Criminal Law

Criminal Law Payne Secret Purpose Innocent but looks guilty Innocent but very dangerous General Deterrence Y N Y -Moral Influence Y N Y -Incapacitation Y Y N Y Rehabilitation Y Y N Y Retribution I. Punishment A. Theories 1. Deterrence a) Deterrence occurs when: Anticipated cost must outweigh the anticipated benefit b) The punishment must be publicized to be justified. c) Utilitarian theory of punishment because inflicting punishment on one person and that suffering in itself is justified by the benefits it brings with it, society benefits because it frightens other potential criminals from committing similar acts. d) Basic assumption – when human beings know about the potential of another’s punishment. e) Possible criticisms: (1) “spontaneous” crime may not be subject to deterrence because it a split-second decision. (2) (3) 2. Self-destructive criminals may not be susceptible. Mentally ill individuals who cannot engage in reasoning. Moral Influence a) Justified when punishing the offender will shape the values of others in society such that they will not desire to commit the crime that the offender has committed. b) Law must be respected as a source of moral guidance and legitimate and just. c) Punishing the criminal educates the majority of people in society because the default condition of human beings is the desire to follow the rules and morals of society. d) It is clear that society will look down upon the person committing the crime. e) The thrust here is that it is educative. f) Assumption: since most people are ethical and want to do the right thing so punishing the criminal instructs the moral/ethical person as to what is and is not ethical. 3. Incapacitation a) Infliction of suffering on the punished person by preventing the person from harming others in the future. b) Conviction for one crime assumes that incapacitation is required to prevent the actor from preventing further criminal acts. (future dangerousness) c) Imprisonment and execution reduce or eliminate the risk that that same individual will commit further offenses. d) Criticism: (1) Incapacitation may be punishing individuals for future crimes. (2) “Understudy effect” – create a market niche for a new person by incapacitating one criminal. (3) 4. Rehabilitation a) Stresses the value of rehabilitating the offender. b) Punishment is justified when it makes the offender less dangerous. c) Utilitarian theory. d) Concentrates on the attempt to rehabilitate the criminal and “fix” his defects. 5. Retribution a) At its essence, simply punishing for bad act when an individual deserves it. b) c) d) Next question is “how much punishment can be met out?” Punishment must match the crime. Focuses on “desert” e) f) g) Bad act No excuse Strongly opposed to utilitarian theory. B. Modern Criminal Law Approach a) Hybrid of retribution and utility. Law acts as though it is all right to punishment when you can satisfy the retributive condition and the utilitarian condition. (1) Retributive condition – must deserve the punishment (2) Utilitarian condition – some way in which punishing offender will bring about a benefit to society. II. Act A. B. C. Modern criminal law must be specific. Act Required Must be voluntary 1. Acts considered involuntary: a) b) c) d) e) f) 2. 3. Physical coercion Commands/threats Seizures/reflexes Hypnotism Unconsciousness Sleep walking Omissions Seizures III. Elements of a Crime A. A (+R) + AC + MS 1. Act (Actus reus) a) General Rule: to be guilty of a crime, the individual must have committed some prohibited act and must be done voluntarily. b) c) Often described in terms of conduct. Sometimes, act in terms of results. (1) Homicide is an example – a death resulting from your actions can be a homicide. d) The assumption is that the act is VOLUNTARY. The basic question is “does it look like the individual is making a choice?” (1) Exceptions: (a) Physical coercion – not voluntary. (b) Threats/commands - (acted under fear or pressure) act is voluntary. (c) Seizures/Reflexes (d) Hypnotism – there is a split in jurisdictions as to whether hypnotism qualifies as voluntary. (e) Unconsciousness (i) Newton case. Unconsciousness may provide a defense to the act. Awareness is the factor that courts most often point to. (ii) If you are not consciously registering what you are doing, you are acting without consciousness. (iii) The actor must be unaware of what he was doing. (iv) (f) e) This is NOT memory. Sleepwalking Omission – When can omissions count as acts? (1) Only under special circumstances, an omission can count as an act and subject the individual to criminal liability. (2) Good Samaritan Statutes (only 6 states—and 3 which are substantial) (a) (b) (c) (d) Fail to act Know there is a grave danger Know you can give reasonable assistance Know you can do so without risk to self. (e) Good Samaritan statutes often are constructed as table below MS Act AC R Knowingly Fail to Help  Person in grave danger  Could give reasonable