Presentation on theme: "Chapter Ten Crimes Against Persons:"— Presentation transcript:
1Chapter Ten Crimes Against Persons: Criminal Sexual Conduct, Bodily Injury, and Personal Restraint
2Chapter Ten Learning Objectives Understand that crimes against persons boil down to four types: taking a life; unwanted sexual invasions, bodily injury; and personal restraint.Understand that voluntary and knowing consensual behavior between two adults is legal, healthy and desired.Understand that the vast majority of rape victims are raped by men they know.
3Chapter Ten Learning Objectives Understand that during the 1970s and 1980s sexual assault reform changed the fact of criminal sexual assault law.Understand that force beyond that required to complete sexual penetration or contact is not always required to satisfy the force requirement in rape.Understand that rape is a general intent crime.Understand that statutory rape is a strict liability crime in most states.
4Chapter Ten Learning Objectives Understand that assault and battery are two separate crimes.Understand that domestic violence since the early 1970s has been transformed from a private concern to a criminal justice problem.Understand that stalking, although an ancient practice, is a new crime.Understand that kidnapping and false imprisonment violate the right of locomotion.
5Sex Offenses Originally, criminal law recognized only Common law rapeIntentional, forced, nonconsensual, heterosexual vaginal penetration (by a non-spouse)Common law sodomyAnal intercourse between two malesModern opinions relax definitions of rapeSexual assault or criminal sexual conduct statutes of the 1970s and 1980s have expanded the definitions.
6Rape Vast majority of rapes are committed by acquaintances Aggravated rapeRape by strangers or men with weapons who physically injure victimsUnarmed acquaintance rapeNonconsensual sex between dates, lovers, neighbors, co-workers, employers
7Criminal Justice Response to Rape Good at dealing with aggravated rapeNot so good at dealing with acquaintance rapeVictims less likely to reportPolice less likely to believeProsecutors less likely to chargeJurors less likely to convictUnarmed acquaintance rapists are likely to escape punishment if victims don’t follow middle-class morality rulesMany rapes are committed by men against men
8History of Rape Law Common Law rape Carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly against her willSexual intercourse by force or a threat of severe bodily harm (actus reus)Intentional vaginal intercourse (mens rea)Intercourse between man and woman not his wife (attendant circumstance)Intercourse without woman’s consent (attendant circumstance)
9History of Rape Law (continued) Rape was a capital offenseRape victims were allowed to testify against rapistRape victims credibility was determined byChastityPrompt reportingOther witness corroboration
10Criminal Sexual Conduct Statutes Transformation 1970s and 1980sAbolished the corroboration ruleEnacted rape shield statutesRelaxed prompt reporting ruleMost states abolished the marital rape exceptionShift of emphasis from nonconsent of victim to unwanted advances of perpetrator
11Model Penal Code Eliminated consent as an element in rape Recognized difficulty in drawing the line between forcible rape and reluctant submission
12Sexual Assault Statutes Arose in 1970s and 1980sOne comprehensive statuteExpanded definition of rape to include all sexual penetrationsCreated less serious crime of sexual contactSex offenses made gender-neutral
13Sexual Assault Statutes Seriousness of offense graded by criteriaPenetrations more serious than contactsForcible penetrations and contacts are more serious than simple nonconsensual penetrations and contactsPhysical injury to victim aggravates the offenseRapes involving more than one rapist, “gang rapes” are more serious than one single rapist
14Elements of Modern Rape law Actus reus – sexual penetration by force or threat of forceMens rea- intentional sexual penetrationCircumstance –non consent of the victim
15Rape Actus Reus Force and Resistance rule No rape if victims consented Historically in practice victims had to prove they hadn’t consentedResistance showed nonconsentReynolds v. State (1889)Proof of nonconsent is peculiar to rapeDefault position is consent
16Rape Actus Reus (continued) Amount of resistance required has changed over timeUtmost resistance standard 1850’s through the 1950’s (resist with all the power they had)Brown v. State (1906)…Casico v. State (1947) resist to utmost with most vehement exercise of every physical means….Reasonable resistance rule 1950’s forward - look at the totality of the circumstancesJones v. State (1984)Many new statutes have dropped the resistance requirement entirely.But resistance may be needed to show force in acquaintance rapes.Jones v. State (1992)
17Force Requirement Extrinsic Force approach: Intrinsic Force approach Requires some act of force in addition to the muscular movements needed to accomplish penetrationExample: Commonwealth v. Berkowitz (1994)Intrinsic Force approachRequires only the amount of physical effort necessary to accomplish penetrationExample: State in the interest of M.T. S. (1992)
18Summary of case holdings Berkowitz demonstrates the extrinsic force approach:“Where there is a lack of consent, but no showing of either physical force, a threat of physical force, or psychological coercion, the “forcible compulsion” requirement is not met.”“The degree of physical force, threat of force, or psychological coercion Must be sufficient to prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution, but the “peculiar situation” of the victim and other subjective factors should be considered by the court in determining resistance, assent, consent.”
