"Peterman/ Defense"

Steven Peterson is innocence of the charges associated with his crime under "mens rea" and "actus reus" because the act in which Peterson was conducting , he was aware that his conduct was criminal, ethically, and morally wrong but did not act upon the crime. By linking the items that were on Mr. Peterson's person, i.e.  substances that Peterson had in his bag, the load of pornography and sex toys one can assume that Peterson had every intent when he arrived at set residence to commit the act. His charges (attempted rape) were set to be against a minor of the age of ten years and being a 45-year-old does not compliment the fact. He did not commit the act in itself .   Also it seems Peterson had done something like this in the past, this could lead to a prosecution based on solely on intent and history.  Rape vs.  Premeditated Rape are the distinguishing factors that deviate the line in coming to rectification and sentencing.  Since the act of rape was not acted out the only other outcome to extend in Mr. Peterson's behalf is that the thought of rape is still present.  But what is the crime in  which Mr. Peterson is facing and that would lead into the plea of innocence for the rape.  What is the prosecution charging for, and was a penal code actually broken?

"Lifeboat"

"Overcrowded Lifeboat"

1) The defendants are clearly guilty of murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, with a purpose or intent to kill. Process of natural selection forced the captain to peak the stronger individuals to row. They made an executive decision's and choose people to die and to survive, the captain committed acts against survival, and this decision cause the death of those under his watch.

2) The actions of the crew members decision to abandon the rest of the the passengers in order to save there live was unjust.  The crew members made a decision instead of thinking of the whole they thought only of themselves. As the crew members it is their responsibility to protect the passengers and put their lives at risk to protect them, also they are supposed to regulation have enough life rafts vs how many aboard ship.  This goes to show that they were not prepared safety wise for the amount of passenger coming aboard the vessel.

3) John Stuart mill and Jeremy Bentham would have argued that the crew members and the first mate acted for the greater good of the crew.   In my opinion he was acting in means of survival, trying to keep alive those who could help to benefit survival till means of rescue. A  philosopher such as Kant , "would have opposed the utilitarian philosopher!"  Stating that, "it does not matter about the consequences but it's rather the fact on what is the right thing to do." Kant disagrees with the basic premises of all theories and believes more on what is morally right.  In a situation like that many variable are considered in order to state the necessary course of action to benefit the whole.