Sex crime has become one of the most distressing issues in society today since it has led to massive devastation of victims, lasting trauma, spread of diseases and eventual death. Research studies indicate that offenders carry out sexual violence on their victims as a means of retribution, control or oppression both internationally and domestically. Lippke (2011) points out that sexual crime has become a common occurrence that has long term effects and a host of physical and mental problems. As this paper analyses, criminal liability to most sexual crimes are judged by the common law based on certain elements such as actus reus, mens rea and concurrence.
The article Persistent versus late onset among female offenders: A test of state dependent and population heterogeneity interpretations by Gunnison and McCartan (2010) was first published in December 2010. It explores the issue of sex crimes and female offending, and critically analyses the cause of the criminal behavior by interpreting diverse offending trajectories. Additionally, it examines different causes and reasons why sexual offenders involve themselves in antisocial behaviors and the need for the intervention of justice based on the understanding willful intentions and guilt.
Gunnison and McCartan (2010) point out that many sex crimes are committed by more males than females although both genders commit the crime against their victims in the same manner. It is imperative to point out that among the groups mentioned, different offenders are driven by certain factors that either make them guilty or not. According to the general theory of crime, a criminal behavior and the trait underlying it is guided by lack of self control and life experiences like prior abuse that encourage antisocial behaviors. Indeed, sex crimes are committed by an individual whose attachment with a society is broken or weakened and whose may have been physically abused in the past.
In many different countries, law plays an important role in regulating, controlling and offering appropriate punishment for sexual offenders. Botha (2011) points out that before appropriate punishment for sexual offence is given, an offender must be convicted. A variety of elements of sexual crime such as actus reus and mens rea need to be fully proven and satisfied. In agreement, Gunnison and McCartan (2010) argue using population heterogeneity that the antisocial propensities of sexual offenders spring from poor experiences such as abuse and low self control. This indicates that most sexual crimes may be committed without the actual will of an offender especially when the offender is under the influence of a drug. Adopting mens rea, a prosecutor may therefore fail to prove an offender under the influence of drugs liable for sex crime as it is not committed voluntarily.
In their article, Gunnison and McCartan (2010) continue to point out that most sexual offences display themselves in physical abuses that result to injury or harm. It is imperative to point out that inasmuch as an offender may not have willingly committed a sex offence due to influence of drugs, it qualifies to be an actus reus and deserves punishment as it is an act that invokes pain and harm. Besides, it also is a crime as the offender neglects his role of being responsible and careful about his actions that may have negative effects.
Lastly, in agreement with Botha (2011), a sex crime is justified when the elements of mens rea and actus reus simultaneously occur. It is worth noting that during sex crimes, different events occur within a context, and as such it may be difficult to establish a concurrence between mens rea and actus reus. In some jurisprudence, a sexual crime or any other form of crime cannot be proven when there is no concurrence. However, the single transaction principle differs with jurisprudence since some sexual offences and acts can be committed without mens rea and therefore constitutes crime.
References
Botha, C. (2011). On the record. SA Crime Quarterly, 37, 33-37.
Gunnison, E. & McCartan, L. (2010). Persistent versus late onset among female offenders: A test of state dependent and population heterogeneity interpretations. Western Criminology Review, 11(3), 45-62.
Lippke, R. (2011). Why sex Offending is different. Criminal Justice Ethics, 30(2), 151- 172.