19Summary of case holdings MTS highlights the intrinsic force approach:“We conclude. . . That any act of sexual penetration engaged by the defendant without the affirmative and freely given permission of the victim to the specific act of penetration constitutes the offense of sexual assault”The element of physical force was met simply by an act of nonconsensual penetration involving no more force than necessary to accomplish the result
20Threat of ForceActual use of force isn’t required to satisfy the force requirement, the threat of force is enoughProsecution must show 2 types of fear:Subjective fear (victim honestly feared imminent and serious bodily harm)Objective fear (fear was reasonable under the circumstances) Factors may include Ages, Sizes, Mental Condition, Setting, Position of Authority or ControlSocial science research on harm to resisting victim – “may threaten victims’ lives”
21Exceptions to the force and resistance rule Victim Incapacitated – Intoxication, Mental deficiency or InsanityAge – Children Under the Legal Age of ConsentDeception can substitute for force
22Exceptions to the force and resistance rule Deception can substitute for forceFraud in fact = tricking victim into believing that the act she consented to was not sexual intercourseExample: Moran v. People (1872)Fraud in the inducement (does not substitute for force) = getting victims consent to sexual intercourse by fraudulent means (there was consent, so no rape)Example: Boro v. Superior Court (1985) – “Dr. Feelgood”
23Rape Mens Rea Rape is General Intent Crime Defendants have the criminal intent when they intend to have intercourseMens rea concerning the attendant circumstances may vary by statute
24Mens Rea re: Attendant circumstance of nonconsent Continuum of mens reaSome states adopt strict liability. As long as offender intended to have intercourse, if the victim did not consent it is rape (regardless of whether offender reasonably thought he/she consented or not).Example: Commonwealth v. Fischer (1998)Some states have adopted a negligence standard. If the offender had a reasonable and bona fide belief that the victim consented, there is no rape. (If the defendant was not aware but should have been, then he/she is said to be negligent as to the attendant circumstance, and it will be rape)Example: People v. Mayberry (1975)Some states have adopted a reckless standard. The defendant has to be aware that there is a risk that the victim hasn’t consented to sexual intercourse and nevertheless disregard that risk for the offense to be rapeExample: Regina v. Morgan (1975)Critics argue that, due to the severe penalties, the standard should be knowing. (Defendants must know that the victim did not consent)
25Statutory Rape Having sex with minors Age of victim substitutes for force requirementNonconsent is not an elementConsent is not a defense because minors cannot are not legally incompetent to consentStrict Liability Crime in most states; however, some states allow for reasonable mistake of age
26Grades of RapeMost statutes distinguish between aggravated rape (1st Degree) and simple rape (2nd Degree)Aggravated rape involves additional circumstanceSerious bodily injury to victimStranger commits rapeRape occurs in connection with other crimeRapist is armedRapist has accomplicesVictim is minor and rapist is several years older
27Bodily Injury Crimes Battery Unwanted and unjustified offensive touchingRequires contact with victim’s bodyActus reus: unlawful touching (without consent)Mens rea: levels of mens rea from Model Penal CodeSome injury required:Minor injury = misdemeanorSerious injury = felonies
28Bodily Injury Crimes Assault Attempted battery assault Specific intent to commit a battery plus taking substantial steps toward completion, but no completionIncomplete physical injury, victim awareness is irrelevantThreatened battery assaultAka intentional scaring or menacingSpecific intent to frighten victims, and some act giving frightWords alone are generally insufficient, but with gestures its enoughAwareness of victim is generally essentialConditional threats are generally insufficient
29Assault Historically, assaults were all misdemeanors Modern statutes, assaults graded and include some felonious assaults
30Domestic Violence Crimes Domestic violence may be represented in many crimesSome states have specific domestic violence crimes which parallel assault and battery chargesCurrent and former family members, household members, co-parentsPunishments for domestic violence assault and battery tend to be enhanced from normal assault and battery
31Hamilton v. Cameron (1997) Summary of case holding Because victim recanted her statement and testified that she was not threatened and did not believe she was in imminent harm, the court found there was insufficient evidence to prove state of mind of victim and other essential elements of the crime. There was no other evidence from which this could be inferred.
