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.
We can't judge, Mr. Peterson's actions to be malicious towards the pretend child. Even though my client, arrived to the residence with pictures and sex toys, he did not commit a crime. Mens Rea, guilty mind, was present in my client. Please note that my client was coerced, tricked. The innocence of my client should still stand in court, until further proof can be presented. Honorable Jury please question the type of relationship this women had with my client. As per my client, they were in an intimate relationship, in which he claimed that she introduced him to child pornography. He claims that she used his home computer to print those pictures, evidence A. After such incident, he ended the relationship. The day my client received the call from that women, inviting him to visit her home, he’d decided to take the pictures and he sex toys back to its rightful owner. Once again, I ask you to re-evaluate and re-consider by questioning XX Police source, the women. My client is willing to be evaluated by a Psychiatrist in order to prove his sanity and reputation.
ReplyDeleteKaren, you make a nice point by claiming that going to woman’s house constitutes “muscular movement.” You could have been more explicit in concluding that this is where the “actus reus” begins. Diana, you come up with explanations for the defendant’s actions, but possessing child pornography is illegal, even if you claim that you merely “printed” them for someone else.
ReplyDelete