Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,543 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Simpson v State said:
"Because a crime is by definition a public wrong against the State, it is not usually an acceptable defense that the person wronged by a criminal has condoned the offense.â€
Emphasis mine*
Quote from a case I'm reading (BRADLEY v. STATE (2001)) they quoted the above quote from Simpson v State (1994). Link to Bradley: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of- ... note_ref_6 Couldn't find Simpson online anywhere.

Thoughts?

if you want to try to look up Simpson: Simpson v. State, 214 Ga.App. 587, 588(2), 448 S.E.2d 370 (1994).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,543 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Ok so ~30 views, no comments. Let me ask a more specific question.

For the first part: "Because a crime is by definition a public wrong against the State". If I steal your TV, how have I "wronged" the State?

For the second part: "it is not usually an acceptable defense that the person wronged by a criminal has condoned the offense" If me and you beat up my TV, can you still be charged with destruction of property?

Thirdly how does it go from "public wrong against the State" to "the person wronged"? Don't those contradict each other?
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,102 Posts
Usually, if you give somebody permission to do something, it's not a crime at all!
You can destroy your own TV. You can let somebody else do it.
That is, as long as it is only your TV, not jointly owned, and not being used as collateral for a loan, and not covered by an insurance policy.
It is a crime in Georgia to destroy insured property without permission of the insurer.

But some bad acts are important enough (anti-social enough) that we want to be able to prosecute them even if the "victim" is indifferent, or is buddies with the offender and wants to drop the charges.

Example: Two brothers having a knock-down drag-out fight in a public place. They're brothers-- neither one wants to press charges on the other. But they still committed the crime of assault and battery, public disturbance, disorderly conduct, etc. The whole community's morals were offended by this public display, so the State can prosecute it (assuming they have good witnesses besides the brothers-- don't expect either brother to be a witness in court).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,117 Posts
Simpson v State, 214 Ga. App. 587 - Ga: Court of Appeals 1994
Simpson v State said:
"Because a crime is by definition a public wrong against the State, it is not usually an acceptable defense that the person wronged by a criminal has condoned the offense. [Cit.]" Pratt v. State, 167 Ga. App. 819, 820 (307 SE2d 714) (1983).
Ok, the citation comes from Pratt.
Pratt v. State said:
A "criminal offense" is generally defined as an act committed in violation of a public statute forbidding it, and is an offense against the sovereign. 21 AmJur2d 115, Crim. Law, § 1. While the same act is a criminal offense against the State, it may also be a private wrong against an individual â€" a tort. The remedy for the private wrong is pursued in a civil proceeding at the discretion of the individual wronged, whereas a criminal offender is proceeded against by the State. 22 CJS 11, Crim. Law, § 4. In the instant case, both the defendant and his grandmother admit that there was no prior consent. However, the defendant asserts "ratification" of his prior acts by his grandmother as a defense. Although the defendant and some Georgia cases state "ratification" is a defense (Holsey v. State, 4 Ga. App. 453 (61 SE 836); McDilda v. State, 85 Ga. App. 348, 353-354 (69 SE2d 627)), a more apt term would be "condonation." See generally 1 Burdick, The Law of Crime 244, § 191; 1 Wharton's Crim. Law & Procedure 268, § 125; 2 Brill, Cyclopedia Criminal Law 1445; 22 CJS 132, Crim. Law, § 41; 21 AmJur2d 345, Crim. Law, § 190. Because a crime is by definition a public wrong against the State, it is not usually an acceptable defense that the person wronged by a criminal has condoned the offense. Id. Neither repayment of the victim nor settlement between the defendant and victim will constitute a bar to conviction of the offender. Williams v. State, 105 Ga. 606 (2) (31 SE 546); Lowe v. State, 111 Ga. 650, 652 (36 SE 856).
Emphasis mine.

Seems the highlighted comes from academic sources.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,543 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Thanks for finding that. :righton: I got some more reading to do now. :mrgreen:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
865 Posts
Because a crime is by definition a public wrong against the State, it is not usually an acceptable defense that the person wronged by a criminal has condoned the offense.
Am I the only person that finds that nauseating?
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,102 Posts
Well, how about in the context of domestic violence?
Consider a woman who was raised in a violent household, and who watched her father slap her mother around, and who now thinks that's normal and accepts it.
Now she's an adult and married to an abusive husband who argues with her daily and slaps her across the chops weekly.
Gives her a black eye or a split lip a few times per year.
Wifey still loves her man, and accepts that he's just the way God made him, imperfect, but she can put up with it.
The State finds out and has him arrested and will prosecute him.
She and Hubby say that such behavior was consensual. They both agreed before they were married that a little physical slapping was OK, and normal for their relationship.

Should the State get a conviction based on its own laws, even when the "victim" does not consider herself the victim of a crime, and she does not want to prosecute?

I think so!!

(P.S. Naturally Wifey has a privilege not to testify against Hubby at his trial. But the State might have evidence of the abuse from other sources that will be strong enough to convict.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,543 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
gunsmoker said:
Well, how about in the context of domestic violence?
Consider a woman who was raised in a violent household, and who watched her father slap her mother around, and who now thinks that's normal and accepts it.
Now she's an adult and married to an abusive husband who argues with her daily and slaps her across the chops weekly.
Gives her a black eye or a split lip a few times per year.
Wifey still loves her man, and accepts that he's just the way God made him, imperfect, but she can put up with it.
The State finds out and has him arrested and will prosecute him.
She and Hubby say that such behavior was consensual. They both agreed before they were married that a little physical slapping was OK, and normal for their relationship.

Should the State get a conviction based on its own laws, even when the "victim" does not consider herself the victim of a crime, and she does not want to prosecute?

I think so!!

(P.S. Naturally Wifey has a privilege not to testify against Hubby at his trial. But the State might have evidence of the abuse from other sources that will be strong enough to convict.)
This is why I'm torn on the issue. I feel that if you're OK with it, then that should be fine. However, I know how many victims of DV are brainwashed/conditioned to believe it is OK/normal even when its not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
865 Posts
Fair enough. In any case where one person gives consent to another to break a law that protects the first person, psychoanalyze or perform whatever other procedure is necessary to determine mental competence. If the person is mentally competent, let both of them go. If the person is not, prosecute the second person and put the first person into a mental institution. A person who is incompetent to determine whether she wants someone to hit her is incompetent to pilot a four thousand pound steel box propelled by continuous explosion at seventy miles an hour down a crowded interstate.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top