LAW101 Assignment 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

LAW 101 Assignment...

Description

1 Jessica Horsburgh Student Number: 220212574 Law100 Assignment 1 Word Count: 1248 Memorandum

“To threaten harm is to assault and to realise that threat is to batter. To do so intentionally for the purpose of producing injury amounts to causing harm with intent and one cannot consent to be the victim of such violence. Despite these clearly enunciated legal principles, such conduct is routinely practised in the name of sport. Boxing is widely accepted as a highly paid professional sporting activity in which the ultimate goal is to inflict a concussive head injury upon an opponent or at least cause sufficient damage to render an opponent incapable of further self-defence.” 1

I Introduction

Australian legislation defines assault and battery under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 33, under this act to commit these crimes with intent carries a maximum sentence of 25 years. This leads to the question surrounding individuals who voluntarily partake in these actions for entertainment in the name of sport. Boxing has increasingly come under scrutiny for the violence and resulting injuries suffered by participants however those in favor argue of the benefits, boxing is known for the impressive level of physical fitness and discipline required. It is important that both sides of the argument are explored and how this sport is either supported or conflicting surrounding legislation. II Issue

The World Medical Association (WMA) argues that boxing is a dangerous sport, that its main purpose is to inflict physical harm. The WMA argue that boxing is fundamentally different from other sports due to the injuries caused, especially to the head as this is targeted in the sport. In a liberal society it is important to ask the question of whether actions can be taken upon consenting individuals, in the sport of boxing today there are regulations set in place surrounding registration, age limitations and mandatory post fight medical checks 2. JS Mills states “It is not unjust which is done

1 Beran, R. G. and J. R. Beran, 'The law(s) of the rings: boxing and the law' (2009) 2 Combat Sports Act 2013 No 96 s59

2 with the consent of the person who is supposed to be hurt by it” 3, fundamentally it can be argued that if an individual is consenting to take the known risks associated with boxing and is fighting an opponent that has consented accepted those risks, can the government intervene in such actions. John Stuart Mill, argued in On Liberty (1859) that the sole ground for interference in liberty the liberty of society is “harm to others, harm to self is never sufficient warrant”, 4 but this principle only applies if others do not consent to being harmed. Since boxers are engaged in an activity that could only harm themselves and opponents who have accepted the risk, the state therefore, at least by Mill’s view, should not intervene in the sport of boxing. 5

While it can be agreed that participants in the sport consent to minor injury a legal question can be brought forward when it goes further. This can be seen in the case of Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001],6 he court found that while Watson consented to the nature of the sport, result of minor injury, he did not consent to inadequate safety measures. Watson suffered a brain hemorrhage, resulting in one side of his body being paralysed and permanent irreversible brain damage. The court found the judgement in favor of Watson stating that the British Boxing Board of Control Ltd., were negligent in the care of Watson ringside and that if they had of provided sufficient care known to be needed in the first 10 minutes of a head injury the outcome could have been different. 7

III Medical Risks

The interpretation of Mill would enable individuals to engage in almost any behaviour, so long those actions were freely chosen and did not cause harm to others. With this interpretation in mind, it can be argued that boxers should be, advised of the risks associated with boxing and left to decide for themselves whether they are willing to accept these and box. In the views of those that agree with the judgments of Mills it can be argued that there are many actions which can be deemed harmful to oneself however still have the liberty to do so, such as smoking or drinking excessive amounts of alcohol. To take away an individual’s liberty when deciding a sport to partake in becomes power of the state it be seen as an argument of removing personal liberties. 8

The Australian Medical Association is a part of the institutions that do not agree with boxing as a sport. Dr Kerryn Phelps, the federal president of the association stated that “We banned cock fighting

3 Mill, J. S. (1863) Utilitarianism. London, Parker, son, and Bourn. [Web.] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://lccn.loc.gov/11015966. 4 John Stuart Mill On Liberty (1859) 5 https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/should-boxing-be-banned/ 6 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/2116.html 7 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/2116.html 8 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1070930/

3 because we cared for animals. Let’s show the same concern for our fellow human beings. The place for gladiators is on film or in history.”9 It can be argued that many sports carry associated medical risks, Mario Mendez wrote in the International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, “in boxing . . . there is a smaller risk of fatal head injuries than in horse racing, sky diving, mountaineering, motorcycle racing, and even [American] football” 10. It is the fundamental difference in other sports however that separate them from the violence of boxing, where the intent of the sport is to inflict pain on the opponent/opposition.

IV Legislation

The legislation surrounding boxing and the attempt to regulate the safety standards can be found under the Combat Sports Act (2008) NSW No 116, the Act outlines the requirements which must be met in order to participate in all combat sports, which includes boxing. The Act 11 places restrictions on age, permits and rules to heavily monitor the activity and takes measures to ensure competitors are as safe as possible. However it can also be argued that regulations and legislation are unable to prevent the inevitable outcomes of the sport, serious head injuries.

IV Conclusion

The interference of another person is what is explored in this issue, the ability to consent to such actions and the powers of the state to inhibit an individual’s actions. While there are valid arguments for both sides of the issue that surrounds boxing, critics tend to focus on the fact that boxing as it resembles assault, a criminal act socially unaccepted not to mention the proven medical risks associated. The liberal view heavily influenced by Mill’s view of society potentially didn’t account for the associated risks to individuals by allowing them to do what they enter into willingly, in the view of an action partaken in the name of sport and as part of entertainment it is fundamentally wrong to inflict physical harm on another individual in any circumstance, let alone when it is the intention of that sport.

Bibliography

9 Australian Medical Association, Dr Kerryn Phelps: “States must support Wooldridge on boxing ban” 10 (Volume: 25 issue: 3, page(s): 249-262 Issue published: September 1, 1995 The Neuropsychiatric Aspects of Boxing) 11 Combat Sports Act (2008) NSW No 116

4

a) Acts Combat Sports Act 2013 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) b) Cases Watson & British Boxing Board Of Control Ltd [2000]

c) Websites Association, World Medical, 'WMA Statement on Boxing', 12 November 2018)

'Boxing Australia') https://www.boxing.org.au/documents/policies/ d) Journals Beran, R. G. and J. R. Beran, 'The law(s) of the rings: boxing and the law' (2009) 16(4) (2009/03/21) J Law Med 684-95 Bledsoe GH, Li G, Levy F, 'Injury Risk in Professional Boxing' (2005) Department of Emergency Medicine, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Goodman, Paul, 'Arguments For and Against Banning Boxing') https://howtheyplay.com/individual-sports/Should-boxing-be-banned-Arguments-for-andagainst Mendez, Mario F., 'The Neuropsychiatric Aspects of Boxing' (1995) UCLA School of Medicine and West Los Angeles VA Medical Center, California...