Unit I: Criminal Law
This first unit is devoted to gaining an understanding of the criminal system in this country. This unit will approach the criminal justice system from a legal standpoint as opposed to a psychological or sociological approach. The unit begins with a theoretical examination of why and when we need punishment to thwart certain activities. From there, the unit will turn to a close look at specific crimes. At the end of the unit, you should have a firm grasp of various crimes and their boundaries.
I. Theories of Punishment
Theories of Punishment: Shipwrecked Sailors
Three Sailors on an ocean going freighter were cast adrift in a life raft after their ship sank during a storm in the Atlantic Ocean. The ship went down so suddenly that there was no time to send out a SOS. As far as the three sailors knew, they were the only survivors. In the raft, they had no food or water. They had no fishing gear or other equipment that might be used to get food from the ocean.
After recovering from the shock of the shipwreck, the three sailors began to discuss their situation. Dudley, the ship’s navigator, figured that they were at least one thousand miles from land and that the storm had blown them far from where any ships would normally pass. Stephens, the ship’s doctor, indicated that without food they could not live longer than thirty days. The only nourishment they could expect was from any rain that might fall from time to time. He noted, however, that if one of the three died before the others, the other two could live awhile longer by eating the body of the third. On the twenty-fifth day, the third sailor, Brooks, who by this time was extremely weak, suggested that they all draw lots and that the loser be killed and eaten by other two. Both Dudley and Stephens agreed. The next day, lots were drawn and Brooks lost. At this point, Brooks objected and refused to consent. However, Dudley and Stephens decided that Brooks would die soon anyway, so they might as well get it over with. After thus agreeing, they killed and ate Brooks. Five days later, Dudley and Stephens were rescued by a passing ship and brought to port. They explained what happened to Brooks. The authorities arrested them for the murder of Brooks.
Murder is defined as the intentional killing of another person.
Questions to Consider:
1. Explain the theories behind punishing criminals.
2. What assumptions exist to justify each theory?
3. Which theory do you support most?
4. If you were Dudley and Stephen’s attorney, what arguments would you make on their behalf?
5. If you were the attorney for the state, what arguments would you make?
6. If you were the judge and the jury found them guilty of murder, what punishment would you impose upon them?
II. How Courts Work
Stare Decisis and Precedent
Judges have a great deal of freedom to modify legal rules and principles in accordance with social norms and their view of justice and common sense. The concepts of precedent and stare decisis serve as important checks on this judicial freedom and insure that the law develops in an orderly fashion. One of the fundamental notions of the legal system is that courts look to previous decisions for guidance in deciding the cases before them. Previous decisions involving similar questions are known as precedent, and their usefulness is premised on the idea that an issue once decided should not be re-examined and decided anew. Reliance on precedent guarantees that similar cases are decided according to the same principles and helps the courts in making more efficient decisions. In addition, durable rules assist people in planning their activities, encourage confidence in the legal system and reinforce the social norms they define.
The value of precedent is reinforced by the principle of stare decisis. Where precedent merely requires that courts look at previous decisions for guidance, stare decisis requires that a court follow its own decisions and the decisions of higher courts within its jurisdiction. That is, a state trial court must follow its own decisions and any decision of that state’s appellate and Supreme Court. The same is true for federal courts.
In theory, the concepts of precedent and stare decisis seem absolute. In practice, the opposite is true. The inherent ambiguities of verdicts allow judges significant latitude even when dealing with binding precedent. Finally, courts often find it impossible to follow previous decisions because the earlier decision is inconsistent with their sense of morality or justice. When this happens, a court may simply overrule a previous precedent and chart a new course. The practice of overturning binding precedent is rare and courts are reluctant to do it.
Common Law Analysis
There is a difference between common law and statutory law. “Common law” is a phrase used to describe the collective body of judicial decisions in cases about a particular legal question. Statutory law, like it sounds, is law (statutes or codes) enacted by state or federal legislatures.
Once a lawyer has determined which cases are relevant to the question in her case, she must begin her analysis of both statutory law and common law. The common law is more complicated. The primary method of analysis lawyers use to determine the importance of a case involves two basic questions: (1) How are the decided cases similar to my client’s case? and (2) How are the decided cases different from my client’s case? The more similar the cases are, the more the doctrines of precedent and stare decisis dictate the application of their conclusions to the present case. Conversely, the more different the cases are, the less relevant they should be.
Common law analysis must be taken on several related levels. Lawyers must first look at the actual facts of the decided cases and compare them with the facts of their case. They must then examine the reasons and policies stated in the decided cases and see if these reasons and policies apply to their case. Much of this analysis will concentrate on why they believe a fact to be significant. Consequently, lawyers should always be aware of similarities and differences in both the factual situations and underlying policies of their case and the decided cases.
When dealing with cases that have reached a decision favorable to a client’s position, lawyers must make an argument that the factual situation in that case is similar to their case. If the decision is unfavorable, they must demonstrate that the facts of that case are different from those in their client’s case. Finally, they should be aware of their opponent’s position. His lawyer will be conducting the same analysis and you should be prepared to demonstrate why her common law analysis is not valid.
