Steven
Peterman, age 45, arrived at the woman’s house with intent to rape the invented
10 year-old girl. I believe he is guilty of attempted rape. We can evaluate the
attempt in in two parts: action and intent. The Model Penal Code offers action
to mean, “muscular movement under conscious control”. (Adams 387) Framed this way,
we can determine two major actions that Peterman makes towards the rape of a
child. First, he engages dialogue with the woman who claims to know this child,
to set up a meeting. Second, he physically moves himself to the woman’s house
where his attempted rape is foiled by the police. This point is more significant,
legally speaking, than the first. The dialogue can be considered as
contemplating the crime; thinking about performing the rape. The scheduling of
meeting is preparation. The commute to the house can be considered as the final
stage of preparation and straddling the line with action. All these steps
clearly demonstrate what legalists term mens
rea, or intent to commit the crime. Simply put, Peterman’s intent in raping
that child is self-evident from the facts presented.
Comments
must be made on the distinction between attempted rape vs. actual rape. Some
may conscientiously believe that Peterman was set up and baited to commit a
crime that was impossible to commit in the first place. This is a valid
argument, though less persuasive once you note that Peterman is presumed to
be involved in a child pornography ring. His history with child pornography reasonably
suggests that he is a threat to society's children, and uses the internet to solicit them. The police’s
method in this case then, is just. After all, the purpose for our police and courts is firstly
to keep the peace. Additionally, one may say that no crime occurred if there is
no victim (no one was raped). The metaphor used in the readings summarizes the
relationship concisely. Imagine two individuals, each pointing a pistol at you
with the intent to harm you. They fire at the same time but only one of the
bullets hits you. Will you be sympathetic to the individual who missed? Surely,
you will not excuse one of the murderers for his/her incompetence. The same is true for Peterman. A attempted rape is equivalent to actual rape in its intent and harm inflicted, with the only difference being that the
crime had failed; Peterman would have raped that child if she were real.
If the child never existed than how can it be an attempt of rape? If it was an attempt of rape shouldn't the child exist? Rape is defined as "the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse" (reference dictionary).
ReplyDeletePeterman did not force anyone nor did he have any physical contact with the child, so how can he be charged for the attempt of rape? How does the two individuals firing at you relates to the Peterman case? Peterman did not know the child nor did the child existed. Peterman can only be charged guilty of attempt in rape if the child existed.
example:
If a man tells you to buy a gun from his friend and you are interested in guns, but guns are illegal. And You just went to meet them to look at the gun but they are cops. Can you be arrested for weapon in possession, even if you haven't seen the gun?
@Tshering, Thanks for your comments.
ReplyDeleteYou offer a definition of rape to demonstrate that Peterman had no physical contact which suggests any criminal intent (in this case, rape). To respond, I might offer a definition of "Attempted Crime" from the Modern Penal Code: "one must perform a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in...the crime". (MPC 5.01)
Peterman makes two distinct acts of preparation: Online correspondence to schedule a meeting,and his physical movement to the victim's house. I would argue that Peterman actually going to the house is evidence of "substantial step...to culminate the crime" as defined by MPC.
As for your objection that the girl never existed, I will point you once more to my last paragraph where I discuss the rationale, and just nature of the set-up. Peterman's history with child-pornography is just cause to bait him. Surely it doesn't make sense to actually wait til he molests another child before we convict him. The metaphor of two individuals firing you are connected to Peterman, with respect to him attempting and failing at the crime.
Danny, you make a great argument for the prosecution in a case that seems not easy to prosecute. That’s a nice analysis of the act as a failed attempt. Tshering’s emphasis on the fact that the victim did not exist is powerful, and so is her comparison with other police operations that are designed to arrest a suspect. In case of weapon deals or drug deals the charges are only brought after the deal is completed, i.e., once the weapons or drugs and the money changed hands. But you give an excellent rebuttal, Danny.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good case Danny, although because this case involves a child and would fall into "Statutory Rape" guidelines, In which case no mens rea is needed to prosecute. Although within the Criminal Sexual Acts my client never touched the imaginary girl. There is no law on the books defining "Attempted Rape" There has to be contact. If The police also acted under false pretenses, it is considered entrapment, because my client was offered to commit a crime.
ReplyDelete