Criminal Law
In criminal law, we learn the common law, but every year, it gets more distant.
Districts get more variations.
We study common law because it is basically the only thing we have in common in a world of differing districts.
Thus, in criminal law we have difficult situation of what to teach.
Where the state has made any contribution, the court will tell us what it does to the Model Penal Code and common law.
Crime: Conduct, which shown to have taken place, incurs the formal and solemn pronouncement of the moral condemnation of the community. It is conduct that society deems as morally reprehensible; a wrong against society.
Every Crime consists of: Actus Rues + Mens Rea + Causation – Defenses.
Elements present in every crime:
Mens rea- mental element (state) (intent)
Actus reas- the conduct/act itself.
Criminal Process- Mens Rea
Mens Rea- the moral blameworthy state of mind/ the specific mental state. A person is not guilty unless they engage in the voluntary act or omission that causes the social harm if they didn’t have the mental capacity or the intent to do the act.
Culpability is the extent to which a defendant’s mental state shows the defendant deserves to be punished for his acts.
The mens rea requirement focuses on levels of awareness and intention with which the defendant acted; for example, did the defendant purposely cause a harm of was the harm the result of the defendant’s carelessness?
Intent in Criminal Law:
Desire (Purpose) or knowledge to a substantial certainty in 2nd Restatement.
Desire- in criminal law, we use purposefully.
In the 3rd Restatement, they are going back to the word purpose.
Motive- an ultimate reason to do something, but is that intent?
Criminal Law is subjective in terms of intent.
In torts, if had knowledge to substantial certainty or desire, then intent.
Mental states in Torts (being on someone’s mind): intent; consciousness; defendant knows there is risk but not to a substantial certainty; reasonable person would have known (going back to Negligence); recklessness (disregard a whole lot of knowledge of risk, but it is just not substantial).
Four mental states that we attach fault to:
(1) Desire/Purpose
(2) Knowledge to a substantial certainty,
(3) Recklessness (in between intent and negligence)
(4) Negligence- reasonable person or defendant knew.
In Regina, they were throwing “intent” words around.
This Appellate Court says must have intent with regard to that act.
Justice Fitzgerald says that the int
if she realizes that there is a substantial and unjustifiable risk that her conduct will cause harm, but consciously disregards the risk.
Recklessness is the minimum mens rea standard for most crimes.
It is also referred to as “general intent” or, as we have seen, maliciousness.
(4) Negligently
He should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.
A person acts negligently if she is unaware of and takes a risk that an ordinary person would not take.
A little different than torts though: negligence in criminal law involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation (i.e. gross negligence).
Gross negligence in torts is more difficult: a whole lot of negligence.
This is an objective standard.
Thus, in effect, in criminal law, negligence is more like gross negligence in torts.
Criminal law basically adopted the same scheme as in torts because it was inevitable.
