Breaking and entering, just by entering a private premise without permission.
Causing bodily harm, possibly grievous harm, depending on what consequences it has for the victim and how the jurisdiction defines grievous harm.
A prosecutor might also insinuate that the defendant had a sexual motive...
Causing bodily harm is usually called "Battery" in a legal language. Assault usually refers the the threat of bodily harm OR unwanted but unharmful body contact. I also fail to see how the prosecutor would prove the act was sexual in nature. The fact that I eat a sandwich means I'm hungry... not a food fetishist.
@PMF Given the lifespan of the mosquito the suit would probably become moot before you could get a judgment, assuming that you can overcome the issue of serving the right one with process. And, they would be "infants" so you'd have to appoint a guardian ad litem for them before you could get a judgment.
Breaking and entering with intent to commit the second bullet point would often constitute the crime of burglary.
This talking about humans vs. animals and other non-humans in the court system reminds me of a murder case in the US, in which the defendant was successfully convicted, where the key witness was a parrot. The thing was, both she and her husband were shot, and he died. The cops originally thought a third party shot both. However the parrot, while the wife was apparently in the hospital or whatever, came under the care of another individual, who kept hearing it continually recite things that were said at the time of the murder. The court treated the parrot basically as an audio recording.
Regarding the "not a human" defense, I'm not sure that would hold any water - many laws are drafted to apply to persons, not humans specifically. Many laws still apply to legal persons who are not human, the most common example being corporations. A vampire may not legally be a human, but they are almost certainly legally a person.
My first reaction about the non-human angle, is that AFAIK laws apply to persons rather than humans. Corporations would evade laws if they only applied to humans. So the question would be more whether the vampire is a person, and whether they're subject to the law of the land, or a rabid animal to be put down.
Legal people are treated like natural people in civil law, but not in criminal law. When actions taken on behalf of a corporation constitute a crime, then you prosecute the employees and/or owners of the corporation, not the corporation as a legal person itself. How would criminal punishment against a corporation even look? How would a corporation serve a prison sentence?
@komodosp Wouldn't it also be theft is someone stole life-saving medication they can not afford? And it's not like there aren't alternatives. Before the vampire resorts to breaking into houses and drinking from sleeping people, they could ask a doctor to prescribe them regular blood transfusions. Or if the blood must be fresh, then they could ask people to drink their blood with their consent, perhaps by offering them money for the service.
@Philipp Most jurisdictions in the U.S. authorize criminal prosecutions against corporations, although sentencing if convicted is different. Corporations cannot be incarcerated but then can be subject to criminal fines and even have their licenses to do business and charters forfeited. Some notable cases of corporations prosecuted criminally include a utility company in California that caused a deadly wildfire through gross negligence and Arthur Anderson in a destruction of records case (a conviction vacated on appeal after the company was already dead for reasons other than being an entity).
@Trish we consider vampires as dead because that is what fiction says, but if you look at it they are not dead in any way, shape or form. They died and came back, we can do that at hospitals. Vampires, breathe, feed, reproduce and can be killed, they are 100% alive.
@Trish still hardly a "My client does not breathe therefore he can't be punished for their actions" no sane person would consider a vampire "dead" no matter how quirky
If a vampire argued they were dead, then by definition putting a stake through their heart and cutting off their head before filling their mouth with garlic, can't be murder or killing. It would be a very foolish lawyer who would argue that way, because the moment the client asserted that, anyone can do anything and charges would be at most for things like interfering with police officers (if they did) or court processes. (And even then, "They were dead before, they are dead now, what exactly is it my client is alleged to have done, apart from cause a cleaning job and save some.paperwork?")
Similarly, corporations acquire personhood because of legislation and custom that grants them it. But that isn't a thing extended to other things that may look or act sentient, or resemble people in shape. It hasnt happened for any other Great Apes despite closeness sentience tool or (sign) language use, and if strong AI happens, it won't happen to AI's automatically either. I wouldn't count on winning an argument that its a "person" much less a human person. The court is far more likely to conclude 1) it isn't, 2) no precedent 3) its a matter for the legislature to rule on, if they wish it.
@Polygnome: Since some vampires make everything sexy. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VampiresAreSexGods Depends on the case whether that applies or not, but there are enough sexy vampires in fiction that it's worth mentioning the possibility.
@MaciejPiechotka - no. A vampire if dead may be legally a corpse... But even if a corpse isn't deemed legally alive or a person, it can still be legally deemed dangerous (think of a plague victim). A court can recognise a vampire as dangerous without recognizing it as alive or a person. Needing to take emergency action to prevent immediate present danger from this here dead body, and stake through heart seems to be the way..... a court could choose that as a defence without admitting its alive or a person,or breaking anything legal.
@Panzercrisis bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40665520 "The parrot, an African Grey named Bud, was not used in the court proceedings." ... "A prosecutor in Michigan initially considered using the parrot's squawkings as evidence in the murder trial, but this was later dismissed. The prosecutor added that it was unlikely that the bird would be called to the stand to testify as a witness during the trial."
Discussion on answer by Philipp: If v…
Discussion on answer by Philipp: If v…