Difference between felony assault of an adult vs felony assault of a minor?
<p>I recently asked <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/33736/what-would-the-correct-technical-charge-be-for-mutilating-sexual-assault">this question</a> describing a hypothetical grievous assault scenario. I thank those who answered for their specific / accurate info.</p>

<p>I want to further understand how it affects the scenario if the person is not an adult, but under the age of 18.</p>

<p>Possibly you can see where I'm going with this ...</p>

<ul>
<li>Scenario adjustment #1: The victim is a minor</li>
<li>Scenario adjustment #2: The victim is an infant, and the suspect is a parent</li>
<li>Scenario adjustment #3: The victim is an infant, and the suspect is a
non-medical person commissioned by the parent to do this</li>
<li>Scenario adjustment #4: The victim is an infant, and the suspect is a
medical person commissioned by the parent to do this</li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p>UPDATE:</p>

<p>So my previous question had 3 answers after 6 hours. Somehow I feel this is going to be a tumbleweed question.</p>

<p>I am seeking to understand:</p>

<p><strong>Why is such an action a felony crime or GBH on an adult, but not a crime on a minor?</strong></p>

<p><strong>What is the legal basis for that?</strong></p>

<hr>

<p><strong>FURTHER UPDATE</strong></p>

<p>I'm looking for a specific legal framework or document or law, which provides for / accounts for the difference in handling this scenarios, please.</p>

<p>In the US, there are no laws against surgical circumcision with informed consent (and I don't know of any such laws in any other country). Parents are generally allowed to grant surrogate informed consent. There is no requirement that circumcision be carried out by a licensed physician or other approved practitioner. A person can be held civilly liable for damage done by the procedure. There are no criminal prohibitions in the cases that you describe, but there could be civil interventions. In particular, the court could override parental consent – for instance, if a parent ordered circumcision of their 17 year old.</p>

<p>If some person does the circumcision without parental consent, that could be a crime. The key distinction is parental consent. The law grants parents the power to act on behalf of the child, under the premise that children do not have the capacity to act in their own best interest, and cannot reasonably be forced to bear the full consequences of their actions. These are long-standing pre-common law premises, which even predate the promulgation of English common law. "Best interest" is not a technical term requiring definition, but it is a factual matter that is very difficult to judge. Judges use solomonic wisdom to determine whether a surgery is in the best interest of a child when it is medically advantageous but psychologically detrimental. 
Just as an adult can consent to a circumcision thereby negating any accusation of assault, so too can a parent consent on behalf of their child. </p>

<p>The difference is one of <strong>intent</strong> and <strong>consent</strong>. In the linked question, the act was presented with no suggestion of benevolent intent on the part of the actor (and no hint that you were in fact talking about circumcision). Male infant circumcision is normally done with the consent of the parent or guardian on behalf of the infant, and is generally intended for the well being of the infant (whether one agrees with the practice or not, that is the intent). As another answer says, an infant is not able to give <strong>informed</strong> consent to this or any medical procedure, and the uninformed objections of an infant or a pre-rational child to any medical procedure, or indeed any act reasonably believed to be for the child's long-term benefit are not generally considered to be legally binding.</p>

<p>If an adult was found to be incompetent to make medical decisions (as is quite common in cases of dementia, and some other conditions), and if it were reasonably believed, on medical advice, that a circumcision would be for the benefit of the adult (unlikely but possible) then it could and would be carried out over the objections of the adult. It is not at all uncommon for a guardian to authorize surgery (for example the removal of a tumor)  on an adult, over the adult's own wishes, when the adult is not considered competent to give or withhold informed consent. It is not the age but the lack of competences, and the benevolent intent of the guardian, that matters.</p>

assault sexual-assault battery