Policies / Purposes of Punishment
Purposes of punishment:
– Restitution/Retribution: eye for an eye
– Utilitarian:
o Specific deterrence (deter this particular defendant)
o General deterrence (deter others)
o Incapacitation (prevent this defendant from recitivism)
o Reform via rehabilitation
Under common law LEGAL WRONG THEORY, you’re guilty of the crime that you actually (legally) committed (even if you intended something else).
Moral wrong doctrine: You’re doing something immoral, ∴ it’s just to hold you strictly liable.
– Even if an actor’s mistake of fact is reasonable (& ∴ no moral culpability can be found on the basis of mistaken belief), his intentional commission of an immoral act serves as the requisite blameworthiness to justify conviction. (e.g., Statutory rape)
– MPC punishes intent (mens rea): MPC is concerned w/your mental culpability – what you thought you were doing. Under MPC, you’re generally culpable for (& ∴ can validly be punished for) the acts/crimes you intended to do/were aware of (even if what you actually did was different).
Purposes of punishment:
– Deterrence
– Retribution
– Incapacitation
– Rehabilitation
Types of Crimes
Malum in se: Crimes that, in our guts, most everyone agrees is wrong (murder, robbery, assault, rape, etc.)
Malum Prohibitum: Crimes that are only made criminal b/c legislature/cts have created laws to make them so (e.g., actions that aren’t inherently bad, but are made illegal to serve other purposes – in the case of criminal law, serving the purpose of social safety/order).
Elements of a crime:
– Actus reus:Motion (slitting the throat)
– Attendant circumstances: Part of the actus reus. A condition that must be present, in connection w/the prohibited conduct/result, in order to constitute the crime.
– Mens rea:Criminal intent (generally resulting in tangible harm)
– Causal relationship:Actus reus must have caused the mens rea, for a crime to be presenterpreting the statute:
Interpreting a Statute
If statute is silent on req’d mens rea: MPC §2.02.3: if statute is silent, in order to be held culpable, a prosecutor must prove each material element of the crime was committed either purposefully, knowingly, or recklessly.
If statute gives clear mens rea:
– Plain meaning rule: if a statute is clear on its face, then it’s not permissible to consult legislative history when determining policy purpose/material elements.
If statute gives unclear mens rea:
– MPC Grammar rule: MPC §2.02.4: When the culpability level is given in a statute prescribing a criminal offense, w/o distinguishing among the material elements of the offense, the culpability level shall apply to all the material elements of the offense, unless contrary purpose plainly appears.
– Common Law: If not clear on its face, can look to GRAMMAR (where’s the comma – does the adjective apply to all phrases?); legislative history; common law precedents, MPC, etc.
EXAMPLE: Weiss case (p.206): Specific intent crime (‘willfully’ confines, w/o authority of law);
Weiss’s mistake: (Mistake of fact/law) thought he was acting w/authority of law
– Holding: mens rea (‘willfully’) applies to all terms following it in the sentence, including “w/o authority of law” – ∴ prosecution would have to prove that Weiss willfully acted w/o authority of law (i.e., knew he was w/o authority of law). ∴ must prove mens rea in relat
met, the victim’s consent to sex on prior occasions is irrelevant to proving force (Alston)
– Required force is that sufficient to achieve penetration. (MTS)
– Whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that an accused engaged in sexual intercourse by forcible compulsion is a determination that will be made in each case based on the totality of the circumstances. (Berkowitz)
– Factors to be weighed to determine forcible compulsion include (not an exclusive list):
o Ages of victim & accused
o Mental & physical condition of victim & accused
o Atmosphere/physical setting of the incident
o Whether accused in a position of authority over victim
o Whether victim was under duress
Is there consent?
– Withdrawal of consent at any point nullifies earlier consent (b/c rape sexual intercourse is a continuing activity) (John Z. rule).
o Earlier, erroneous arguments – primal urge theory is that once one has started, one has to have at least a little time to stop
– Sex induced by fraud:
o Fraud in the factum (fraud that induces a lack of understanding about the nature of the act – e.g., I’m going to perform this medical procedure with an instrument, not my penis) vitiates consent. (Minkowski)
o Fraud that deals w/the reason to consent (but doesn’t cloud the actual nature of the sex act) doesn’t vitiate consent. (Boro)
MPC Rape (p.1018):
