Assault, Battery, and Crimes against Persons
Grading for this assignment will be based on answer quality, logic / organization of the paper, and language and writing skills, using the following rubric.
| Points: 190 | Assignment 3: Assault, Battery, and Crimes against Persons | ||||
| Criteria |
Unacceptable | Meets Minimum Expectations |
Fair |
Proficient |
Exemplary |
| 1. Compare and contrast the key similarities and differences between the crime of assault and the crime of battery. Provide one (1) example of each crime to support your response. | Did not submit or incompletely compared and contrasted the key similarities and differences between the crime of assault and the crime of battery. Did not submit or incompletely provided one (1) example of each crime to support your response. | Insufficiently compared and contrasted the key similarities and differences between the crime of assault and the crime of battery. Insufficiently provided one (1) example of each crime to support your response. | Partially compared and contrasted the key similarities and differences between the crime of assault and the crime of battery. Partially provided one (1) example of each crime to support your response. | Satisfactorily compared and contrasted the key similarities and differences between the crime of assault and the crime of battery. Satisfactorily provided one (1) example of each crime to support your response. | Thoroughly compared and contrasted the key similarities and differences between the crime of assault and the crime of battery. Thoroughly provided one (1) example of each crime to support your response. |
| 2. Determine whether or not the jurisdiction in which the crime has occurred should consider the man’s actions as assault. Next, determine whether or not the jurisdiction should punish the man’s actions as battery. Justify your response. | Did not submit or incompletely determined whether or not the jurisdiction in which the crime has occurred should consider the man’s actions as assault. Did not submit or incompletely determined whether or not the jurisdiction should punish the man’s actions as battery. Did not submit or incompletely justified your response. | Insufficiently determined whether or not the jurisdiction in which the crime has occurred should consider the man’s actions as assault. Insufficiently determined whether or not the jurisdiction should punish the man’s actions as battery. Insufficiently justified your response. | Partially determined whether or not the jurisdiction in which the crime has occurred should consider the man’s actions as assault. Partially determined whether or not the jurisdiction should punish the man’s actions as battery. Partially justified your response. | Satisfactorily determined whether or not the jurisdiction in which the crime has occurred should consider the man’s actions as assault. Satisfactorily determined whether or not the jurisdiction should punish the man’s actions as battery. Satisfactorily justified your response. | Thoroughly determined whether or not the jurisdiction in which the crime has occurred should consider the man’s actions as assault. Thoroughly determined whether or not the jurisdiction should punish the man’s actions as battery. Thoroughly justified your response. |
| 3. Suggest one (1) different fact pattern that would change the scenario from assault and / or battery to consensual touching. Support the validity of your response. | Did not submit or incompletely suggested one (1) different fact pattern that would change the scenario from assault and / or battery to consensual touching. Did not submit or incompletely supported the validity of your response. | Insufficiently suggested one (1) different fact pattern that would change the scenario from assault and / or battery to consensual touching. Insufficiently supported the validity of your response. | Partially suggested one (1) different fact pattern that would change the scenario from assault and / or battery to consensual touching. Partially supported the validity of your response. | Satisfactorily suggested one (1) different fact pattern that would change the scenario from assault and / or battery to consensual touching. Satisfactorily supported the validity of your response. | Thoroughly suggested one (1) different fact pattern that would change the scenario from assault and / or battery to consensual touching. Thoroughly supported the validity of your response. |
| 4. Discuss the crime of false imprisonment. Next, debate whether or not the suggested change in Question 3 would allow the court to convict the attacker in order to punish him. Provide a rationale to support your response. | Did not submit or incompletely discussed the crime of false imprisonment. Did not submit or incompletely debated whether or not the suggested change in Question 3 would allow the court to convict the attacker in order to punish him. Did not submit or incompletely provided a rationale to support your response. | Insufficiently discussed the crime of false imprisonment. Insufficiently debated whether or not the suggested change in Question 3 would allow the court to convict the attacker in order to punish him. Insufficiently provided a rationale to support your response. | Partially discussed the crime of false imprisonment. Partially debated whether or not the suggested change in Question 3 would allow the court to convict the attacker in order to punish him. Partially provided a rationale to support your response. | Satisfactorily discussed the crime of false imprisonment. Satisfactorily debated whether or not the suggested change in Question 3 would allow the court to convict the attacker in order to punish him. Satisfactorily provided a rationale to support your response. | Thoroughly discussed the crime of false imprisonment. Thoroughly debated whether or not the suggested change in Question 3 would allow the court to convict the attacker in order to punish him. Thoroughly provided a rationale to support your response. |
| 5. Differentiate between the crimes of false imprisonment and kidnapping. Support and or critique the notion that one of the two crimes is more heinous than the other. Justify your response. | Did not submit or incompletely differentiated between the crimes of false imprisonment and kidnapping. Did not submit or incompletely supported or critiqued the notion that one of the two crimes is more heinous than the other. Did not submit or incompletely justified your response. | Insufficiently differentiated between the crimes of false imprisonment and kidnapping. Insufficiently supported or critiqued the notion that one of the two crimes is more heinous than the other. Insufficiently justified your response. | Partially differentiated between the crimes of false imprisonment and kidnapping. Partially supported or critiqued the notion that one of the two crimes is more heinous than the other. Partially justified your response. | Satisfactorily differentiated between the crimes of false imprisonment and kidnapping. Satisfactorily supported or critiqued the notion that one of the two crimes is more heinous than the other. Satisfactorily justified your response. | Thoroughly differentiated between the crimes of false imprisonment and kidnapping. Thoroughly supported or critiqued the notion that one of the two crimes is more heinous than the other. Thoroughly justified your response. |
| 6. Debate whether or not (A)’s action would require the attacker to defend himself. Provide a rationale to support your response. | Did not submit or incompletely debated whether or not (A)’s action would require the attacker to defend himself. Did not submit or incompletely provided a rationale to support your response. | Insufficiently debated whether or not (A)’s action would require the attacker to defend himself. Insufficiently provided a rationale to support your response. | Partially debated whether or not (A)’s action would require the attacker to defend himself. Partially provided a rationale to support your response. | Satisfactorily debated whether or not (A)’s action would require the attacker to defend himself. Satisfactorily provided a rationale to support your response. | Thoroughly debated whether or not (A)’s action would require the attacker to defend himself. Thoroughly provided a rationale to support your response. |
| 7. 3 references | No references provided | Does not meet the required number of references; all references poor quality choices. | Does not meet the required number of references; some references poor quality choices. | Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices. | Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices. |
| 8. Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements | More than 8 errors present | 7-8 errors present | 5-6 errors present | 3-4 errors present | 0-2 errors present |
