Overhaul to Physical Assault

[northnortheast]

Is this a new law or a change to a current law:
New laws and changes to current laws (see below)

What law do you wish to change/add:
NOTE: Everything is subject to change. The names, sentences, and descriptions are just recommendations and are ultimately up to the discretion of the deciding body.

Changes to existing laws​

9.1 Assault
Any person who deliberately puts another in the reasonable belief of imminent physical harm commits an offence.

Misdemeanor - liable to 3 years maximum imprisonment and $3,500 maximum fine.

9.2 Assault with an Offensive Weapon
Any person who deliberately puts another in the reasonable belief of imminent physical harm through the use of an offensive weapon as defined in section 7.6 commits an offence.

Felony - liable to 7 years maximum imprisonment, $6,000 maximum fine, and asset forfeiture.

9.5 Threat of Physical Harm
Any person who, via any means of communication or intimidation, threatens to inflict physical harm on another such that said person has a reasonable fear for their safety commits an offence.

Felony - liable to 3 years maximum imprisonment and $2,500 maximum fine.

New laws​

9.3 Battery
Any person who deliberately applies or causes physical harm upon another person commits an offence.

Felony - liable to 5 years maximum imprisonment and $5,000 maximum fine.

9.4 Aggravated Battery
Any person who deliberately applies or causes serious bodily harm upon another, for example through the use of an offensive weapon as defined in section 7.6, commits an offence.

Felony - liable to 8 years maximum imprisonment, $7,000 maximum fine, and asset forfeiture.

Why should this change/addition be made, and what are its aims?:
To incorporate more crimes under a serious punishment as would be reasonably expected. As of now, vaguely threatening someone on the phone and physically pointing a gun at someone and forcing them to hand over their valuables are under the same punishment of 3 years $2,500. Having a law that is already a thing in most legislative systems would not only be reasonable, but also be logical so that officers can get a fair conviction on commonly committed crimes in Paralake, even without a motive present.

This would also remove the need for an 'Armed Robbery' law and similar as it could be charged as Physical Assault with an Offensive Weapon. As of current, Bank Robberies (legally) hold a sentence, if a cop is killed but no evidence is found, of about 5 years $5000 maximum for 6.3 Aiding & Abetting (at a stretch).

A general overhaul to the Physical Assault laws was suggested back in 2015 when they were in their infancy by Tyla Jai, and he has suggested a single change to 9.1 this year. This has yet to be expanded on and, with new management and a new lawset, I feel that a larger change would be valid.

The appropriate laws should be reworded to make them more succinct and clear. The names that I have suggested are there to differentiate them from the old terms (Physical Assault implied that contact must have been made) as most modern laws in the real world have done.

Asset forfeiture has been added as a redundancy in the case that someone attacks another person with a weapon whilst not breaking any of the laws under section 7.

TL;DR:

• Add 2 laws (Common Assault) and (Assault with a Deadly Weapon) that regard directly threatening or pointing at someone with your fists/vehicle/firearm such as armed robbery, muggings, bank robberies, etc. This is similar to the United Kingdom's Common Assault Law and California Penal Code Section 245.
• Re-word the other punishments to be clearer as well as including asset forfeiture within Assault with an Offensive Weapon.

I encourage anyone who has any criticisms about this to comment appropriately and let me know if there's anything I missed or a different take that makes this inappropriate.

 

[Double J]

I feel as though it's fine as is, This would just make it much more confusing for officers, especially newer officers, to try and understand each law and what constitutes what.

 

[northnortheast]

I feel as though it's fine as is, This would just make it much more confusing for officers, especially newer officers, to try and understand each law and what constitutes what.

I don't quite agree with this, it seems like a lot when you're looking at it here but it is literally two laws extra laws with clearly distinct names and descriptions.

In practice it works in real life and is not splitting any laws into multiple (the previous 9.1 and 9.2 are basically the same), it is adding situations that were not previously covered to a good extent by the laws.

Thanks for the reply

 

[nutrient10]

I feel as though it's fine as is, This would just make it much more confusing for officers, especially newer officers, to try and understand each law and what constitutes what.

At the very least, 9.1 and 9.2 should be reworded to include apprehension of imminent harm instead of actually causing physical injury.

It doesn't make sense for someone to shoot at multiple people with intent to cause serious injury or death, but due to lack of evidence to prove whether or not any bullets actually hit anyone, etc. they can only be given a maximum of 5 years 5k for attempted murder.

This would also bring the laws into line with the literal meaning of assault as opposed to battery which they currently resemble.

 

[BA98]

If i see what you are trying to do here common assault and threat of harm are the same things according to that. bare in mind the laws are American based not E and W