When the idea of assault being illegal start? Is it truly well-founded? Watch

rajandkwameali
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
Is the idea that assault is "wrong" stem to appease those who cannot defend themselves?

If assault were right in some instances, why would it matter? I don't even think all human societies in history outlawed all forms of assault. Is it just an example of modern liberal thinking?
0
reply
D.R.E
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
(Original post by rajandkwameali)
Is the idea that assault is "wrong" stem to appease those who cannot defend themselves?

If assault were right in some instances, why would it matter? I don't even think all human societies in history outlawed all forms of assault. Is it just an example of modern liberal thinking?
Hm, you ask some strange questions. Assault has been 'illegal' in some way or form, throughout most human civilisations. Obviously, it depends on their method of jurisprudence, but it's not exactly a result of 'modern liberal thinking', seeing as Liberalism didn't actually become a force until the 17th century.

As for why it is wrong, human beings wouldn't have survived very long had they not stopped trying to kill each other.
0
reply
rajandkwameali
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#3
assault isn't killing somebody. Even to touch somebody is illegal in English and Welsh law. why should it matter if somebody touches another?
0
reply
D.R.E
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
You missed the point. Anyway, you have it wrong. Assault, in English law, is not actually a physical act. It is defined as something like 'creating a fear of force in a victim', what you are describing is a battery. Which is defined as an 'unlawful application of force'. So, basically any physical contact which you have with someone which isn't consensual, can be considered an unlawful application of force.

Hence why 'touching' can be considered a battery, because of it is unwanted. The actual usage of this law is far more complicated than you seem to understand, judging by the simplistic nature of your questions. Merely touching is nowhere near enough to become a crime, but I'm sure you're not interested in getting into legal technicalities.
0
reply
rajandkwameali
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#5
Again, why should it matter? Who cares who hits who?
0
reply
D.R.E
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
I'll point you towards an earlier comment:

As for why it is wrong, human beings wouldn't have survived very long had they not stopped trying to kill each other.
0
reply
Rant
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
(Original post by rajandkwameali)
Is the idea that assault is "wrong" stem to appease those who cannot defend themselves?

If assault were right in some instances, why would it matter? I don't even think all human societies in history outlawed all forms of assault. Is it just an example of modern liberal thinking?
Yeah, we should be allowed to go around beating each other to bloody pulps.
0
reply
rajandkwameali
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#8
(Original post by D.R.E)
I'll point you towards an earlier comment:
Again, assault is not killing. This is murder.
0
reply
D.R.E
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
(Original post by rajandkwameali)
Again, assault is not killing. This is murder.
And again, you miss the point. This is a lot simpler than you are trying to make it. Think about it, what would a society look like where there was no legal constraint against what amounts to assaults or batteries?

'state of nature'

Enjoy.
0
reply
rajandkwameali
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#10
Why is this a bad thing?

If assault were permitted to a higher degree than it is now, then what problems would arise? Only things the PC society says are bad?
0
reply
D.R.E
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
No one said it's a bad thing. You haven't answered the question, stop dodging the point with declarations against 'PC society'.

So again, what would a society where no legal constraints against acts which amount to assaults and batteries?
0
reply
rajandkwameali
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#12
If it is a "state of nature" then why not? Why can't assault/battery be permitted in specific cases?
0
reply
D.R.E
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
(Original post by rajandkwameali)
If it is a "state of nature" then why not? Why can't assault/battery be permitted in specific cases?
Because, brace yourself for this, because you will be massively shocked but, most people don't actually want to die.

As for specific cases, what kind of specific cases?
0
reply
Shuvel
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
(Original post by rajandkwameali)
If it is a "state of nature" then why not? Why can't assault/battery be permitted in specific cases?
Imagine you've finished work late, and you're walking through an area of the city centre. Minding your own business just wanting to get home and sleep.
Four guys who are blatantly smashed are walking the opposite way down the road, shouting and screaming at anyone who passes them. When they see you they decide they don't like your hair or whatever and start verbally abusing you.
You try and walk past and one blocks you by prescence then when you try and step to the side his mate decks you, knocking out two of your front teeth.
5 minutes later you have a broken jaw, nose, rib and a fractured skull, not to mention you're several teeth worse off, and left laying there until a passing policeman spots you and you're in intensive care for a week.
You didn't do anything to provoke the situation, yet suffered as if you had went up to them and called them all ********s.

Assault started being illegal when modern society accepted that this shouldn't happen without some form of punishment.
And assault is permitted in specific cases, hence the law giving powers to constables / other authorised people to use lawful force.
0
reply
Aspiringlawstudent
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
(Original post by rajandkwameali)
assault isn't killing somebody. Even to touch somebody is illegal in English and Welsh law. why should it matter if somebody touches another?
I think you're confusing assault and battery (unless you mean "common assault").

Assault by itself is not even touching, merely causing someone to apprehend that they may be subject to unlawful force.

Assault can be committed even via telephone or letter.

You might want to check out the OAPA 1861 and ss 39 of the CJA 1988.
0
reply
rajandkwameali
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#16
(Original post by D.R.E)
Because, brace yourself for this, because you will be massively shocked but, most people don't actually want to die.

As for specific cases, what kind of specific cases?
Hitting somebody cannot necessarily kill them. Can it?

Specific instances such as punches.
0
reply
rajandkwameali
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#17
(Original post by Shuvel)
Imagine you've finished work late, and you're walking through an area of the city centre. Minding your own business just wanting to get home and sleep.
Four guys who are blatantly smashed are walking the opposite way down the road, shouting and screaming at anyone who passes them. When they see you they decide they don't like your hair or whatever and start verbally abusing you.
You try and walk past and one blocks you by prescence then when you try and step to the side his mate decks you, knocking out two of your front teeth.
5 minutes later you have a broken jaw, nose, rib and a fractured skull, not to mention you're several teeth worse off, and left laying there until a passing policeman spots you and you're in intensive care for a week.
You didn't do anything to provoke the situation, yet suffered as if you had went up to them and called them all ********s.

Assault started being illegal when modern society accepted that this shouldn't happen without some form of punishment.
And assault is permitted in specific cases, hence the law giving powers to constables / other authorised people to use lawful force.
Well as since anything goes in life, these people you hypothetically describe have the right to do so. There are no limits in the human condition.
1
reply
J1mjam
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#18
Report 7 years ago
#18
oh just shut up OP.....
0
reply
Shuvel
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 7 years ago
#19
I sense we're being trolled. Nevermind.
0
reply
The_Internet
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 7 years ago
#20
(Original post by D.R.E)
As for why it is wrong, human beings wouldn't have survived very long had they not stopped trying to kill each other.
We're still trying to kill each other with our pointless wars
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (278)
38.03%
No - but I will (53)
7.25%
No - I don't want to (53)
7.25%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (347)
47.47%

Watched Threads

View All