Crim Law Outline

Introduction
Method of Analysis
Spot the Issue
State the Rule
State all Standards under the Rule
Apply Facts from Both Sides
Conclude
Theories of Punishment
What is punishment?
Types of Punishment
Incarceration
Effect
Takes them out of society
Problem
jails are overcrowded
not very rehabilitative
Death Penalty
Community Service
Probation
Fine
Difference between Civil Commitment and Criminal Punishment
The stigma of being a “criminal”
Philosophical Views on Punishment
Utilitarian
punishment improves society – prevents or minimalizes criminal behavior
Retributive
the punishment is deserved because the offender has engaged in a wrongful act
Why punish?
Retribution
General
You have to “pay” for a crime
Wrongdoer deserves punishment
Backwards looking
individuals are responsible moral agents capable of making choice between right and wrong
punishment is appropriate for wrong choices
Problems
Some things you can’t pay back
Model of vengeance
Continues cycle of anger
Who gets to decide society’s morality
Examples
Purpose
the court wanted to send the message that what the sailor did was wrong (Dudley)
the times matter: there it was of industrial revolution and the emergence of darwinism
Deterrence
General
Bentham had the theory that if the cost of the crime is greater than the benefit, the crime wont be committed
Pain and pleasure analysis: if a man perceives pain to be the consequence of an action, the person will withdraw from that action
Forward looking
Special v General
Special = the individual
General = society
Works best with white collar crimes
Problems
Assumes that people are rational – often crimes are of passion
Recitivism
Problem with general: wrong to punish people to serve as an example for another (Kant)
the converse argument is
People refrain from crime on moral grounds– threats of punishment have little influence
What if people want to go to jail (article)
Examples
Not a purpose
if you didn’t eat the person, you would have died anyway – essentially elongated your life (Dudley)
Incapacitation
General
It means locking people up so they cant do any more crimes
Institutionalization is another way of incapacitation
Problems
Presumes that they wont commit the crime in prison
People commit crimes between the ages of 14-24 so that means we may be incapacitating the wrong people
Cost – 34k a year
Examples
Not a purpose
not a danger to society (Dudley) the sailor would be put to death
Rehabilitation
General
Makes people better
Rehabilitation isn’t effective in prisons
some people learn how to become better criminals in prison
Problems
Assumes people can or will change
Capacity to kill is usually developed by age 5
Costs money
Examples
Defendant’s arguments:
you don’t need to deter because he has learned from his mistake
no need to incapacitate because he wont do it again
retribution has taken place because the stigma is enough punishment
Theories of Crime
What to punish?
Link between Morality and Law
Where do we get morality? (Bowers)
Common law
Lawrence rejects this saying times have changed – example: slavery
States law
Lawrence rejects this saying the states laws against sodomy were being ignored
Judeo-Christian Morals
problem: we aren’t all Judeo-Christian
separation of church and state
Foreign
problem: its foreign, its their morality
even though laws are based on morality, there is no such thing as a victimless crime because often society is the victim
Problem with over-criminalization:
You stigmatize the law
Articles: Christmas present, homeless in Nevada
Discriminatory enforcement
Article: Parents criminally liable – what about single parents
Law enforcement resources
Examples: Senator Craig and Pee Wee Herman
Legality
Types of Common Law Crimes
malum in se
Bad crimes that are bad in themselves
Example:
murder
sodomy (debate early over this)
malum prohibitum
crime because the legislature said it is
bad because they are prohibited
Felony
crime punishable for more than 1 year
Misdemeanor
punishment is 1 year or less
Use of Common Law
essentially, our laws are derived from English common law and in the past, states have still used common law even with the emergence of statute
Example: Mochan
Court upheld PA statute which held that common law crimes were in force except if it had been abrogated by statute
thus, even though there were no laws against the crime, there was a vague general common law crime (phone call with lewd language)
Dissent (problems with this view)
Law is too vague as to violate due process – no notice
Separation of powers problem – should be left to legislature
Present view:
We have dumped common law, and crimes are spelt out in statutes, however common law defines some statutes
Model Penal Code
Proving elements
a crime is A.R. + M.R. + (circumstance + result) = crime --- must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt
Criminal Justice System
Elements of Crime
Actus Reus
Definition
a criminal act
thoughts don’t suffice
you haven’t inflicted any harm
hard to prove what they are thinking
we don’t know if its their intent
Two Types
Positive/Affirmative Act
Omission
Voluntary Requirement
Why is it required?
