Theory and Doctrine Research Paper

Assault and Battery

Assault and battery are two against a person that are often prosecuted together. The elements of criminal act and intent are required for both crimes to be recognized as such. An instance of criminal conduct can be considered assault if the victim apprehends the possibility of imminent unlawful violence, taken to mean that the perpetrators physical actions cause apprehension of a violent attack (Simester, Spencer, Stark, Sullivan & Virgo, 2016, p. 432). This type of criminal conduct typically constitutes a misdemeanor. Battery, meanwhile, is taken to involve a criminal act of harmful or offensive touching, or any unlawfully inflicted violence without the assaults characteristic of the threat of immediate bodily harm; the concept emerged as a crime from a tort of trespass to the person (Simester et al., 2016, p. 433). Therefore, the battery requires additional elements of attendant circumstance, causation, and harm. The physical contact with the victims non-consenting person in this felony offense may be perpetrated with an object or substance as well.

As an example, a soccer hooligans attack from behind with a broken beer bottle against another fan would be considered battery. Physical conduct motivated by the above-mentioned rivalry, thus, with the victim recognizing the threat of violence before it may result in bodily harm, would constitute an assault. In this example, the fan may threaten a member of a rival fraction with the broken beer bottle, making stabbing motions in close proximity to the victims person.

Jurisdiction

Depending on a jurisdiction in which the crime has occurred, the mans actions could be prosecuted as an assault, as there were a criminal act and a specific intent; moreover, the victim apprehended the possibility of imminent unlawful violence prior to, or at the moment of being dragged into the alley. Various jurisdictions, furthermore, could view the criminal conduct as a threatened battery assault, a crime with the offense elements of causation and harm present therein. The offensive contact was purposefully perpetrated, and the apprehension of the causation of bodily harm occurred. Additionally, the attackers actions could be punished as a crime of battery, as the unlawful touching was not consented to. What is more, the mans actions were the factual and legal causes of the harm the victim suffered. The grading would depend on the jurisdiction, as some require great bodily harm to the victim, while others allow for harmfulor offensivecontact as a requirement (Scheb, 2014).

Fact Pattern That Would Change the Scenario

Were the scenario changed from an attack by a stranger to a between the woman and the man, the incident might have been considered consensual touching. The parties would have mutually consented to the actions, which would have operated as an affirmative defense or a failure of proof in case of persecution. The painful and offensive contact, in this context, would have been authorized and expected. However, it is not to say that the new scenario cannot preclude assault or battery, as most inter-personal crimes are committed by a perpetrator known to the victim. Therefore, consent can be withdrawn at any moment, whereupon the lawful private activity may be considered an unlawful one.

False Imprisonment

The crime of false imprisonment consists of unlawfully depriving the person of their liberty. The person is restricted in their movements within a specific area; however, the notion does not necessarily presuppose the use of physical restraints. It is a tort and a common-law felony. Within the above-mentioned scenario, the woman may be restrained in the alley, or forcibly prevented from leaving it, as part of the role-play. The activity, therefore, would be mutually consensual, and the consent not induced by threat or coercion and given by a person competent to do so (Scheb, 2015). Therefore, the conduct given cannot constitute a criminal offense, and there are no grounds for prosecution.

Differentiation between the Crimes of False Imprisonment and Kidnapping

False imprisonment is regarded as an offense separate to kidnapping in the sense that physical removal of the victim in some way is not perpetrated in depriving the person of their liberty (Dubber & Hrnle, 2014, p. 743). False imprisonment, on the other hand, requires only the restraint of the person, upon which the victim no longer can exercise their liberty. The victim, therefore, is confined, but not moved with regards to their physical location. Kidnapping constitutes a serious felony, while false imprisonment is viewed as a serious included offense to kidnapping. The crime is graded lower in many jurisdictions and can be regarded as a gross misdemeanor. This student would concur with the interpretation mentioned above unless the victim is young of an age, or a force of violence was used in perpetrating the crime. However, the author recognizes that the physical removal of the victim and their confinement in an unfamiliar location result in psychological harm more severe than that of felonious restraint.