Hi, I am looking for someone to write an article on assault in criminal law Paper must be at least 2000 words. Please, no plagiarized work! In the same way, if the act is reflexive or even convulsive acts then they are not a criminal liability (Damien Falgoust, 1996).

Crimes against a person can be of two types and they are Assault and Battery. Assault is an effort to commit battery, or the intention to form anxiety in the victim thereby inflicting bodily harm. The battery is the application of force which results in injury to a person or is an offensive touch (Damien Falgoust, 1996).

Assault need not arise by actually touching or even harm the victim physically. Assault and battery are occasionally applied interchangeably. Actually the battery is an unfair injurious or unpleasant touching of another. The battery also dissents from assault by not requiring the victim to be in fear of injury (http://lawdigest.uslegal.com retrieved December 3, 2009).

Assault had actually developed in common law through usage, custom, and judicial decisions. It is not a legislative enactment. Present-day assault statutes strictly mirror the antique common-law explanation. An assault is actually a crime as well as a tort because of which an attacker may have to face both criminal and civil responsibility. A criminal assault will give rise to a fine, imprisonment, or even both and in a civil case, the victim will be liable to monetary damages from the attacker (http://lawdigest.uslegal.com retrieved December 3, 2009).

Assault to induce criminal law must be accompanied with specific intent. For instance, an intention to just scare another cannot be termed as an assault. The real test lies in the sense that the act induces an apprehension of fear in the mind of a reasonable person. The condition of the injured party is considered. For example, if a child is threatened then it&nbsp.is sufficient to form an assault, but at the same time, a threat made to an adult is not an assault.&nbsp.&nbsp.

Courts have outlined specific intent as the prejudiced need or information that the illegal consequence will take place (People v. Owens, 131 Mich. App. 76, 345 N.W.2d 904 [1983]). In reality both intent and motive are confusing but they consist of distinct principles and are distinguished in the law.