Comments on Peterman and Valle

All of you did a very nice job on this assignment. The crux here was to show that both actus reus and mens rea are present. Remember that attempted crimes also require both elements. This made it difficult for the prosecution. Most of you claimed that the fact that the defendant took action by going to the location constitutes the actus reus element. An objection to this is that this act is at best incomplete, it lacks the important part of the attempted rape, and as Austin remarked, we cannot be sure that the defendant would not have desisted last minute. Danny argued that the failure to succeed in the crime is not intended, but due to outside factors, analogous to a person who shoots another but fails to hit the target. Here one can object that a person accused of attempted murder by shooting someone and failing to kill the victim has to actually pull the trigger, besides showing the intent. It is convincing that Peterman’s actions show the intent to molest a child, but Andrew correctly pointed out that sex crimes involving minors do not need proof of intent as they fall under the strict liability rule, that means that only actus reus needs to be proven. And that is the problem in this case.

Not all of you commented on the recent case of the NYC police officer. This case is similar insofar as the defendant, Valle, did not actually kidnap and eat woman, though he talked about it on the internet. Even if his internet chat can be taken as “planning to kidnap and cannibalize” women, he did not actually commit the act. What may have persuaded the jury to find Valle guilty is that he fantasized and talked about actual women he knew. He used Police resources to retrieve information about these women (a crime for which he is also charged), and he met with one of them for coffee. But here it is still difficult to see proof of actus reus. Another difference between this case and Peterman is that Valle was charged with conspiracy to abduct and cannibalize women, and the very notion of conspiracy seems to elude the actus reus element as “muscular movement…”

Both cases share that most people would find of the defendants’ thoughts repulsive, and most of us intuitively think that it is better that neither of them had the chance to complete the crime. But legally I find this rather problematic, for if the law permits to convict people based on mere mens rea and the assumption what the defendant could or would have done, it opens the door to many unjustified convictions.

Peterman was indeed convicted and sentenced to twelve years in prison. To the great surprise of his lawyers, Valle was also found guilty. He has not yet been sentenced, but he can face life in prison.