Sunday, March 17, 2013
Mr. Peterson/ Defendant
Unless Steve Paterman was given a chance to clearly voice his intentions upon his arrival, he should be claimed innocent. We have to take into account the chance that there was still time for Paterman to decline the offer to be involved with the girl. Did Paterman have intention to rape the girl? Well, it depends on how much we can actually infer from the items he brought with him. He could have brought them simply to show them off to the female acquaintance. Now, to be fair, let's say that the items are sufficient indicators of his intentions. Considering Mens rea, or criminal intent, yes, it is easy to see why he was accused. Looking at his items, it is easy to see why many would think he intended to get involved with the girl in question. However, how far did he actually get in completing this action? Would he have actually went through with this or changed his mind at the last moment? That's not for us to judge or assume. Therefore, "attempted rape" is a strong accusation. A few items do not directly prove that Paterman was looking to rape the child. He didn't get a chance to decide if he was going to follow through with his actions. Actus reus, the physical act of committing the crime in question, did not come into play at all in this situation. Both Mens rea and Actus rea should have to successfully come in play for someone to be legitimately guilty of an attempted crime. Bottom line: the items can be seen has sufficient evidence for Mens rea (even though there is another argument there), but definitely not for Actus rea. It is unfair to observe one of these aspects and assume that the other will follow. It was simply too soon to declare Paterson guilty of attempted rape. The defendant is innocent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Both actus reus and mens rea did successfully come into play as far as the charge of attempted rape goes. Peterman is not being prosecuted for rape of a child, he is being prosecuted for attempted rape. Not only are the items that he brought with him more than sufficient evidence for him to be held criminally accountable, but his conversations with his acquaintance prior to his arrival to the house establishes the element of men's rea. He arrived with intentions to act. Regardless of whether he decided to change his mind or not, the fact that he showed up to the house is a criminal offense. He is made aware that the girl is a minor and yet he chose to come to the house anyway. This is voluntary act on the part of the defendant and it satisfies the physical element of the crime. There is no way that Steven Peterman should be excused. Once actus reus and men's rea elements of crime are present, he is the to be held criminally liable . this is not a case of well he didn't rape her. The attempt itself is enough for him to be criminally charged .
ReplyDeleteGood point, Sheneika. I believe the "grey area" here is what constitutes attempted rape. I just believe that it was too rash to arrest Mr. Peterman the moment he arrived at the house. Had they let it go longer, and he turned away after talking to the female acquaintance (or even before talking to her), would you have viewed the visit as attempted rape? The most difficult part of this case is drawing the line to determine whether Mr. Peterman attempted rape or not. The reason why this is difficult is that they arrested him way too early. They made a mistake in making his case a complicated issue. Despite his true intentions, which he never got a chance to fully display (in my opinion), they did a terrible job in arresting him too early because there were still several questions to be answered. What was he going to say to the female acquaintance? Would he have agreed to go through with the deal? Was he ever going to expose the items in the bag? And so on.
DeleteAustin, you have a very strong argument by pointing out that there is no way to know for sure that Peterman would not have changed his mind last minute, in fact he did not get the chance to change his mind. Now Sheneika rebuts this by saying that the fact that he showed up at the location constitutes his act, implying, I suppose, that he should have changed his mind before he went to the house.
ReplyDeleteHello Dr. Albrecht! I have responded to Sheneika. My main point as that they did a messy job in activating the trap to get Mr. Peterman. After all that preparation, they should have let it go on as long as possible (without putting an child in danger of course) to make sure there was no ambiguity here and that there was enough evidence to obtain Mr. Peterman. I believe that there were still questions left to be answered, and Mr. Peterman did not get a chance to fully prove his intentions. I elaborated on this in my response.
Delete