Sunday, March 17, 2013
"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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Anthony, you focus rightly on the fact that no action (or rape) was made. Action according to the Model Penal Code is, "muscular movement under conscious control". To me, it seems that Peterman makes several actions. His online correspondence to set up a meeting is perhaps not an action, but rather planning. What about packing his sex toys, and pornographic materials and moving himself to arrive at the scheduled location? At this point, his crime is foiled by the police but this is primarily because of his imcompetence.
ReplyDeleteI give a more detailed description of "attempted crime" on my blog, but briefly - imagine yourself in a situation where two people held pistols towards you. They both shoot but only one hits you. Can you imagine yourself being forgiving of the one who missed because of his/her incompetence? It's similar in Peterman's case. He intended to rape that child. He failed because he was incompetent. He is guilty of attempting the rape. Thanks Anthony.
Anthony you are right that Peterman had the thought to rape, but he did not commit the act. Danny you make a very clever point by comparing Peterman’s act of going to the place with an unsuccessful act, one that is unsuccessful by mistake. This could indeed make a good argument for an attempted crime.
ReplyDeleteDr. Albrecht you should watch the movie minority report, it is the telling a of a story structured around prosecution of an individual based on a "pre-crime." (Pre-meditation comes to mind)
ReplyDelete