, 2009-07-07 09:51

Michelle

Rough commute this morning, Snert? :) I hear you.

Tue, 2009-07-07 09:59

RP.

The judge did not say it was not serious. She said that what he did, didn't cross the threshold of being the kind of "serious violent offences that involve maximum penalties of 10 years or more and are indictable," that should preclude him from a conditional sentence.

Tue, 2009-07-07 10:01

josh

Reading the article, the judge apparently got the word "serious" from the statute itself:

"The Criminal Code prohibits conditional sentences for *serious* personal injury crimes, which are defined as indictable offences with a maximum of 10 years or more, or sexual assault offences."

Tue, 2009-07-07 10:08

#10

Michelle

Sexual assault is serious not just because of physical harm (which it might not cause at all) but because of psychological harm. Categorizing sexual assault with other "serious assaults" is done to recognize this. Sexual assault IS a "serious personal injury".

Now, do I agree with mandatory minimums? No. But that's a different debate. What he did SHOULD be an indictable offence and SHOULD be categorized with other serious assaults.

If I'm missing some kind of legal nuance here, I'd be happy to have it pointed out.

Tue, 2009-07-07 10:18

#11

martin dufresne

Legislators have sought to classsify sexual assaults according to the amount of harm done of power exerted. Do we want armed rapists treated in the same manner as subway frotteurs? I don't.

Tue, 2009-07-07 10:23

#12

josh

There can be different degrees of sexual assault as well as "personal injuries." For example, assaults in general are often divided into simple and aggravated. The judge wasn't saying the incident wasn't serious in the general sense of the word, just that it didn't rise to the level of serious as defined by the Criminal Code.

Tue, 2009-07-07 10:26

#13

Michelle

Well, then, I guess it DOES fall to us women to carry out some "behavioural therapy" of our own on "frotteurs" who act on their urges, since it's not serious enough for a person who does this over and over and over again to be considered to be committing anything "serious" enough to be indictable or criminal.

How much do you want to bet that if this woman fought back and pounded the living crap out of this guy, that this would be considered "serious" enough to be indictable? Despite the fact that sexual assault is supposed to be on the same level of seriousness as other "serious personal injuries"?

See, this is where I disagree with the judge, I guess. I think grabbing a strange woman's ass is a sexual attack which can do some pretty serious psychological harm. I think it's just as serious as being beaten up, because I think psychological bruises are just as serious as physical ones.

Tue, 2009-07-07 10:28

#14

Michelle

I don't want them treated the same way, Martin. I want there to be recognition that grabbing a woman's ass IS a sexual assault and should be an indictable offence. Does that mean it should carry the same sentence as raping someone at knifepoint? Hell, no. I have no problem with giving the guy a conditional sentence. I just have a problem with saying he's getting it because it's not a "serious assault". It IS a serious assault and he SHOULD get a criminal record for it, especially if he's done it again and again and again, as apparently he has.

Tue, 2009-07-07 10:31

#15

josh

Well, I think your argument is less with the judge, than with the framers of the Code.

Tue, 2009-07-07 10:32

#16

RP.

I don't see where you're getting that it's not treated as criminal, dude was convicted and sentenced. (BTW it wasn't said whether he grabbed a woman's butt or not)

Tue, 2009-07-07 10:36

#17

Michelle

Yes it did:

Quote:

Amaya, who has prior convictions for seven similar incidents, grabbed a stranger's buttocks inside a grocery store on in February of last year.

Okay, this is what I'm not getting, I guess, legally. The article says this:

Quote:

Provincial court Judge Anne Brown said the objective of legislation was not to include such crimes.

"The Parliamentary intent is to address ... serious violent offences that involve maximum penalties of 10 years or more and are indictable," Brown ruled as she sentenced Francisco Amaya to nine months house arrest and two years probation.

So isn't she saying that this offence isn't, or at least shouldn't be, "indictable"? I assumed that this meant she was treating it as a summary offence. Am I wrong?

Tue, 2009-07-07 10:36

#18

Snert

I believe he will have another offence added to his criminal record. IANAL, but I don't see anything suggesting otherwise (and his previous seven offences seem to be on the record as well).

Quote:
I have no problem with giving the guy a conditional sentence. I just have a problem with saying he's getting it because it's not a "serious assault".

Thing is, once you bump this up to that same level, the conditional sentence is no longer an option.

We're talking about a law that says, basically, that some crimes are so serious that they CANNOT receive a conditional sentence. If you want to argue that this crime is also that serious, buddy goes to the Stoney Lonely.

Tue, 2009-07-07 10:46

#19

josh

"So isn't she saying that this offence isn't, or at least shouldn't be, "indictable"? I assumed that this meant she was treating it as a summary offence. Am I wrong?"

She did intepret the statute. She could have interpreted it the other way. But the legislative history cited in the article, and apparently relied on by the judge, appears to make her interpretation the correct one. The language itself is ambiguous.

Tue, 2009-07-07 10:48

#20

RP.

Michelle wrote:

Yes it did:

Sorry, I should've been clearer. The article didn't say whether it was a [b]woman[/b] whose ass was grabbed.

Quote:
So isn't she saying that this offence isn't, or at least shouldn't be, "indictable"? I assumed that this meant she was treating it as a summary offence. Am I wrong?

You're not wrong, presumably he wasn't charged with indictable sexual assault.

Tue, 2009-07-07 13:29

#21

martin dufresne

Also, let's keep in mind that we are getting a partial quote: "The Parliamentary intent is to address ... serious violent offences that involve maximum penalties of 10 years or more and are indictable,"

I would want to know what the journalist left out of Judge Brown's opinion before passing judgment (and climbing onto a misleading and inaccurate quote in the thread title). My interpretation is that Judge Brown referred to the Criminal Code meaning of "serious", not to its everyday moral meaning. I think she was resisting the Tory policy of taking political "hot button" issues and instituting mandatory penalties regardless of offence level. This RW strategy is also what the Tories are using to try and skewer support for the Bloc in Quebec and to rally people around C-15's hard line on marijuana sales.

This said, I am totally supportive of firmly sanctioning men who grab and otherwise assault women.

Tue, 2009-07-07 13:46

#22

Michelle

You're right - I changed the thread title. Is it more accurate now?

Wed, 2009-07-08 01:06

#23

fiidel_castro

I think we are missing something important in this discussion. The woman that was "grabbed" was obviously offended and disrespected at such a degree that she felt it was necessary to take her attacker to court. She felt that she was attacked in some manner. In this case it is probably relevant that the woman was not just merely 'upset' (as any woman would be) but she felt that she was indeed assaulted in a sexual manner. Sexualized comments from strangers, or co-workers, are a form of harassment but sexualized grabbing or fondling of a complete stranger is definitely something more serious than harassment. This case is not rape but it is within the same area. Many rapists will start out with similar "minor" crimes and then eventually it will lead to extreme acts of physical violence. This type of behaviour can be a precursor to a more severe future incident. I applaud this woman for taking a stand.

Wed, 2009-07-08 03:04

#24

KeyStone

Just out of interest,

If bum grabbing was to be considered a serious sexual assault, what would be considered a non-serious sexual assault?
I suppose the obvious answer is that all sexual assault is serious.

But if the goal is to have two different categories of sexual assault, which ones would be considered less serious, if bum grabbing is in the more serious category?