Because the purposes of punishment wont apply unless it is a voluntary act
MPC 2.01(1)
A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable
When is it voluntary?
MPC 2.01(2)
defines voluntary by stating what is involuntary (everything else is involuntary)
Involuntary Actions
reflex or convulsion
People v Newton
Defendant was in shock, he was acquitted because shooting the gun was not a conscious act
a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep
Somnambulism examples:
lady that was sleep walking and killed her daughter because she thought she was in a war in Korea
handout: rape in sleep
conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion
a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual
Martin
Actus reus cant be established b/c the defendant was involuntarily and forcibly carried to that place by the arresting officer
grand canyon example
not his movement, someone else’s movement
What do all the involuntary acts have in common?
the brain is not engaged, automatism - the body is acting and the brain is not engaged
Questionable involuntary acts:
Acts done out of habit
Courts have said the brain is engaged therefore its voluntary
Driving with epilepsy
Voluntary if you knew that you possibly could have an epileptic episode (Decina)
When does the voluntary act begin?
Acceptable stretch
Voluntarily driving when you know you could have an epileptic seizure (Decina)
Too far of a stretch
Voluntarily choosing to drink then police takes you out to public (Martin)
Burden of proof
since the presence of voluntary act is a necessary element of every crime, the prosecution always bears the burden of proving that act, and its voluntary character, beyond a reasonable doubt
Voluntary HYPOS
Voluntary
Quickly raising your hand to respond to a question, hitting someone’s head accidentally (habit)
Swinging at an insect but hitting someone instead
Involuntary
Raising your hand in your sleep
Muscle spasm (reflex)
Someone pushes you into someone else (bodily movement not product of the defendant)
Omission
Definition
Failure to act
Prime example: someone gets hurt and you didn’t do anything
General Rule
You have no duty to act unless there is a statute that requires you to act
Rationale
american tradition
impracticality of requirement
deflect responsibility from real perpetrator
dangers in helping
Exceptions to the General Rule
where a statute imposes a duty to care for another
Since the defendant did not fit under the child abuse statute, she did not fit under the exception and therefore the general rule applied (Pope)
where one stands in a certain status relationship to another
parent to child
siblings don’t count
slight exception
if the mother fears her own life from her husband – must be reasonably calculated
husband to wife
master to apprentice
ship’s master to crew and passengers
innkeeper to inebriated customers
where one has assumed a contractual duty to care for another
example
babysitter
lifeguard
where one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rending aid
can be seen as a positive act or omission
Distinguishing a positive fact from an omission
Courts sometimes will arbitrarily draw the line between a positive act and omission
Example
cessation of life support
“the cessation of heroic life support measures is not an affirmative act but rather a withdrawal or omission of further treatment” (Barber)
MPC 2.01(3)
Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless:
the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense OR
a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law
Mens Rea
General
Definition of Mens Rea
vicious will (blameworthiness on a broad level)
mental state
you have to have the act and vicious will at the same time
Mens rea is important for:
to decide whether someone is guilty of a crime at all
if they are guilty, at what level
Levels of Mens Rea
Purposely
Definition
purpose or aim to cause the harm – goal
this is the highest level
all purposes of punishment apply
called “specific intent” at common law
MPC 2.02(2)(A)
A person acts purposeful with respect to a material element when:
if the element involves the nature of his conduct or as a result, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result AND
if the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist
Example HYPO
Cunningham wanted Wade to inhale the poison gas because he wanted her to suffer
motive
“because he wanted her to suffer”
Motive is not an element of a crime (it helps to prove purpose but it is not separately required)
It becomes important during sentencing
purpose
for her to inhale gas
Knowingly
Definition
Practically/virtually certain that you will cause the harm
Specific intent
Note: Jewell Doctrine (see below)
MPC 2.02(2)(b)
A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element if
if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct AND
if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result
Example HYPO
Cunningham hoped that by some miracle Ward would not inhale the poison gas but he knew that it was virtually certain that she would do so
Recklessly
Definition
Conscious disregard of the risk – he realized the risk and took it anyway (subjective test)
General intent
This is the default standard
MPC 2.02(2)(c)
a person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when
he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable riskAND
it must be a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe
Example HYPO
Cunningham did not know for sure that Ward would inhale the gas but he considered the possibility that she might do so and decided to take the chance
Negligently
Definiton
Should be aware (objective)
General intent
MPC 2.02(2)(d)
A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when
he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk AND
