I. Purposes of Punishment
A. Retribution
· retributivist theory holds that a ∆ “deserves” to be punished b/c he has violated the riled of society
· Punishment constitutes the ∆’s payback for having committed the offense.
· “eye for an eye”
· ∆ should be punished regardless of whether other persons will be deterred b/c society must send a message that its moral norms cannot be violated
· Criticized for legitimizing vengeance and inflicting pain even when it cannot be shown that punishment will promote the greater good
B. Deterrence
· utilitarian theory holds that we must punish criminals to deter other individuals from committing the same crime
· Criminals weigh the advantages and disadvantages of their acts before committing a crime. Punishment increases the cost of criminal behavior and thereby provides a disincentive to commit in the future.
· Two types: General & Specific
– General : punishment inflicted to deter others from committing the ∆’s crime
– Specific : punishment inflicted to deter that individual ∆ from repeating his criminal behavior.
· Criticized for being ineffective in those cases in which a criminal is motivated by emotions, not rational decision & whether it is just to punish one person to control the behavior of others
C. Rehabilitation
· Utilitarian theory that calls for a ∆ to be punished so that he can be trained not to commit crimes
· Most jurisdictions have abandoned this theory bc it is costly and proceeds on the assumption that human beings in prison can and will change their behavior if given the opportunity and incentive to do so.
D. Incapacitation
· Utilitarian theory which holds that ∆ should be incarcerated or executed to prevent them from doing further harm to society.
· Costly theory that presumes that ∆ will not continue their criminal activities while incarcerated.
II. Difference between criminal and civil liability
A. Criminal liability = ∆ has acted against society’s morals
· Stigma goes along with “criminal”
· Moral condemnation
· A “crime” is anything called a crime
· The stigma helps to deter people from committing crimes
1. Theories of criminal Liability:
a. social control: society controlling the acts of others (this is broad; “don’t do it”)
b. personal culpability: society still acts in above theory but by saying “what YOU did was blameworthy”
B. Civil liability = ∆ has acted against an individual
C. Constitutional safeguards: 2 models
1. Due Process: protect people from the state
2. crime control: be efficient and have public order
III. Interpreting Statutes
· First, look at text, then the intent
· You cannot construe acts that aren’t currently crimes as crimes unless there has been due process
· The 1st essential of due process is fair warning of the act which is made punishable as a crime
· Statutes are created in response to problems the public has had
A. 3 interpretation Theories:
1. Intentionalist: look at legislature’s intent at creation
2. Textualist: looks to the actual words (the problem with this is that many words are ambiguous.
3. Pragmatist: looks to societal consequences of different interpretations (concerned about policy)
B. Tools to Interpret: Canons
1. Linguistic: grammatical
2. Substantive: the context of the statute
IV. Elements of a Crime:
A. Acts
1. Voluntary
· All crimes require that a ∆ commit a voluntary criminal act
· Words alone can constitute the act of a crime
· As long as the person is engaged in conscious and volitional movement, the act is considered voluntary
2. Involuntary
· Model Penal Code identifies 4 situations where a person does not act voluntarily:
a. reflex or convulsion
b. bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep
c. bodily movement under hypnotic suggestion
d. bodily movement not otherwise the product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual
· Absentmindedness and habit are not the same as involuntary acts
B. Mental State- Mens Rea – a “guilty” mind
· Not feelings or thoughts
· When a statute says nothing about a mental state, the MPC says recklessness is the default
· Mens rea = culpable mental state
· “there is no crime without a vicious will”
· Culpability = the extent to which a ∆’s mental state shows the ∆ deserves to be punished for his acts.
· The mental state helps to define more precisely the kinds of behavior society wishes to prevent and punish
· Mens Rea requirements protect those who accidentally or innocently cause harm
· The retributive purposes of criminal law are served by punishing only those who are culpable.
· 4 levels of culpability §2.02 MPC
1. Purposely **** : certain that x will happen and means for x to happed
2. Knowingly *** : practically certain that c will happen, but do it anyway
3. Recklessly ** : conscious disregard of a substantial risk that is unjustifiable as seen by reasonable people
4. Negligently * : unconscious disregard of a substantial risk that you should’ve known but didn’t
· Guilty mind + act = blameworthy (crime)
· Innocent mind + act = not blameworthy (could instead be a Tort)
· Common law : General (battery) v. Specific (burglary)
· General Intent: intending to act, but not to harm
· Specific Intent: intending to act with a specific resulting harm
· Transfer Intent: can transfer from victim to victim, but not crime to crime
· The MPC has two standards for knowledge 1) practically
tent offense.
· Ignorance or mistake is a defense when it negatives the existence of a state of mind that is essential to the commission of an offense. In other words, whether the mistake has caused the ∆ not to have the required mens rea for the offense. If so, it is a defense.
· A mistake of fact only matters if it shows that the ∆ didn’t know something she needed to know to be guilty of the crime. Once she knows these facts, other mistakes do not matter
· Material vs. Jurisdictional Elements:
– material elements are elements that relate to the harm or evil of the offense is designed to prevent
– jurisdictional elements do not relate directly to the harm or evil the offense addresses. Rather, jurisdictional elements simply dictate which court has jurisdiction to decide the case. If a ∆ makes a mistake as to a jurisdictional element, there is no mistake of fact defense
H. Mistake of Law
· Mistake of law, generally, is not a defense bc if it were, every ∆ would claim that he did not know his conduct was against the law
· 3 exceptions to the general rule:
1. when mistake of law operates just like mistake of fact
– if the ∆ does not know what the law requires, the ∆ is not guilty of violating that law
2. When a ∆ has been misled by a judicial authority or official misstatement of the law
– once the official statement has been corrected, there is no longer a defense
– if the ∆ is misled by the law as expressed, the ∆ has a mistake of law defense bc the government is estopped from prosecuting the ∆ for an act that he
reasonably believed was lawful when he committed – a ∆ cannot claim a mistake of law when he incorrectly relied upon a decision from another
