Assault, Battery, and Crimes against Persons

A crime of assault is a crime which involves bodily harm, which is majorly followed by an apparent ability to cause the harm. On the other hand, battery is the physical attack on someone by an attacker which results in an offensive sexual contact (Lippman, 2013). The two types of crime that is battery and assault may seem the same but battery is different from assault in that battery involves unlawfully engagement of sexual intercourse between the attacker and the victim. A good example of battery crime is when a lady is pulled into a forest where she is finally raped. On the other hand, a good example of an assault is when a person is beaten up by thugs who end up stealing valuable things from him or her (Fisher & Lab, 2010). This two examples therefore explain the two types of crime in such a way that the both crimes cannot be confused. The main similarities between the two of crime is, in both types of crimes, the victim is usually injured by the attacker. Moreover, in both crimes, the victim is usually forced into doing things that he or she does not want to do. This may involve forcing a victim to give out a valuable thing, or forcing the victim to have sex (McCord, McCord, & Bailey, 2012).

The crime should not be charged as an assault, simply because before the man dragged the victim into the bush, he did not harm her (McCord, McCord, & Bailey, 2012). The man’s actions should be punished as battery, simply because the man dragged the victim into the forest, then stroked the victim before ripping her clothes. This consequently shows the intentions of the man, he was fully headed to raping the victim (Lippman, 2013). If the victim could not have hit the attacker with a rock, then the attacker have raped her. On the contrary, since the victim did not offer any resistance as she was being dragged into the bush by the attacker, this can be termed as consensual touching, whereby the victim afterwards assaulted the attacker by hitting him with a stone (Fisher & Lab, 2010).

False imprisonment is when a person is confined in a certain jurisdiction, whereby he or she cannot be able to move. If the victim was held against her will, then the court could be able to convict the attacker in order to punish him. This is consequently because, the victim was held against her will, and thus the attacker had committed false imprisonment (Fisher & Lab, 2010). This would therefore allow the court to convict the attacker for punishment. The attacker, held the victim against her will, thus the attacker committed the crime. Secondly, the attacker dragged the victim and confined her in a bush. This consequently shows how the attacker was cruel, and he did everything in the violation of the law, thus making the court to punish him because of committing the crime (McCord, McCord, & Bailey, 2012).

False imprisonment and kidnapping, are two different types of crime which might seem the same, in the sense that in both crimes, the victim is usually confined by the attacker (Fisher & Lab, 2010). There is however a very big difference between the two types of crime since each one of them has its own effects and durations through which the victim is usually confined within a certain jurisdiction (Lippman, 2013). Kidnapping is the physical movement of a person, without his or her consent, with the intent of using the seizure in association with other infamous objectives. Kidnapping can therefore be done so as the attackers can receive a ransom, or political reasons, or other reasons (McCord, McCord, & Bailey, 2012).

On the other hand, false imprisonment is the confinement of a person, without his or her consent by an attacker in such a way as to go against the person’s rights to move freely from one place to another (McCord, McCord, & Bailey, 2012). False improvement does not therefore involve the illegal transportation of a person without his or her consent. The main objective of false imprisonment is either to gain important information from the victim, or otherwise to contain the police from firing at the attacker due to the fear of collateral damage. False imprisonment ‘in most cases is usually conducted in bank robbery, whereby the attackers confine the victims in order to avoid being hit by the police, because they will avoid causing collateral damage (Fisher & Lab, 2010).

Therefore, kidnapping is more heinous than false imprisonment, simply because in kidnapping, the victim is usually subjected to some form of harm (McCord, McCord, & Bailey, 2012). The kidnappers may harm the victim in order to frustrate either the victim’s parents or relatives that is, when asking for a ransom. Moreover, if the victim’s relatives do not comply with the requirements of the kidnappers, then the kidnappers may kill the victim. On the other hand, when it comes to false imprisonment, in most cases the victim is not usually subjected to any forms of harm. Criminals use false imprisonment as a means of either subduing or buying time from the authorities, in order to escape from a crime scene (Lippman, 2013). This therefore allows the criminals to be able to plan on how they will be able to execute their plans, particularly when the authorities are around (Fisher & Lab, 2010). In addition, the criminals might also use false imprisonment as a means of gaining very important information from the victim through threatening him or her but not through harming the criminal physically. This therefore shows how kidnapping is very heinous as it may result in the death of the victim in case the family does not comply.

In a scenario where A and the attacker are romantically linked, when A slaps the attacker when he drags her to the alley so that they can talk, then the attacker should not defend himself (McCord, McCord, & Bailey, 2012). This is because, the attacker dragged A without her consent, forcing her to react with a slap. According to A, she did not know the reason as to why she was being dragged into the alley, and this therefore made her to become furious bearing in mind they were in an argument. A was therefore responding to what had happened to her by slapping the attacker (Fisher & Lab, 2010). This was therefore not A’s mistake to slap the attacker, but it was the attackers mistake to drag her knowing very welly that they were in an argument and dragging her could have led to a major problem (Lippman, 2013).

The attacker should not defend himself, simply because he will be committing a crime of hitting A without any reason whatsoever (McCord, McCord, & Bailey, 2012). The attacker should therefore calm down and talk to A about the matter rather than reacting in a manner which could lead him into committing a crime. Thus, A reacted in the right way, since she did not know what the motive of the attacker was while he drag her while they were arguing (Fisher & Lab, 2010).

Reference

Fisher, B., & Lab, S. P. (2010). Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications.

McCord, J. W. H., McCord, S. L., & Bailey, C. S. (2012). Criminal law and procedure for the paralegal: A systems approach. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning.

Lippman, M. R. (2013). Essential criminal law.