I’m studying for my Law class and need an explanation.
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? Response has to be only one long paragraphs or two seperate ones.