Crimes of assault and battery are categorized as the two basic ‘bodily harm’ offenses against people. Accordingly, an assault is a crime that is committed when someone engages in a conduct that places another individual in reasonable apprehension that results in them receiving a battery (Michelson, 2015). It is from this that we conclude that an assault is a real or implied threat of a battery, complete or incomplete, to an individual. The difference between these two crimes is the aspect of physical contact. By this we mean that for a battery to be categorized as such, the perpetrator will need to have made physical contact in order to cause harm. Whereas, an assault does not necessarily mean that the perpetrator makes physical contact and may include making threats or pointing a weapon to the victim (Michelson, 2015). For instance, the act of threatening someone that you will break their neck is categorized as an assault. Battery, on the other hand, is where the perpetrator decides to physically attack a victim and in the process injure the victim’s neck. In comparison, both crime of assault and crime of battery are similar due to their elements of criminal act, criminal intent, causation, and harm. In the justification of the crimes, both are self-defense or defense and the common law applied is that of intentional tort.
The jurisdiction in which the crime has occurred should consider the man’s action as an assault because he was not physical with (A). Nonetheless, the jurisdiction should consider punishing the man’s action as battery because he ripped her clothes and jumped in front of the lady. The act of jumping is an act of making a threat to (As) safety and this is a form of injury on the woman. The reaction of (A) helped her from being a victim to the man’s action. It is obvious from the man’s action, ripping her clothes, that he had the intent of bringing bodily harm to the victim. The man’s action can be considered to be both an assault and battery because he threatened the safety of the lady and inflicted injury on her. As such, he was not expecting (A) to react the way she did and was not in a position to counterattack her moves. In most instances, such perpetrators have intent of causing harm to their victim and the minute the man tore her clothes, he was inflicting fear in the victim. Little did he know the (A) would fight back and escape his evil intentions or motive or either rape or other bodily harm.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Consensual touching would be considered if the lady gave the perpetrator full permission to take her clothes off and thus, the attacker would have the consent of his victim. Once permission is given, then the attacker would not be committing any crime, battery or assault. It is in such consensual crimes that law enforcement officers are known to feign their involvement in order to catch the offender.
According to Lippman, false imprisonment is where an individual is intentionally and unlawfully restrained or confined (2009). The false imprisonment as noted by McCord, J et al., states that it is “brought about by the instrumentality, inter alia , of either force or threat of force” (2011, p. 109) In most cases, this crime is considered as a misdemeanor because it punishes interference with reference to a person’s freedom and liberty. In other cases, false imprisonment has possible catalytic agents such as fraud or the false claim of a legal authority that forces the perpetrators to unlawfully confine their victim. As such, false imprisonment is known to overlap with either an assault or a battery, with kidnapping or robbery. In the change of scenario, (A) is being held against her will, is a form of false imprisonment because she is being confined unlawfully. The suggested change in Question 3 would most definitely allow the court to convict the attacker for false imprisonment because he held the lady against her will and this is a form that deprives an individual of his or her liberty and or freedom.
Consider the following change to the scenario. (A) is held against her will.
False imprisonment is different from kidnapping in that, it does not require an asportation (movement). The statute of kidnapping punishes the act of confinement and a victim’s movement provided the victim is confined secretly or even held in an isolated place for a specific purpose like collection of ransom. The act of kidnapping an individual is an act deemed unlawful because the person is taken without their consent and thus, it is by force. Most of the kidnapping instances are conducted by family members while others are done by strangers on behalf of other people or for their own reasons. In the Model Penal Code (Lippman, 2009), the confinement in question with regard to kidnapping provides it be under a ‘substantial period.’ In contrast, false imprisonment does require detention to take place in either a public or private place for a brief or lengthy time. To say that one of the two crimes is more heinous than the other would be supporting the least heinous crime. As such, it would be advocating or promoting that offence and this would be a form of accepting other crimes, yet they both cause harm to the victim; be it emotionally or even psychologically. Therefore, in my opinion I would not pin point any of the two crimes to be more heinous because they all are a form of attacking an individual and in the end displace the mental state and position of their victim in the society, workplace and even at home among other avenues.
The actions of (A) would not require the attacker to defend himself because the two individuals’ know each other, romantically, and thus, may have a disagreement that led to the lady slapping the man. In any relationship, fights are bound to occur both in private and in a public place and hence, it will not be considered as a crime, but lovers having a heart-to-heart talk. Since the attacker and victim are linked romantically, then it is clear that fights are bound to be there as it is human nature for two people to fight as a way of displaying their opinions and views.
References
Lippman, M (2009). Contemporary criminal law: Concepts, cases, and controversies (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.
McCord, J. W. H., McCord, S. L., & Bailey, C. S. (2011). Criminal law and procedure for the paralegal (4th ed.). Clifton Park, NY: DELMAR CENGAGE Learning.
Michelson, R. (2015). Criminal investigation: Introduction to concepts and applications (6th ed.). San Clemente, CA: LawTech Publishing Group.