III. Elements of the Criminal Law – The Act and Mental State
People v. Shaughnessy (1971)
JOHN LOCKMAN, Judge
41
On October 9, 1970, shortly before 10 p.m., the defendant in the company of her boyfriend and two other youngsters proceeded by automobile to the vicinity of the St. Ignatius Retreat Home … The defendant was a passenger and understood that she was headed for the Christopher Morley Park which is located across the street from St. Ignatius Retreat Home and has an illuminated sign with letter approximately 8 inches high, which identifies the park. As indicated, on the other side of the street, the St. Ignatius Retreat Home has two pillars at its entrance with a bronze sign on each pillar with 4 to 5 inch letters. The sign is not illuminated. The vehicle in which the defendant was riding proceeded into the grounds of the Retreat House and was stopped by a watchman and the occupants including the defendant waited approximately 20 minutes for a policeman to arrive. The defendant never left the automobile.
The defendant is charged with violating Section 1 of the Ordinance prohibiting entry upon private property…
The problem presented by the facts in this case brings up for review the primary elements that are required for criminal accountability and responsibility. It is only from an accused voluntary overt acts the criminal responsibility can attach. An overt act … must occur in order for the establishment of a criminal offense.
The physical element required has been designated by Actus Reus. The mental element is of course better known as Mens Reas. While the mental element may under certain circumstances not be required as in crimes that are designated Malum Prohibitum. The Actus Reas is always necessary. It cannot be held to be the intent of the legislature to punish involuntary acts.
The legislature may prescribe that an act is criminal without regard to the doer’s intent or knowledge, but an involuntary act is not criminal (with certain exceptions such as involuntary acts resulting from voluntary intoxication). In the case at bar, the People have failed to establish any act on the part of the defendant. She merely was a passenger in a vehicle. Any action taken by the vehicle was caused by the driver and not the defendant. If the defendant were to be held guilty under these circumstances, it would dictate that she would be guilty if she were unconscious or asleep at the time or even if she had been a prisoner in the automobile. There are many situations which can be envisioned and in which the trespass statute in question would be improperly applied to an involuntary act. One might conceive of a driver losing control of a vehicle through mechanical failure and the vehicle proceeding onto private property which is subject to trespass.
Although the court need not pass on the question, it might very well be proper to hold the driver responsible for his act even though he was under the mistaken belief that he was on his way to Morley Park. The legislature has provided statutes which make mistakes of fact or lack of knowledge no excuse in a criminal action. However, if the driver had been a defendant, the people could have established an act on the part of the defendant driver, to wit, turning his vehicle into the private property.
In the case of the defendant now before the Court, however, the very first and essential element is criminal responsibility is missing, an overt voluntary act…
41
Questions to Consider:
1. In the abstract, what must be present in all crimes?
2. Why do we not punish bad thoughts?
3. How does the Court in Shaugnessy define an Act for criminal law?
IV. Homicide
The term “homicide” refers generically to the act of killing another human being. Thus, under the heading of homicide one finds the crimes of murder and manslaughter. The similarity between these two crimes is that someone’s actions caused the death of another human being. Aside from that similarity, the two crimes could not be more different. The main difference is defendant’s mental state at the time of the act which caused death. Finally, not all acts that cause death are criminal. When you read the following cases in this section, pay particular attention to the mental states of the defendants.
A. The Act Of Homicide
Keeler v. The Superior Court Of Amador County (1970).
41
Petitioner and Teresa Keeler obtained an interlocutory decree of divorce on September 27, 1968. They had been married for 16 years. Unknown to petitioner, Mrs. Keeler was then pregnant by one Ernest Vogt, whom she had met earlier that summer. She subsequently began living with Vogt in Stockton, but concealed the fact from petitioner. On February 23, 1969, Mrs. Keeler was driving on a narrow mountain road in Amador County after delivering the girls to their home. She met petitioner driving in the opposite direction; he blocked the road with his car, and she pulled over to the side. He walked to her vehicle and began speaking to her. He seemed calm, and she rolled down her window to hear him. He said, "I hear you're pregnant. If you are you had better stay away from the girls and from here." She did not reply, and he opened the car door; as she later testified, "He assisted me out of the car. . . . [It] wasn't roughly at this time." Petitioner then looked at her abdomen and became "extremely upset." He said, "You sure are. I'm going to stomp it out of you." He pushed her against the car, shoved his knee into her abdomen, and struck her in the face with several blows. She fainted, and when she regained consciousness petitioner had departed.
Mrs. Keeler drove back to Stockton, and the police and medical assistance were summoned. She had suffered substantial facial injuries, as well as extensive bruising of the abdominal wall. A Caesarian section was performed and the fetus was examined in utero. Its head was found to be severely fractured, and it was delivered stillborn. The pathologist gave as his opinion that the cause of death was skull fracture with consequent cerebral hemorrhaging, that death would have been immediate, and that the injury could have been the result of force applied to the mother's abdomen. There was no air in the fetus' lungs, and the umbilical cord was intact.
Upon delivery the fetus weighed five pounds and was 18 inches in length. Both Mrs. Keeler and her obstetrician testified that fetal movements had been observed prior to February 23, 1969. The evidence was in conflict as to the estimated age of the fetus, the expert testimony on the point, however, concluded "with reasonable medical certainty" that the fetus had developed to the stage of viability, i.e., that in the event of premature birth on the date in question it would have had a 75 percent to 96 percent chance of survival.