Steven
Peterson is guilty of the charges associated with his crime under mens rea
and actus reus because in understanding the act in which Peterson was
conducting he was aware that his conduct was criminal and morally unjust. We
can later conclude that because of the substances that Peterson had in his bag,
the load of pornography and sex toys can assimilate that Peterson had intent
when he arrived in said resident’s home. His charges were against a minor of
only ten years of age and he being a 45-year-old man is not only wrong but also
disgusting. With the objects that contained in his bag, we can understand that
Peterson had full intent in what he was going to attempt. Though the setup
was a done by the police with the help of a female acquaintance, it proved that
Peterson had full intensions for committing child rape. The items that he had
when he arrived at the female’s home showed that he was fully aware of what he
wanted to do. Also it seems Peterson had done something like this before
because of the intentions in his mind. There was no ten-year-old year but there
could have been one and this horrific act would have taken place. What Peterson
had intended to commit was morally wrong and disturbing, and he should be
charged with attempted rape of a child.
Under actus reus Mr. Peterson is not guilty. Actus Reus is an act of wrong doing not an attempted act of wrong doing. He did not rape the little girl so how can he be guilty under actus reus? Also why would he bring photographs that are considered child poronography with him if he was going to have access to a physical child? There is only proof that he had intentions of meeting the child. Besides him showing up with the sex toys amd photos there was no conversation exchanged between Mr. Peterson and the aquaintence about him wanting to have some sort of sexual affair with this made up ten year old girl. There is no proof he has done this before. You cannot assume someone's state of mind based on materials they possess or what they think is morally wrong or right. If I walk into a bank with a gun in my handbag does that mean am going to rob the bank?
ReplyDeleteKanchan, you make a good point that Peterman had intent and that his intention is morally reprehensible, but you don’t make a case for his actual act, actus reus. Gelicia’s analogy of walking into a bank with a gun is well taken – this proves at best intent.
ReplyDelete