Crim Law
Prof. Farmer
Fall 2017
Theories of Criminal Punishment
Utilitarian
Maximizes utility
Role of state is to increase overall happiness of society
Minimize pain, maximize happiness
Punish people who make society unhappy
4 main benefits:
general deterrence
specific deterrence
incapacitation
rehabilitation
Retributive
Negative retributivist: Always wrong to punish the innocent
Positive retributivist: Always right to punish the guilty
3 classic views:
Punish the guilty b/c we hate them
Treat them like bugs, feel no sympathy towards criminal
Punishment is good for the guilty
Punishment makes the guilty right w/ society again; balance
Punishment brings the victim back up
Crime makes the victim lower than guilty
Punishing the guilty lowers them beneath those they have wronged
Interpreting Criminal Statutes
The requirement of previously defined conduct
Statutes must be sufficiently clear and precise to show what exactly is a crime
The values of statutory clarity
If a statute is too vague or vests too much discretion in law enforcement, the statute is in violation of the Constitution
Statutory interpretation
Dictionary definition of terms
Precedent
Language: order, grammar, punctuation
Context of statute
Legislative history
Principle of legality: no crime w/o law, no punishment w/o law
Principle of leniency: if the statute isn’t clear, interpret in favor of D (P has burden of proof)
Actus Reus
The physical or external part of the crime
Voluntary act
Nittany Criminal Code Not Voluntary Acts:
A reflex or convulsion
A bodily movement during u consciousness or sleep
Conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion
Omission (Negative Act)
Nittany Criminal Code (Adapted from MPC)
Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by an action unless the person has a legal duty to perform the act
Duty to act?
Special relationship
Parent-child, Doctor-patient, husband-wife, etc.
Contract
Rendering aid/ceasing aid (assumption of care)
Statutory
Creation of risk
Mens Rea
Mental part of the crime
Nittany Criminal Code 4 Kinds of Criminal Culpability (Adapted from MPC)
Purposely
Conscious object to engage in conduct; aware or believes or hopes that they exist
Knowingly
Aware; practically certain
Recklessly
Consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk
Negligently
Should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk; gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation
Transferred Intent
When a defendant intends to cause harm to one person but accidentally causes the same harm to another
The defendant’s guilt is exactly what it would have been had the blow fallen upon the intended victim instead of the bystander
General Intent Crime
Knowledge, recklessness, negligence, less culpable crime
MR, AR
Specific Intent Crime
MR, AR, MR
Knowledge of attendant circumstances
The “willful blindness” problem
A jury may infer that an actor intends to cause the natural and probable consequences of his actions
Strict Liability Offenses
Mens Rea is irrelevant
MPC generally rejects strict liability
Mistake and Mens Rea
Mistake of Fact
Nittany Criminal C
rectly cause the harm
LaFave-Scott Test
Coincidence: not liable
Response:
Foreseeable and normal response: guilty
Unforeseeable and bizarre response cuts off liability
Omission
Nothing does not supersede something; intervening omission not enough to cut liability
Apparent Safety
When victim reaches a position of safety, original wrongdoer is no longer responsible for any ensuing harm
Freewill (Hart Test)
Original actor isn’t responsible if there is an intervening cause that springs from “free, deliberate, and informed” human action
Can also include a choice by the victim
Intended Consequences
If wrongdoer gets the result they wanted in the general way they wanted it they are still guilty, even if an unforeseeable event occurred
MPC
Was actual result w/in purpose of actor?
If it was: proximate cause
Did the actual result involve the same kind of injury or harm as that designed? If it did, was the actual result too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on the actor’s liability?
If it wasn’t: proximate cause
De Minimis Contribution
Was D’s act such a small part of the overall situation that it would be inappropriate to hold D responsible for the consequences?
Contributory Negligence
Concurrence of the Elements
Which element caused the death?
