THEORY, SOURCES, AND LIMITATIONS OF CRIMINAL LAW
I. Theories of Criminal Punishment
Utilitarianism (forward looking) – punishment justified primarily by preventing future harms or reduction of future crimes. Basically this theory of punishment is used to deter others from crime and to protect society.
1. Deterrence – punishment of a criminal reduces crime in two ways:
Specific Deterrence
The defendant will avoid future crimes because he/she fears additional punishment
Punishment is meant to deter future misconduct by an individual defendant by preventing him from committing crimes against society during the period of his incarceration (incapacitation), and reinforcing to him the consequences of future crimes (intimidation).
General Deterrence
Punishment is imposed in order to dissuade the community at large to forego criminal conduct in the future.
Individuals will not commit crimes for fear of suffering same punishment that current defendant has suffered.
2. Incapacitation
Isolating wrongdoers from law-abiding person thus preventing him from committing crimes against society during the period of his incarceration.
3. Rehabilitation
Society has an obligation to punish an individual in a way that makes him/her a better person and better citizen tomorrow
Reform of the individual
4. Retribution (looks backward to the past act) – a convicted defendant is punished simply because he deserves it, even if it serves no utilitarian purpose. A wrong has been committed so it must be punished.
here the goal is to make the defendant suffer in order to pay for his crime
Justifications
Criminal must “pay debt to society” (“just deserts”)
Retributive theory assigns punishment on a proportional basis so that crimes that cause greater harm or are committed with a higher degree of culpability (e.g., intentional versus negligent) receive more severe punishment than lesser criminal activity.
5. Communicative Retributivism- Equaling of rights;the criminal is worthless, not the victim
II. Determining the Appropriate Sentence (individualized)– fit appropriate sentence into punishment goals
Nature of the Offense
Character of the Offender
Protecting Society
Primary consideration in sentencing is the good order and protection of society (Usu reflects punishment goals)
A. State v. Jensen
Facts: H left W, W has a RN and decided to inject the H’s new g/f with insulin and methamphetamine. W injected her, watched her for an hour, and then left her to die, while her 3 year old daughter watches
Issue: How should she be sentenced? What power should an appellate court have in sentencing?
Rule: The court has “Abuse of discretion” which means they should uphold the sentence if the sentence is deemed to be legal, cannot change unless the previous court abused its power.
Reasoning: To try the case all over again would be a waste of time, and they were the fact finders
Holding: The court did not abuse its powers, she got life w/o parole. Affirmed
*To sentence her, the court looked at several things:She pled guilty- allowing the court to save time/ no jury
Cant punish everyone the same way, each crime is different, each offender is different; thus each sentence needs to be individualized
B. What is a crime: pg. 4 Professor and
1.Rolland Perkins, criminal law scholar
2.”any social harm defined and made punishable by law”
C. 10 characteristics that constitute a true crime:
1.Blameworthy intent
2.Affirmative conduct on the part of the d or an omission to act when there is a legal duty to act
3.Must be connection between 1 and 2
4.Harm to society
5.Harm had to be caused by the conduct/omission
6.Conduct/omission must incur the moral condemnation of society
7.Sovereign state must deem the conduct to be harmful to society
8.The sovereign must label it a crime and provide a penalty through the legislative process and must publish the statute or ordinance
9.The conduct must occur after the published statute
10. The sovereign must act as a party in its own name in a proceeding against that person
Blakely v. Washington; the judge should not make the determination of the sentence based upon the facts, no facts besides prior convictions can not be used by judges to increase sentences; judicial fact-finding may violate the right to trial by jury declared in the 6th amendment of the Constitution ; critical facts must be determined by the jury…
o Booker, also applies to Federal Sentencing Guidelines ===> NOT mandatory
o Defendant can waive rights to jury trial, plea bargaining can allow judge to consider more facts in determining sentences
US v. Crawford
Facts: D brought a dispute about how he was sentenced. He was sentenced to 210 months imprisonment. He got the lower end of the sentence. He appealed and it was affirmed.
D argued: Crawford’s lawyers: sentencing judge should not have paid attention to the guidelines
o In Booker, it says trial courts are allowed to assume the guidelines are reasonable/ it is not an abuse. Booker said the guidelines are no longer mandatory
D. Proportionality: sentence is supposed to fit the crime
Ewing v. California: D stole golf clubs and sentenced 25 yrs.was this a proportionate sentence?
