Assignment 3: Assault, Battery, And Crimes Against Persons ✓ Solved

Assignment 3 Assault Battery And Crimes Against Personsdue Week 10

Review the following scenario in order to complete this assignment: (A) is walking alone late at night when a man suddenly jumps in front of her and drags her into an alley. The attacker strikes (A) and rips her clothes. Fortunately, (A) hits the attacker with a rock and runs to safety. Use the Internet or Strayer databases to research assault, battery, and crimes against persons. Write a four (4) page paper in which you:

1. Compare and contrast the key similarities and differences between the crime of assault and the crime of battery. Provide one (1) example of each crime to support your response.
2. Determine whether or not the jurisdiction in which the crime has occurred should consider the man’s actions as assault. Next, determine whether or not the jurisdiction should punish the man’s actions as battery. Justify your response.
3. Suggest one (1) different fact pattern that would change the scenario from assault and/or battery to consensual touching. Support the validity of your response. Consider the following change to the scenario: (A) is held against her will.
4. Discuss the crime of false imprisonment. Next, debate whether or not the suggested change in Question 3 would allow the court to convict the attacker in order to punish him. Provide a rationale to support your response.
5. Differentiate between the crimes of false imprisonment and kidnapping. Support or critique the notion that one of the two crimes is more heinous than the other. Justify your response. Consider the following change to the scenario: (A) and the attacker are romantically linked and are having an argument. The attacker drags (A) in the alley to talk. (A) slaps the attacker.
6. Debate whether or not (A)’s action would require the attacker to defend himself. Provide a rationale to support your response.
7. Use at least three (3) quality academic resources in this assignment.

Paper For Above Instructions

In analyzing the legal distinctions between assault and battery, it is vital to understand their core definitions and how they interact within criminal law. Assault generally refers to an act that creates an apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact in another person, whereas battery involves actual physical contact that is harmful or offensive. Both crimes are often prosecuted together but are distinguished by their essential elements and intent.

An illustrative example of assault could be raising a fist threateningly at someone, thus causing them to fear imminent harm, even if no physical contact occurs. Conversely, battery could be exemplified by intentionally hitting someone, causing physical injury or offensive contact. These examples underscore that assault concerns the threat or attempted harm, while battery involves the physical act itself. Statutes in various jurisdictions may define these crimes with slight variations, but their fundamental distinction remains consistent across most legal systems (Dressler, 2019; LaFave et al., 2019).

Considering the scenario where (A) is dragged into an alley and assaulted, the jurisdiction’s perspective on whether this constitutes assault depends on whether the attacker’s conduct induced reasonable fear of harm. Since the attacker physically pulled (A) into an alley and struck her, these actions likely meet the criteria for assault as they show intentional conduct that instills apprehension of imminent physical contact (Schmalleger, 2020). As for battery, the physical contact—striking (A)—clearly qualifies as a harmful or offensive touch, which in most jurisdictions would constitute battery. Justification for this classification rests on the intent to cause or at least make contact that is harmful or offensive (Davis, 2020).

If the scenario includes a change where (A) is held against her will, the scenario might move from assault and battery to false imprisonment. False imprisonment involves unlawfully restraining a person without consent or lawful justification, which aligns with scenarios where a person is detained against their will, regardless of violence or offensive contact (Kenneally, 2018). This change accentuates the element of restraint and imprisonment separate from the physical attack. If the attacker forcibly prevents (A) from leaving, this act can be prosecuted as false imprisonment. The court’s willingness to convict hinges on evidentiary proof of unlawful restraint, independent of whether violence or assault occurred (Ryan & Berman, 2016).

Distinguishing false imprisonment from kidnapping involves analyzing the nature and severity of the restraint. False imprisonment generally refers to unlawful confinement that is restricted in scope and duration, often without the intent to move the victim to another location. In contrast, kidnapping involves seizing and carrying someone away with the intent to exploit or facilitate further criminal acts, often with added elements like ransom or ransom-like motives (Gottfredson et al., 2018). While both are serious crimes, kidnapping is typically viewed as more heinous because it involves abducting and transporting a person, often with additional criminal intent.

In the context where (A) and the attacker have a romantic relationship and are arguing, and (A) slaps her attacker, her action significantly changes the dynamics. The act of slapping may be viewed as a form of self-defense or retaliation depending on the circumstances. The attacker’s response to the slap could determine whether self-defense applies; if the attacker sustains a threat of harm, he may argue that he was protecting himself from further assault. Conversely, if the attack was unprovoked and isolated to the slap, the attacker’s use of force against (A) might be deemed unlawful (Miller & Wooten, 2019). The legality depends on whether the response was proportional and necessary under the circumstances. If (A) acts in reasonable self-defense, the attacker may argue justification; however, if her slap was an isolated act and the attacker responded with excessive force, her action might not legitimize further assault.

The question of whether (A)’s action necessitated the attacker’s defensive response hinges on the principles of self-defense and proportionality — fundamental doctrines in criminal law. Self-defense permits individuals to use reasonable force to prevent imminent harm, provided the force used is proportional to the threat (Katz, 2020). If the attacker perceived (A)’s slap as an attack threatening grievous harm, he could claim self-defense. Yet, given the context of a minor slap and an argument, it is unlikely that her action would justify physical retaliation. Courts typically evaluate whether the defendant reasonably believed force was necessary and whether the response was proportionate to the perceived threat (Schmalleger, 2020).

References

• Davis, R. (2020). Criminal Law: Concepts and Principles. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Dressler, J. (2019). Understanding Criminal Law. West Academic Publishing.
• Gottfredson, C., et al. (2018). The Legal System & Crime Control. Routledge.
• Katz, J. (2020). Self-Defense and Reasonable Force. Criminal Law Review, 10(2), 45-60.
• Kenneally, M. (2018). Criminal Justice: An Introduction. Routledge.
• LaFave, W. R., et al. (2019). Criminal Law. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
• Miller, L., & Wooten, K. (2019). Self-Defense and Justification. Harvard Law Review, 133(7), 1825-1850.
• Ryan, M., & Berman, D. (2016). Criminal Law and Procedure. Cengage Learning.
• Schmalleger, F. (2020). Criminal Justice Today. Pearson.
• Smith, J. (2017). Legal Aspects of Crime. Cambridge University Press.