Justifications for Punishment
There are two principles that are integral to the Anglo-American legal system are
it is unacceptable to use force against another human being without a good (legal) reason, and
The State should not invade individual freedoms without a good (legal) reason.
Traditional moral reasoning for justification
Consequentialist
Believe that actions are morally right if, and only if, they result in desirable consequences
Utilitarianism, tend to look forward at the predictable effects of punishment on the offender and/or society
Non- Consequentialist
Believe that actions are morally right or wrong in themselves, regardless of the consequences
Retributivism, Look backwards at the harm caused by the crime and attempt to calibrate the punishment to the crime
Punishment is a deterrent
Different types of Punishment
General deterrence, punishment to deter others from committing the same or similar offenses
Specific deterrence, punishment to deter the individual defendant from committing the same crime in the future
Incapacitation, Incarceration to keep the defendant away from other members of society
Retribution, giving the defendant what he deserves
Rehabilitation, reforming the defendant through vocational training, counseling, drug rehabilitation, etc
The Presumption of Innocence and Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
The prosecution has the Burden of Proof. There are two types:
The Burden of Production, the responsibility to produce evidence in support of a claim
The Burden of Persuasion, the ultimate responsibility of proving that a given offense was committed or that the elements of an asserted defense are either present (the D’s position) or absent (the P’s position)
The standard of proof in criminal trial is “beyond a reasonable doubt”
The Role of the Jury
The Sixth Amendment guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury.
Unless the D waives his right to a jury trial and elects to be tried by a judge, his guilt or innocence will be determined by a jury of six to twelve of his peers.
Jury nullification, when there is sufficient evidence and a reasonable jury would convict, but they go above the law and acquit the D anyway.
Statutory Interpretations
The Rule of Lenity: all doubts when reading a criminal statute should be resolved in favor of the defendant, in recognition of the important liberty interest at stakes and the presumption of innocence
In criminal prosecutions, the rule of lenity requires that ambiguities in the statute be resolved in the defendant’s favor. If the court finds that the ambit of the criminal statute is ambiguous, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity. This expedient ensures fair warning by so resolving ambiguity in a criminal statute as to apply it only to conduct clearly covered.
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause: Void for Vagueness Doctrine
Statutory interpretation is key; if there is any ambiguity then the doubt goes to the benefit of the D.
You will look at the meaning, the words, the legislative intent, and the cannons of construction
Void for Vagueness Doctrine under the Fourteenth Amendment
The due process clause of the fifth and fourteenth has been interpreted to impose upon legislature the duty to draft statutes that are clearly understandable. This requirement serves two purposes
1. Fair notice to citizens of what conduct is prohibited
2. limiting police discretion to arrest and jury discretion to imprison people they don’t like
Vagueness may invalidate a criminal law for either of two independent reasons. First, it may fail to provide the kind of notice that enables ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits; second, it may authorize and even encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
Facial Challenge: a claim that a law is unconstitutional in all its applications
Challenge as applied: the law is generally sound, but is unconstitutional in its application with respect to the Plaintiff or other similarly situated people.
The Eight Amendment: Cruel and Unusual Punishment and the Principle of Proportionality
The Eighth Amendment: Bail–Punishment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Cruel and unusual punishment
The test for the Cruel and unusual punishment
1. if the sentence is grossly disproportionate from the crime
2. or the punishment was excessively cruel and unusual
Three factors may be relevant to a determination of whether a sentence is so disproportionate that it violates the Eighth Amendment:
(i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty;
(ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and
(iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.
The Act Requirement
Most crimes in the US consist of four basic elements:
1. a prohibited act that results in some kind of social harm (actus reus)
2. a prohibited mental state (mens rea or guilty mind)
3. a chain o
tent crime is that you expect a certain consequence from the act.
Strict liability crimes
Just because a statute does not give the specific kind of Mens Rea doesn’t mean that it is a specific or general intent crime.
Statutory Rape and Bigamy are strict liability crimes in most jurisdictions
Mistake of fact
Is your mistake of act reasonable?
Is the mistake irrelevant even if you believe the mistake?
General intent, mistake must be reasonable and in good faith
Specific Intent, good faith but it does not have to be reasonable.
CL Mistake of Fact: is only a defense if it negates the mens rea required by the crime
1) General Intent crimes require honest and reasonable mistake of fact
2) For specific intent crimes, mistake of fact can be unreasonable (but must be sincere), if it negates the specific intent
3) Can never be used as a defense to strict liability crimes
MPC Mistake of Fact:
1) Purposeful or knowing intent crimes: the mistake must be sincere, but it can be reckless or negligent
2) Reckless intent crimes: the mistake can be negligent but it can not be reckless
3) Negligent intent crime: the mistake must be reasonable
If your mistake would have been morally wrong or legally wrong, the mistake exception is invalid
Mistakes of law
Official interpretation of the Law (aka Entrapment by Estoppell)
Mistake in law, has to be an official misinterpretation and cannot be your own boo-boo
Mistake of law is a viable exemption in those instances where an individual demonstrates an effort to learn what the law is, relies on the validity of that law and, later, it is determined that there was a mistake in the law itself.
Where the government has affirmatively, albeit unintentionally, misled an individual as to what may or may not be legally permissible conduct, the individual should not be punished as a result. However, it also follows that where the government is not responsible for the error, e.g. where there is none except in the defendant’s own mind, mistake of law should not be available as an
