Assault, Battery, and Crimes against Persons - Assignment Example

Assault, Battery, and Crimes against Persons The crimes of battery and assault are quite different in their approach but they are often charged concurrently. The concept of assault and battery varies across jurisdictions; some do consider assault as any form of threat to bodily harm such that the victim is inflicted with fear that they may be harmed. On the other hand, battery refers to the infliction of bodily harm to the victim such that they are left with pain. In many state jurisdictions, assault and battery are charged as one offense. When executing battery, there is usually the use of violence that results to infliction of physical harm to the victim. This means that there are different degrees of battery depending on the seriousness of the harm inflicted. Assault is not considered anything beyond threats without any physical harm. However, the reason why most of the jurisdictions consider both crimes together is because when one commits battery, they first have the intention of causing harm followed by threats and then they the physical harm is caused. While assault is executed verbally, battery goes beyond to involve both verbal and physical harm (FindLaw, 2014). To draw a clear distinction between battery and assault an example is ideal. An example of an assault is seen when an individual intimidates another and threatens to kill them. However, the person threatening the other does not inflict any physical harm to them. On the other hand, the case of (A) can be regarded as battery where the attacker inflicts harm to (A) by dragging him and ripping off her clothes. The action taken by (A) cannot be considered as assault neither battery since he was on self-defense when he hit the attacker with a rock and ran away. The attacker should be punished for having committed both battery and assault to (A). This is because he had the intention to harm and went ahead to engage in a physical act that was geared towards causing fear and bodily harm to (A). The actions of (A) cannot be regarded as either assault or battery because they were attacked and reacted to the actions of the attacker by using a self-defensive mechanism. The assault and consequent battery against (A) could be narrowed down to consensual touching if the attacker did not inflict any form of harm or create any fear of harm to (A). This is based on the view that the attacker did not have any evil motive of inflicting injury to (A), neither did they attempt to harm them verbally. In consensual touching, the victim (A), should be willing to talk to the attacker without being forced to do so. The crime of false imprisonment entails the act of restraining someone purported to be an offender against his or her will by a person that does not have the jurisdiction to do so. The person conducting false imprisonment restrains the victim through various mechanisms including the use of a physical barrier, an invalidated use of legal authority and use of physical force in an attempt to restrain the victim. False imprisonment leaves the victim lacking freedom of movement in every capacity (Sage Publications, n.d). Despite holding (A) against her will through the false imprisonment, the court can still convict the attacker and set free (A). This is based on the preposition that one is not guilty until proven so. The crime that (A) is said to have committed is not verified based on investigations. However, upon completion of investigations, the truth can be found such that the court is able to punish the offender despite being inflicted an injury by (A) while on self-defense. The court is required to weigh the evidence provided by the witnesses and both parties before reaching a point where they are able to distinguish between the offender and the victim. There are various differences between false imprisonment and kidnapping. Both of these acts are illegal and are punishable in regards to the law. Kidnapping is defined as the act of moving another person forcefully without his or her consent and without any lawful authority to do so. The significance of doing so is based on a specific evil motive that the kidnapper wants to fulfil such as extorting money from the relatives of the kidnapped person and political interests among others. On the other hand, false imprisonment entails illegal confinement of the victim without their consent, an aspect that restrains the freedom of movement for the victim. This means that as opposed to kidnapping, false imprisonment can be done in a less offensive manner while no harm is inflicted to the victim (Sage Publications, n.d). This means that kidnapping in many jurisdictions attracts a heavier penalty as opposed to false imprisonment. From a legal and personal point of view kidnapping is a more heinous crime as opposed to false imprisonment. For false imprisonment, it does not have to be done using force and intimidation. The punishment that is given by many states for the act of false imprisonment is usually a jail term that does not exceed one year. Unless the crime is considered as a felony, the offender can receive a bigger punishment. On the other hand, kidnapping involves the use of force and threats by the offender directed towards the victim. This crime is more heinous and in most states, it is punishable as felony. In most cases, the case of false imprisonment is considered as a misdemeanor hence there are lesser effects to the victim. Therefore, looking at the two crimes, an offender of kidnapping is considered to have committed a bigger crime because of the use of force and the movement of the victim from one place to another under a command while false imprisonment as a lighter connotation since no force is applied (Supreme Court, n.d). There are two possibilities in the scenario where the (A) slaps the attacker after being dragged for a talk. In the case where the attacker is slapped by (A) without any offense, then (A) is on the wrong and the attacker can act in self-defense. This is because the attacker did not have any ulterior motive that called for (A) to inflict the attacker with physical harm. The objective of the attacker was to engage (A) in a conversation but (A) ends up slapping him. It is known that there was a romantic relationship between them, therefore, slapping the attacker is a bad show and can provoke the attacker to retaliate. This means that the attacker can be justified for acting in self-defense against (A). The other possible scenario is that the attacker is not justified to drag (A), this is because (A) cannot comprehend the motive of the attacker despite her being romantically linked with the attacker. Therefore, to some extent (A) is justified to act in self-defense and the attacker should not hit back. The attacker infringes on the right of (A) by forcing her to have a conversation without first talking to her and evaluating whether she was for it. If she was not ready for the talk, the attacker should have left her alone. Therefore, it is clear that (A), in this case, was acting in self-defense after being dragged by the attacker. This means it would be inappropriate for the attacker to claim to act in self-defense and inflict physical harm to (A). Therefore, the attack by (A) is justifiable and the attacker is not required to retaliate. However, before thinking about the retaliatory aspect, the attacker should communicate their motive to (A). References FindLaw, (2014). Assault and battery defenses. Retrieved from http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-battery-defenses.html Sage Publications. (n.d). Chapter 10: criminal sexual conduct, assault and battery, kidnapping, and false imprisonment. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/lippmanccl2e/study/supplements/Illinois/IL_10.pdf Supreme Court, (n.d) Kidnapping and related offenses. Retrieved from http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/File/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Committees/Criminal_Jury_Instructions/CHAPTER_3KidnappingandRelatedOffenses.pdf Read More