Criminal Law Outline Pratt Fall 10
1. Setting the stag
a. Proof of guilt at trial:
i. Standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt for every element of the crime.
ii. Reasonable doubt: a subjective state of near certitude
b. Jury nullification: permitted but not permitted to be mentioned in trial by counsel
2. Principles of punishment
a. Theories of punishment
i. Utilitarian: Justification for punishment lies in the useful purpose of the punishment:
1. general deterrence
2. individual deterrence
3. incapacitation/risk management
4. reform
ii. Retributivism: Punishment is justified because people deserve it
1. Negative retribution: the innocent should never be punished (guilt must be present)
2. Positive retribution: guilt is both a necessary and sufficient condition for punishment
3. Assaultive retribution: treat criminals like noxious insects to be ground under the heel of society
4. Protective retribution: criminals have the right to be punished; balancing the equilibrium in society
b. The penal theories in action
i. Sentencing objectives:
1. protect society;
2. punish the defendant for crime;
3. encourage defendant to follow law;
4. deter others;
5. isolate defendant to avoid repeat;
6. secure restitution;
7. to seek uniformity in sentencing.
a. Note: Punishment never exceeds what would be appropriate under retributive standard, but can be reduced if no utilitarian goals would be accomplished by punishment. (retrib. sets min and max, util. sets where in that range).
Philosophers
c. Proportionality of punishment
i. From Bentham:
1. Objectives of punishment 1. Prevent all offenses; 2. cause offender to choose the lesser of two offenses; 3. cause offender to do no more mischief than necessary for purpose; 4. prevent mischief as cheaply as possible.
a. Value of punishment must never be less than enough to outweigh the profit of the offense
b. Greater mischief gets greater punishment
c. Punishment for greater offense should induce offender to prefer the less
d. Every part of mischief should have a motive to restrain offender from doing it.
e. Punishment should never be more than necessary to bring it within these rules.
ii. 4 Principles to determine proportionality
1. Primacy of the legislature
2. Variety of legitimate penological schemes
3. Nature of the federal system
4. All of the above inform the last one, we don’t need strict proportionality, just can’t have sentences grossly disproportionate to the crime.
Eighth amendment: founders concerned with cruel and unusual punishment
Death penalty never proportionate to rape
3. Criminal statutes
a. Principle of legality
i. Statutes must be
1. Understandable to reasonable law-abiding persons
2. Crafted so as not to delegate policy matters to police, judges juries etc
3. Principle of lenity: Judicial interpretation of ambiguous statutes should favor accused. (grievous ambiguity)
No crime without law, no punishment without law
Constrains only legislative and judicial
ii. Rules of statutory construction:
1. Look at the intent of the legislature (including what they knew when they drafted statute)
a. Actual language:
b. Look at the preamble
c. Look at legislative records.
2. Ambiguous statute construed as favorable to defendant as language of statute may reasonably permit.
iii. Ex post facto clause of constitution prohibits retroactive legislation.
iv. Statutes are constitutional by default.
v. Crimes by analogy
1. Person may be punished despite the absence of any defined criminal behavior. If the actions of the accused are perceived to be inimical to the socio-political order then he may be found guilty of a defined crime which prohibits analogous behavior. Not allowed in US
4. Actus reus
a. MPC—voluntary act or an omission of which actor was capable of
b. Voluntary act: product of a person’s free will as manifest by corresponding external body movement. A muscular contraction that was willed.
i. Automatistic state a defense except for
1. Some jurisdictions distinguish automatism and insanity and require those with diseased mind to use insanity defense (insanity has sentencing, automa
model penal code and common law. Common law would allow the intent to transfer, MPC would not
b. No need for transferred intent: just look at whether an actor had the intent to cause the particular social harm required in the definition of the charged offense (Pratt likes this view)
c. Example of difficult case: A sees B hugging his wife, C. A intends to kill B but leave C unharmed. He thinks his distance is far enough, so he shoots but kills both. Should be intent to kill A and recklessly endangering C.
a. If aim is bad and he kills wife instead of B, it should still be reckless endangerment, but some courts will misapply transferred intent and charge with intentional killing of C
d. M.P.C: 2.03(2)(a): intent transfers when:
e. Actual result differs from that designed or contemplated only in the respect that a different person or different property is injured or affected OR that the injury or harm designed or contemplated would have been more serious or more extensive than that cause. OR
a. Actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as that designed or contemplated and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a (just) bearing on the actor’s liability or on the gravity of his offense.
ii. Knowingly or With knowledge:
1. Knowledge
a. Is aware of the fact OR
b. Correctly believes the fact exists
c. Willful blindness:
a. Aware of a high probability of the existence of fact in question
b. Deliberately fails to investigate it.
2. Wilfully
