Criminal Law Outline

Chanbonpin

Crim Law

Sp 2011

I. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

a. Classifications of Crimes

i. Malum in se

1. Crimes that are inherently dangerous, bad, or immoral in themselves. For example common law felonies

a. murder

ii. Malum prohibitum

1. Crimes that are made criminal not because theyr are inherently wrong,, but because their prohibition is necessary to regulate the general welfare

a. jaywalking

b. Justifications for punishment

i. Two types of traditional moral reasoning

1. Consequentialist

a. Believe that actions are morally right if and only if, they result in desirable consequences

b. Theory of punishment is utilitarianism

i. Look forward at the predictable effects of punishment on the offender and or society

2. Non-consequentialist

a. Punishment theory is called retributivism

i. Look backwards at the harms caused by the crime and attempt to calibrate the punishment to the crime

c. Types of punishement

i. General deterrence—punishment to deter others from committing the same or similar offenses

1. This is not effective general deterrence, because others in the same situation may act the same way

ii. Specific deterrence—punishment to deter the individual defendant from commiting th same crime in the future

1. This would propbably not deter the individual from commiting the same act again in the future

iii. Rehabilitation—reforming the defendant through vocational training, counseling, drug rehabilitation

1. doesn’t work either as this is not something that would likely be repeated. The defendants are not likely to be on a boat in the same situation again

iv. Incapacitation—incarceration to keep the defendant away from other members of society

1. —these men are not generally bad people. They were in a bad situation

v. Retribution—giving the defendant what he deserves

1. they were in a difficult situation and made a difficult decision

d. presumption of innocence and proof beyanod a reasonable doubt

i. prosecution has burdern of proof

1. Criminal trial

a. Beyond a reasonable doubt

i. To reduce chances of convictions based on factual error

1. Helps to establish legitimacy and fairness in system

ii. 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment

1. Protects the accused against conviction except upon poof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he has been charged

iii. Defense Strategy is to create a reasonable doubt

1. Case-in-chief or a prima facie case defense—poke holes in the theory of the prosecution

2. Affirmative defense

a. Admit to the crime but argue for acquittal based on extenuating circumstances

b. Prosecution did meet all elements of “beyond a reasonable doubt”

c. Self-defense

2. Civil trial

a. A preponderance of the evidence

e. Statutory interpretation

i. Judges role is to decide what a particular staute means

1. Must devlope ways to interpret statutes

a. Respect the plain language

b. Discerning and implementing the intent of the legislature or voters

c. Making sure interpretation does not contradict case to case

ii. Various rules developed over time

1. Begin with the text of the statute

a. Interpret to avoiad constitutional problems

2. Canons of Construction

a. Expression unius, exclusion alterius

i. Rain sleet and hail

1. Assumed the legislature intended to exclude snow

b. Noscitur a sociis

i. Canon of construction holding that the meaning of unclear words or phrases should be determined by the words immediately surrounding it

· “pigs, cattle, sheep and poultry”

o Does poultry include exotic birds like parrots?

o Poultry will be interpreted in light of the specific items that proceed it

o Parrots don’t count as a type of poultry, because don’t go with list, don’t normally eat parrots

c. Ejusdem generis

i. Canon of construction that when a general word oor phrase follows a list of specifics, the general word or phrase will be interpreted to include only items of the same type as those listed

· “motor vehicle” is defined as “a car, truck, or any other self propelled vehicle not designed for running on rails

o Does an airplane fit into the list

o No airplanes are not normally considered a car or truck. Airplanes don’t run on rails and are self propelled but shouldn’t be included on the list

d. Rule or lenity

i. Judicial doctrine holding that a ocurt, in construing an ambiguous criminal statute that sets out multiple or inconsisten punishments, should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the more lenient punishment

ii. Canon of last resort—court will look at all other arguments before using rule of lenity

US V DAURAY US CT APP 2nd Circuit

RULE

When interpreting statutes, read the plain languge, the consider the traditional canons of statutory construction, and finally look to legislative history. When this fails the rule of lenity should be applied

REASONING

The first step to interpret a statute is to use the statute’s plain meaning. The court finds that the plain meaning can be interpreted in multiple ways. Dauray agues that the magazine pictures are one piece, while the gov’t argues each picture is a piece. The court cannot resolve by looking at the plain language because no precedent sheds light on the facts of the case. It is not a crime to possess 1 magazine no matterhow many pictures it contained, but is it a crime to remove the binding and thus have multiple pictures

· Must look to the rules set out by the canons of construction

o Use noscitur a sociis then ejusdem generis—again these provide no guidance because both arugements are equally supported by the canons

· The court then looks to the Statutory Structure—A statute is to be considered in all its parts when contstruing any one of them—

o Dauray argues that the different drafting of the law show Congress knew how to draft in plain language and prohibit individual picutres.

o Gov’t argues didn’t wanted to include a specific number to prevent prosecution of accidental possession

o Again both arguments or plausible

· Statutory amendment—a statute should be construed to be consistent with subsequent statuory amendments

o Congress amended the act in 1998 by replacing the “3 or more” with “1 or more” of the same list. Dauray: the list would be unnecessarily included unless it serves to distinguish a con