Peterman/Prosecution

Steven Peterman was told by an acquaintance that there would be a 10-year-old girl in her apartment, which he could have access to. Steven Peterman came to the woman’s house with all intentions on taking sexual advantage of the little girl. Evidence shows that he was into child pornography. Arriving with sex toys to an apartment where being told he could have a 10-year-old child proves that he infact intended on using the sex toys on the little girl. Although the 10-year-old girl was an invention and she didn’t actually exist; he was not aware of that. Mens rea is an expression, which his actions collaborated with. It is clear to see what his intension was, had there been a little girl in that apartment. There is no justification or explanation for what he did and obviously intended to do. Steven Peterman is guilty of attempted rape of a child. Peterman having history on being involved in a child pornography ring is a valid reason to believe he has the potential to commit the crime of taking sexual advantage of a child. Attempting to commit a crime is wanting and choosing to do something against the law. Peterman made his way to the woman’s house with muscular movement. Not being forced to arrive with sex toys or child pornography. If given the opportunity there would have been a 10-year-old raped on the day that he arrived to the woman’s house. Allowing this man to walk free would be taking the innocence away from any child that may come across his path. 

“ Life Boat”

1.    Do you think that the defendants in this case are guilty of murder (see the penal code on p. 2) or were they justified in their action? (See definition on p. 2). Why or why not?

The defendants that are guilty of cold-blooded murder are the men who pushed the swimmers off the boat and the mate who ordered them to be pushed. Although they may have not intend on killing them I would still consider their actions wrong. They didn’t have to listen o the mate. Unfortunately going by the penal code there is in fact much possibility to expect their actions to be considered justifiable. The crew member can argue in a court room that they felt allowing the swimmers aboard would be harmful to them by making the boat heavier and possibly sinking them down. Either way they made it their choice to push them away from the boat where their lives would be jeopardized

2.    Do you think that the actions of the crew were morally right? Why or why not?

The circumstances in this situation make the story very controversial. Some may

Say the crew had no other choice. In my opinion they were wrong. It is understood that in a moment of life or death most people would chose to save their own lives, but to push two swimmers off the boat when trying to survive is cold hearted.  Someone with morals would feel the need to help them even if they do not make it. Pushing those swimmers off the boat was choosing their fate. Choosing weather someone lives or dies is not a choice any human should make on another human. Especially when they are all in the same situation: trying to survive an accident and make it home to their families. I believe that allowing the two swimmers on to the boat is something that should have been done or at least attempted.