it must be a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation
Example HYPO
Cunningham did not think of the possibility that Ward might inhale the gas, but if he’d used his common sense he would have realized that this was a significant risk
Strict Liability (added by prof, not in model penal code)
no mens rea
Example HYPO
Cunningham didn’t realize that there was any risk of Ward inhaling the gas, and even if he’d used ordinary common sense he wouldn’t have realized it, since the gas leaked through a small crack in an apparently solid wall
General Notes on Mens Rea Levels
Default level is reckless
MPC 2.02(3)
When the culpability (mens rea) sufficient to establish a material element of an offense is not prescribed by law, such element is established if a person acts purposely, knowingly or recklessly
this means if the statute doesn’t indicate what level of mens rea is required, there must be a minimum of recklessly
Example
the statute required that the crime be done “maliciously”
since we don’t know what level of mens rea that falls under, we default to recklessly (Cunningham)
(practice statutes on page 226)
“Substantial and unjustifiable risk”
This is required to show that its unjustified
Motive v Intent
intent is how much thought you have given to it
motive was why, what was your secondary purpose
motive is not an element of a crime
motive helps prove intent
Proving Intent
Look to
actions
statements
motive
Distinguishing Reckless from Knowledge (Jewell Doctrine)
Note: this is only useful if the statute requires a minimum mens rea level of knowingly
Normally, if you aren’t virtually certain that you are doing something illegal and you are only suspicious, its reckless but with the Jewell Doctrine, it gets bumped up to knowingly
court says if you realize the risk and you intentionally avoid, its good enough to equal knowingly --- deliberate ignorance (Jewell)
defendant was crossing the border, did not know marijuana was present but evidence that shows that the defendant deliberately avoided positive knowledge of the presence
“to act knowingly (is not necessarily to act only with positive knowledge) but also is to act with an awareness of the high probability of the existence of the fact in question” – when such awareness is present, “positive” knowledge is not required
MPC 2.02(7)
requires an awareness of a high probability that a fact exists, not merely a reckless disregard
Contrast with failure to display curiosity
HYPO: gambling house
Mistake of Fact
Types of Elements
Material
You need to know them/defense
Jurisdiction/Immaterial
You don’t need to know them/not a defense
Rule
that which makes the conduct morally wrong --- the act is wrong in itself
you need to know the material elements of the offense
Example
Prince
it was morally wrong to take a girl without dad’s permission he doesn’t have to know whether she was underage
Burden of Proof
Prosecution always has to prove the elements of the crime HOWEVER the prosecution only has to prove that the defendant only knew of the material
Note
just search the statute for things that are wrong in itself
example
Statute: crime to knowingly kick another, causing a bruise, while the other person is studying torts
material element is just to knowingly kick another
if the defendant is mistaken as to a material element that does not require mens rea, then the defense will not apply
remember to look for that which makes the conduct wrong and put the knowing in front of that
MPC 2.04
(1) ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense if
the ignorance or mistake negatives the purposes, knowledge, belief, recklessness or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense OR
the law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense
Determining Materiality of Elements
look to language of the statute
if a statute affixes a mens rea requirement to a particular fact, then the defendant must meet that mens rea requirement to be guilty of the crime
Note:
mens rea doesn’t have to be express:
if its morally wrong/a common law crime, then the mens rea is implied and other elements become jurisdiction
example: Regina v Prince
legislative history
purpose of the statute
policy arguments and common sense
what makes the conduct wrong?
Example:
it was morally wrong to assault a person, being a federal officer is a jurisdictional element (Feola)
More Examples
statute: knowingly taking the property of another
there is nothing morally wrong with taking your property – thus you must know that you are taking the property of another (that what makes your conduct wrong)
statute: knowingly bringing a controlled substances into the U.S.
U.S. is a jurisdiction element
Strict Liability
Why do we have strict liability?
too many cases to make it a mens rea requirement
stigma is not high
slight penalty
regulatory crimes
Definition
cases where liability was imposed without any demonstrated culpability, not even negligence, with respect to at least one of the material elements of the offense
no fault required
no mens rea requirement as to the key element of the offense that makes the defendant’s behavior wrong
Statutory Language
just because a statute doesn’t have intent – it doesn’t mean we have strict liability --- we can infer intent
“as the state codified the common law of crimes, even if their enactments were silent on the subject, their courts assumed that the omission did not signify disapproval of the principle but merely recognized that intent was so inherent in the idea of the offense that it required no statutory affirmation
This essentially means that if it’s a common law crime, the intent requirement is presumed (Morissette)
common law crimes are crimes that we essentially were taught we bad growing up
Examples of Strict Liability Offenses