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.