assistance  W/O danger to self (3) Legal Duty to act cases (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Status Relationship Contract Statutory AC + Seclude Create the risk (4) Question: Can an omission give rise to a manslaughter charge? Is walking away from a drowning person enough to constitute the act (a) Not generally. (b) Jones – a duty of care to an individual may provide basis for omission. (i) Four kinds of cases in which a duty to act exists: (a) Statute imposes duty. (child welfare for parents, foster parents, legal guardians) (b) Status relationship – Some form of legalized relationship. Spousal relationship can give rise to a duty of care. (i) Beardsely – no status relationship existed between defendant and the victim. (ii) The law has not been flexible in recognizing informal relationships like boyfriends, etc. (c) Contractual duty (d) Voluntarily assume care of another and so secluded the helpless person to prevent others from rendering. (c) Situations in which abused spouse acts in self-defense and injures attacker and attacker dies as a result of injury…did spouse have a duty to act due to the status relationship? There is a jurisdictional split. 2. Attendant Circumstances (AC) a) Additional requirements that had to be present at the time of the act for the person to be guilty of the crime. 3. Mental State (MS) Mens rea a) Culpable b) Some crimes require purposely committed…others reckless may be enough. c) What was the actor’s level of intentionality. d) The mental state is crucial in determining the gravity of the crime. e) Certain crimes have a certain hierarchy that arise primarily based on the mental state. f) Model Penal Code drafters came up with 4 distinct mental states. g) MPC Mental States – organized by level of culpability (1) Purposely – conscious object to engage in conduct (if attendant circumstances, then believes and hopes they exist) (a) Exam tip: words like “want” or “desire” indicate a purposeful mental state in a test fact pattern. (2) Knowingly – a) aware that it is b) practically certain that the conduct will cause a certain result. (3) Recklessly – consciously disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. (4) Negligence – should have known of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Failure to recognize a risk must be a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would have recognized. (a) Justification for the difference between a civil negligent standard which generally involves the duty of care breached by an RPP and the need for gross deviation for criminal negligence. h) Common Law Mental State terms – often raised in connection to mens rea. (1) Intent (a) (b) (2) Commonly used Either knowing or purposeful act Transferred intent (a) Legal fiction in which if you intend to inflict injury on one party and when a third party is injured instead, the intent transfers to the person injured. (b) Especially in killing cases, using the doctrine of TI bumps up the crime from manslaughter of the 3rd party to actual murder of that person. (3) Willful (a) Used interchangeably with intent (b) Can also refer to an evil motive. There was an awareness on the part of the individual that he would be breaking the law. (4) Malice (a) (b) (c) Very broad term. Distinguishable from “malice of forethought” Malice = Purpose, or knowledge, or recklessness. (5) General Intent and Specific Intent (a) Introductory definitions: (i) General Intent: requires a culpable or criminal mental state. (mentioned above). (a) Example: Battery is intentional application of unlawful force upon another. There is no mens rea defined in the statute—so this is “general” because the only mental state required would be one that would wish to perform the intentional force. (ii) Specific Intent: a crime that requires purpose. (a) Kaye also adds…not just intent to do the prohibited act, but also some further, special mental state. Crimes that tack on something further and beyond the crime at hand. (b) Specific Intent can generally be found through a definition of a mental state in connection with the criminal act. Look for specific descriptions of the mental state in conjunction with the actus reus in a statutory definition. (c) Example Burglary: Intentional break and enter into some property with intent to create a felony therein. Also conspiracy, theft, premeditated murder. (6) Willful blindness (a) This doctrine satisfies the knowledge requirement (b) Justification: deliberate ignorance and positive knowledge are equally culpable. (c) For example you have a strong suspicion, but deliberately refrain from investigating. Requires almost a calculated effort. (d) Can only be shown when it can be almost said that d actually knew. (7) Strict Liability Act Sell Drugs Sell Drugs near school Murder Involuntary manslaughter Sell drugs Sell drug Some act Some act Result --Cause death Cause death AC -w/in 1000 feet of school --- MS intentionally Intentionally Intentionally… recklessly