Sexual Harassment and Committed Sexual Assault - Case Study Example

The case study is about an incident where a guy d Frank has gone to a part with her girlfriend June. Another guy Peter kisses June on her mount (seems without her consent) and touches her breasts. June suddenly pushes him away. Seeing this, Frank rage reaches its peak. Under the spell of rage and anger, he punched peter who collapsed, was struck with the corner of a cabinet and had ultimately died, before the medical aids arrived. Legal Implications: There are two ways to look at whole scenario, from legal perspective. In this scenario there are two offenders. The first one is Peter, who tried to force himself on the girl and kissed her and fondled her breast, without her consent. While, Frank is also an offender murdered and man slaughtered. The offence of Peter should be discussed according to the Sexual Offence Act 2003. This law explains that a person who touches somebody without other person's consent with the intention of sexual desire is to be dealt under this act. (Sexual Offences Act 2003). Under this act, a person who is convict of sexual offence can be sentenced for six months or be fined or both of the sentences. So far as Frank is concerned, he seems to be convict murder and manslaughter. However, his defense can try to defend him on the grounds of self-defence and provocation. After discussing the criminal offence committed by both of them, one by one, we will than conclude our findings derived by analyzing the offences of both. The offence of Peter is a bit straight forward and the offender can be punished now, however, that of Frank needs a thorough study. The Offence of Frank The case is very clearly indicating that Frank killed Peter. However, the main area of interesting this regard, from the perspective of Frank is that whether it was a murder or man slaughter. Furthermore, it is also essential to determine that to what extent the charges on Frank (of murder and man slaughter) be defended on the basis of the clauses related to self defense and provocation. Lets discuss it one by one, in detail. 1. Murder: It is essential for an act to be called as murder that the person who made the attempt had made it on, first of all, a living person. Secondly, as a result of that attempt, the victim deceased within a year and a day. In the provisions of law, the critical words 'malice aforethought' are used to describe the mental state of the murderer. The comments of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment don't involve any particular ill-will or careful preparation beforehand. There is a difference in murder and manslaughter. It is committed with the complete intention of putting someone to death in an illegal manner. Thus we can say that in such case, mens reas was there, that in this case means, that the person would lose his life as a result of such assault. Thus the task of prosecution in murder cases is to prove that the victim died only because of what the offender did. This means that the victim would not have died, had the offender not done what he died. It is also a noticeable factor here that suppose person A shots person B. Person B is then taken to hospital and he died. However, if he dies due to doctor's negligence, the offended would not be charged for murder. This means that it is required that the victim must die from the charge of murder only. Let us take an example of it from past cases. In one of the cases before the Court of Appeal, James Jordon was charged for murder of a person, who was died in hospital after being injured as a result of an attempt by James Jordan. However, when medical reports showed that the death had infact been caused by the treatment with terramycin, an antibiotic drug to which the deceased was intolerant, and by the intravenous introduction of abnormal quantities of liquid, so that death in fact resulted from broncho-pneumonia, rather than the stab wound, the court cancelled the conviction on Jordon for as Hallett J. said: It is sufficient to point out here that this was not normal treatment. Not only one feature, but two separate and independent features, of treatment were, in the opinion of the doctors, palpably wrong and these produced the symptoms discovered at the post-mortem examination which were the direct and immediate cause of death, namely the pneumonia resulting from the condition of oedema which was found. This instance reveals that if one person had 'malice aforethought', this does not mean that his attempt was actually the reason for death. Thus the jury considers two main points while hearing a murder case. Firstly, was the death an expected consequence of what the defendant did Secondly, had the defendant foreseen the expected consequence of the attempt by him If the available evidences provide the answer of had the defendant foreseen the expected consequence of the attempt by him If the available evidences provide the answer of yes to these questions, it would mean that the attempt of the defendant was to murder the victim. 2. Manslaughter: The main difference in manslaughter and murder is, as already mentioned, the intention. In murder the intention is "malice aforethought". The act is same in both the cases, however the difference is that of mental state. Manslaughter is a less serious act thus has less strict punishment and more consideration than murder. In our case, what Frank had done was simply punching on nose. Whereas, before collapsing, Peter was struck with the cabinet corner too. If a person wants to kill someone, punching on nose is then not the appropriate location. Thus, on these grounds we can say that first of all the intention of Frank was not to kill Peter. Secondly, there are chances that the death be occurred due to striking from cabinet corner. Had it been the case, then Frank may take a stand that since it was not an intend of killing, nor his punch was so harmful, rather the striking was main reason, so keeping all this in view, he should be punished only for injuring Peter. 