Constitutional Limits of CriminalLaw – The Supreme Court has held that implicit in the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment” is that punishment not be grossly disproportional to the crime committed.
Eight Amendment
No cruel and unusual punishment
3 Factor Test to determine whether a punishment is “cruel and unusual” for being disproportionate:
1. the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty
2. the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction
3. the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other juris.
Proportionality
· Punishment must be proportional to the crime, i.e., that punishment be inflicted in the amount required (but no more than is required)
o Reflected in all theories of criminal punishment
· “the punishment should fit the crime”
E. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Roper v. Simmons
COA: Simmons charged with burglary, kidnapping stealing, and murder in the first degree.
Procedure: The trial judge accepted the jury’s recommendation and imposed the death penalty. Simmons unsuccessfully challenged his conviction and the death penalty in state and federal cts.
Facts: Simmons and accomplice entered home of the victim. They duct taped her eyes and mouth shut, bound her hands, and drove to a state park. Tied her hands and feet together with electrical wire and threw her from the bridge, drowning her in the waters below. Simmons was 17 at the time of the crime.
Issue: Death penalty for juveniles under age of 18?
Reasoning: No cruel or unusual punishments provided by the 8th amendment. Thompson v. Oklahoma, no death penalty for offenders the age of 16 at the time of the offense. This constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Too young/immature to understand implications.
Holding:A majority states have rejected the imposition of the death penalty on juvenile offenders under 18, and we now hold this is required by the 8th amendment.
**Considerations**Differences between juvenile offenders under 18:
a. scientific and sociological studies show that they have an underdeveloped sense of responsibility are found in youth than in adults. 18 and under are prohibited from voting, serving on juries, or marrying without parental consent.
b. Juveniles more susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure
c. character not well developed
Dissent by O’Connor:
There is no national consensus against the juvenile death penalty…s
: What constitutes carjacking under the meaning of the CA carjacking statute?
Does “taking” require proof of asportation?
iv. Reasoning: The actor in this case did not “take” the vehicle and therefore was not guilty of carjacking…”taking” construed the same as in the robbery statute.Carjacking statute is an offshoot of robbery, the language of “taking” is meant to mean the same thing, unless a contrary intent clearly appears.
v. Holding/Disposition: Conviction set aside, the “taking” means the same as in the crime of robbery.
State v. Donaldson
i. Crime: Second-degree theft
ii. Facts: Defendant broke into van, dismantled the steering column, and manipulated the ignition switch, turning on the radio and lighting the check engine sign on the dashboard. As an officer walked toward the van, the lights were flashing suggesting there was someone in the van. As the officer came nearer, the defendant fled the van and ran away. The steering column had been dismantled and wires were hanging from the column. The ignition switch had been removed and radio was operating and check engine light was on. All electrical systems had been engaged, all that was left to do was engage the starter.
iii. Issue: Is a person guilty of theft if he breaks into another’s car and engages the entire electrical system, save the engine?
iv. Reasoning: Defendant argues he did not possess or control the van b/c he did not have the ability to move or remove it. Defendant only needed to have dominion and control over the vehicle and had that control by excluding others from the van, he used the van beyond his authority, and set in motion the steps necessary to power the van.
v. Holding: Defendant controlled the van within the meaning of the Iowa Statute and the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. Affirmed.
Notes on the case:
1. Robbery or carjacking requires a victim to be present
2. Elements of theft:
i. Takes possession or control of another, or property in the possession of another, with the intent to deprive the other thereof.
3. Common law larceny required:Caption &Asportation
o Common law is where criminal statutes come from, legislators will look to common law…but also now use the Model Penal Code…or from a legislator’s mind
4. Instead of using common law, Iowa follows the Model Penal Code…
○ Requires possession or control
○ NO requirement of asportation
5. Larceny
1. Taking
2. Carrying away (asportation)
3. personal property
4. of another
5. with intent to permanently deprive
Notes:
Text of the statute – the plain meaning.
If a term is not defined, use a common definition from dictionary
Legislative history
Sometimes the title of the statute will provide a clear indication of the legislation passed.
