Criminal Law (Outline)
Fall 2011
Professor Chris Guzelian
I. Theories of Punishment? Criminal punishment = taking their life, liberty or property
a. Retribution/revenge – want to punish just cuz; claims that punishment it justified because people deserve it based on his moral culpability; The person may be punished if and only if he has voluntarily done something morally wrong;
b. Deterrence
i. General Deterrence: The punishment of one individual will deter others from committing a crime bc they will see the punishment. People will obey the law bc they fear disapproval of their social group they see themselves are moral people
ii. Specific Deterrence: The punishment will deter the individual by intimidations to commit the crime. The defendant will be afraid to offend.
1. Case: Regina v. Duddley – deterrence (cannibalism)
c. Incapacitation (lock up or execute) – the theory of keeping an individual out of society by sending them to jail so he wont hurt anyone. At the same time it punishes offenders and expresses society’s moral disapproval.
i. Goal is to stop them, not teach him anything; not motivating individual to change behavior – we have just secured him to not do it – no deterrence
d. Rehabilitate: the theory to fix/restore the criminal and make him safe to return to the streets. Goal is to fix the offender for his own good and for the good of society.
e. EXAMPLE: Evaluate theories of punishment for the Hypo: Clarence – 76 year old, to be executed for murder he committed 23 years ago;
1. Retribution – revenge ok in this case? No – does no one any good; justice met ? did the victim’s have family? Justice done bc still incarcerated; revenge – he will die in prison so revenge level not changed; he had his chance to show he has changed
2. Deterrence –
a. Specific – not teaching him any lessons; death row = murderer can commit murder – if he is dead, cant specifically deter him; no specific deterrence will come out – it actually incapacitates him; if left alive in prison will he be deterred? – he can commit crime in prison
b. General – yes – public will see that old man can be penalized for crime; deter citizens from committing rime again; sending message – just bc you did a long time in prison doesn’t mean your og punishment will be changed; others might think they can try to get out of death penalty
3. Incapacitation – death; old age – he is already incapacitated – old; level of incapacitation – how much for death v. life in prison; recognize what things he can do to people if no death = maybe he can escape from prison –
4. Rehabilitation – if killed can’t rehab him; left in prison can you rehab him?
ii. Background:
1. Proof Beyond a reasonable doubt (not preponderance of the evidence)
a. In Re Winship Supreme Court of the US 397 U.S. 358 (1979) – juvenile where the judge decided the case
2. 6th Amendment – Rights to a jury trial (unless petty offense)
a. Case: Duncan v. Louisiana
II. 3 elements of the crime (must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt – preponderance of the evidence if not enough)
a. Act (“Actus Reas”) – Voluntary/Duty, Omissions
b. Causation – Actual/Proximate Cause
c. Mental state (“Mens Rea”) – mental/internal factor
III. The Act Element: Actus Reus: An ACT can be defined as a voluntary act or an omission to perform an act where one has a duty and is physically capable.
a. ACT – VOLUNTARY or INVOLUNTARY
1. Voluntary – a willed bodily movement controlled by the performer’s mind
a. Note: If you are ordered to move, if you move on your own, it is still voluntary.
b. Case: Martin v. State Alabama -> police carried him back to the scene
2. Involuntary Acts – bodily movement performed that is not a product of the actor’s conscious mind (or habitual)
a. Examples of Involuntary act: someone else moves you, reflex/convulsion, spasm, unconsciousness, asleep, under hypnosis (split under Common law), Seizure (Decina Exception)
i. Acting out of free will bc under duress or external threat
ii. Case: People v. Newton -> def shot cop bc in shock and was unconscious bc he just been shot
iii. Case: Def killed her daughter while sleep walking
b. Decina Exception: Case – People v. Decina – Decina was aware of her epilepsy and even took medication however she did not do so one day and ended up causing an accident.
i. If an individual is aware of a condition that could affect his ability and result in harm, then the individual can still be liable since the act can be considered voluntary.
b. The Act Element: Omissions – An omission is not an act, unless, the individual is physically capable and a duty to perform exists.
i. General Omission Rule: A person has no duty to act or prevent harm to another (No Good Samaritan law), unless there is a duty and the actor is physically capable.
1. DUTIES:
a. Statutory – A duty to act might be statutorily imposed (i.e. if you get in car accident, must stop to render aid).
i. Doctors/nurses, must render aid to a victim
ii. Teachers, clergy, psychotherapists have a duty
iii. Duty to report on Elder abuse, Domestic violence, Environmental crimes, Money laundering, Other financial crimes
b. Status Relationship – spouses, parent to child, child to parent
i. For Minors, def liable if he is the:
re malpractice is foreseeable but gross malpractice is not
a. Ex: Victim shot by def but doctor’s malpractice causes person to die; must determine it was mere or gross malpractice. If it was gross malpractice, the doctor is the proximate cause. If it was mere malpractice the criminal is the proximate cause bc it mere medical malpractice is foreseeable.
c. Multi-Party Liability
i. Causation Flowchart
1. First determine if the action is Actual Cause (“but-for)
2. Second, determine if action is Proximate Cause (foreseeable or highly extraordinary)
3. Third, ask if there is a human actor (intervening cause/superseding cause) who’s act comes between the first act and the effect
4. Fourth, ask if that middle actor’s act was “voluntary” -> free, deliberate, informed
a. If #3 & #4 is yes, the middle actor is the “intervening cause” or “superseding cause.” This breaks the chain of causation. If the intervening actor acts voluntarily, then he is the LEGAL CAUSE and the first actor is not (gets off the hook)
ii. Intervening Causes – an voluntary/independent actor force that produced social harm but comes into play AFTER the first def’s act and the final outcome.
1. Involuntary act is not an intervening cause;
a. When the victim takes poison after being raped or jumps out the window – victim is the middle actor however their act is not voluntary, so the chain of causation is not broken and the original defendant is legal cause.
i. Intervening human act of “suicide” did not break chain of causation because Victim was not acting voluntarily (due to shame inflicted by D). This middle actor is not the proximate cause so chain of causation is not broken.
ii.
1. Act of Middle Actor is involuntary if he acts because of:
a. Shame, public duty, fear, insanity, ignorance of fact, self-defense
b. Ex: guy running to get away from men chasing him and gets run over by the car, he was not acting voluntarily so chain of causation is not broken.
b. If the intervening actor acted Voluntary then he is the legal cause – Suicide exampled – Courts don’t want to take away a person’s freedom to chose death/suicide