32StalkingIntentionally scaring another person by following, tormenting, or harassing him or herFill in gaps in law by criminalizing conduct which falls short of assault and batteryAll states have enacted some sort of stalking law (since early 1990s)Statutes vary greatly
33Stalking (continued) Stalking Actus Reus: Stalking Mens Rea Variety of actions, generally involving maintaining physical proximity or visual proximitySome states require threatsAll states require conduct be repeatedSome states provide list of very specific acts.Stalking Mens ReaResult crime,Offender must have specific intent to commit the actus reusOffender must also have mental attitude causing bad result but statutes vary as to which mental attitude is needed.Subjective fault (half states)—offender himself knew behavior would cause resultObjective fault (1/3 states)—reasonable person would know behavior would cause bad result.
34Stalking (continued) Bad result = fear Four Approaches Among the States:Subjective fear + objective fearVictim is afraid and its reasonable for victim to be afraidSubjective fear only testOnly need to show victim was actually afraidObjective fear onlyReasonable person would be afraidIntent to instill fearActors intent to instill fear, whether or not victim or other was or would have been afraid
35CyberstalkingUsing internet, , other electronic communications devices to stalk another person through threatening behavior.Example: State v. Hoying (2005)
36State v. Hoying (2005) Summary of case holding Court held that a reasonable jury could have inferred from the content of the s that Hoying knew victim would consider the messages to be a threat to her physical safety or to that of her fatherA reasonable jury could find that the messages would cause mental distressRecord supports maximum sentence due to defendant’s great likelihood of recidivism
37KidnappingCommon law crime – Originally involved taking king’s relatives (to another country) for ransom6 elements existed under the Common Law:SeizingCarrying away (asportation of) orConfiningBy force, threat of force, fraud or deceptionAnother personWith intent to deprive the other person of his liberty
38Kidnapping (continued) Modern crimeFamous CasesState v. Hauptmann (1935) - Charles Lindbergh’s sonSymbionese Liberation Army - Patty Hearst (1974)Actus Reus: seizing and carrying awayDistance has become a non-issueQuality and character of the carrying away not the actual distanceExamples:People v. Chessman (1951)People v. Allen (1997)
39People v. Allen (1997) Summary of case holding Court concluded that while absolute footage the distance moved may have been short, the character of moving the victim was of a nature sufficient to justify jury’s finding of substantially. Movement was made to prevent victim from keeping her car, protecting her child, moving from relative safety across an active thoroughfare...greater risk of injury.
40Kidnapping (continued) Kidnapping Mens ReaSpecific intent to confine, restrain or hold victims in secret.Intent to isolate the victim from the prospect of release or interventionGrading Seriousness of KidnappingSimpleAggravating Circumstances:Most common aggravating factors are for purpose(s) of:sexual invasions, hostage taking, ransom, robbing, murdering, blackmailing, terrorizing victim, achieving political claims
41False Imprisonment Lesser form of personal restraint than kidnapping Deprive a person of personal libertyNo asportation requirementDeprivation of liberty is briefCompelling a person to remain where he does not wish to remain
42False Imprisonment (continued) Actus reusforcible detention—even if briefUnder the Model Penal Code, Restraint must interfere substantially with the victim’s liberty, but in most states, any interference is enoughPhysical force or threatened force accomplishes the detentionMens Rea:specific intent to confine and restrain another without his or her consent