3. Provocation: For provocation, a definitive explanation is that of Develin J. in R.v. Duffy 1949: Provocation is some act, or series of acts, done by the dead man to the accused which would cause in any reasonable person, and actually caused in the accused, a sudden and temporary loss of self-control, rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make him or her for the moment not master of his mind. If the lawyers of the murderer proves that it was as an effect of provocation, it will simple reduce the charge into that of manslaughter. But it must be noted that not all minor agitations are not provocation. If the salt was less in broth and on this reason a husband kills his wife, it would be senseless to call it provocation. But in our case, the agitation of Frank was obviously a provocation, since his girl friend was tried to be sexually harassed. Any reasonable and mature man would get annoyed at such instance. Thus it was provocation. On this basis, Frank can reduce the charge of murder to manslaughter. Furthermore, making the striking with cabinet corner as the reason for death, Frank can get himself released from the act of man slaughter too. PETER's OFFENCES: The Sexual Assault: The section 3 of Sexual Assault Act 2003 states that: (1) A person (A) commits an offence if- (a) he intentionally touches another person (B), (b) the touching is sexual, (c) B does not consent to the touching, and (d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents. (2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents. (3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section. (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable- (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. Looking at these clauses, we can easily infer that Peter had done a sexual assault. These provisions can be divided into following components: 1. Intentional Touch: The touch was intentional. Without any intentions it is possible that someone's hand touch other's breast or other such parts; however, kissing can not be termed as unintentional in any case. 2. Without Consent: Though it is not written in the case that whether June's consent was there for Peter to kiss her or fondle her breast or not, however, we can infer that the consent was not there since she pushed Peter away immediately. 3. Sexual Desire: It is very obvious from the scenario that the underpinning intention was sexual desire. Since kissing and touching breasts are evidence to this inference. Thus we can conclude that it seems that the intention of Peter in this situation was the sexual assault on June by kissing her without her consent and fondling her breasts. Thus, under the abovementioned section, he could have been charged for and be punished for the sexual assault. The assault is defined as intentionally putting another person into fear of immediate harm. Here it is essential to mention the difference between battery and assault. An assault, as mentioned above, is simply putting a person under to fear of being harmed, whereas, battery is also the unlawful touching. However, the touch in assault is light and aimed to enjoy and fondle the parts being touched, but the touch in battery is mild as compared to that in assault. Comparing these definitions with the case, we can say that it was an assault rather than battery. Although Peter had just touched the breasts of June and kissed her, however, as the case tells, this led serious results, especially for Peter. In terms of laws, assault is more serious crime than battery and Peter would be charged for sexual assault. Although Peter was not able to complete his desire of sexual attempt, yet he would be considered an offender, since the law considers both as offenders, those who committed some crime successfully and those who tried to commit but could not commit it successfully. Attempt: Looking into case with greater insight lead us to one more charge on Peter, It is not so that he kissed, fondled June's breasts and got away. Rather, he was pushed away by June. This means that his desires were far beyond fondling the breast of June. He had made an attempt. Since the law does not differentiate between a failed attempt and a successful attempt, Peter can charged for the sexual attempt. It is so because, an attempt to commit a crime is a crime in itself. The section 1 of Criminal Attempts Act 1981, explaining the concept of attempt, defines it as: If, with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence. However, there is requirement of mens rea and actus reus to see the intent of the offender. It is evident from the case information provided that Peter had intentions to sexually harass June and this way he wanted to take advantage of her by kissing her and touching her breasts. The law provides that: A person may be guilty of attempting to commit an offence to which this section applies even though the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible Seeing the above extracts of various clause of Criminal Attempts Act 1981, it would not be illogical to say that Peter can be charged for the Attempt of Sexual Offence too. Though he can be charged, but since he is not alive yet, thus no further legal proceedings can be done and consequently, the court can not punish Peter. Conclusion: We can thus sum up the entire discussion in two points. First, Peter had made an attempt for sexual harassment and committed sexual assault too. However, he can not be given the relevant punishment after proceedings, since he is already dead. So far as Frank is concerned, it would be suffice to say that whatever he did was under the provocation and the death of Peter is not directly from the assault by Frank. Thus, he can get himself released on these basis. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Brody, David et.al. Criminal Law. Gaithersburg: Aspen Publishers, 2001. 2. Gorr, Michael, Sterling Harwood, eds. Controversies in Criminal Law. Westview Press,1992. 3. Hall, Jerome. General Principles of Criminal Law. New York: Lawbook Exchange, 2005. 4. Friedland, Martin. Cases and Materials on Criminal Law and Procedure. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978. 5. Sinclair, Kent. Trial Handbook. New York: Practising Law Institute, 2004. 6. Richard H. Bruce. (1994). Success in Law. London Clays Limited. Read More