Help me study for my Law class. I’m stuck and don’t understand.
Below you will see the California Penal Code definition of Sexual Assault (I only copied the relevant portion for purposes of our discussion, you can read the entire Sexual Assault section here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?sect… ). I also posted the definition of Kidnapping
261. (a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a_x000D_ person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following_x000D_ circumstances:_x000D_ _x000D_ (2) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of_x000D_ force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful_x000D_ bodily injury on the person or another.
(There is a separate section for the rape of a spouse.)
This is the CA Penal Code section for Kidnapping:
207. (a) Every person who forcibly, or by any other means of_x000D_ instilling fear, steals or takes, or holds, detains, or arrests any_x000D_ person in this state, and carries the person into another country,_x000D_ state, or county, or into another part of the same county, is guilty_x000D_ of kidnapping._x000D_ (b) Every person, who for the purpose of committing any act_x000D_ defined in Section 288, hires, persuades, entices, decoys, or seduces_x000D_ by false promises, misrepresentations, or the like, any child under_x000D_ the age of 14 years to go out of this country, state, or county, or_x000D_ into another part of the same county, is guilty of kidnapping.
After reading the relevant law on the subject, read the article in the link below:
(Copy and paste this into your browser)
In our discussion forum this week, you're going to break the two laws into their
elements. An element of a crime is a piece that must be proven. For example, a first degree
murder is the intentional killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Let's break that down.
2 Killing of a human being
3. Malice (anger)
4. Premeditation (aka - aforethought).
The prosecutor must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. If there isn't proof
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant premeditated the crime, then it can't be a 1st
So breaking a crime into it's elements just means to break down each part of the crime to show
what the prosecutor must prove.
Start by breaking down the crime of sexual assault into elements and then do kidnapping.
Then find at one piece of evidence, or more, that the prosecutor in the article
used to prove each of those elements.
Then discuss how the defense tried to create reasonable doubt as to the elements
of the crime What evidence did they challenge, and why would challenging
that evidence help lead to reasonable doubt?
In your response to another student, I want you to look for evidence that they
mentioned in their post that you didn't. Comment on the evidence that you found most
important as compared to the
evidence they found important. Make sure to connect the evidence to the elements of