HYBRID APPROACH = State has Justification to Punish If they can fulfill 2 Conditions:
1. UTILITARIAN = Calculated net gain to society
§ REHABILITATION THEORY
Ø Someone has committed an offense and therefore is flawed. The can state can fix flaw/problem and therefore be good for society.
Ø Treatment- psychotherapy, drug treatment.
Ø The offender suffers from a problem that makes them dangerous and the state will rehabilitate this problem and therefore make him safer.
o Con- we have no right to rehabilitate them in what we think is right—paternalistic, it assumes that we have the right to change people against their will and make them who the state wants them to be.
o Innocent but looks guilty = YES. doesn’t have a flaw and therefore the state isn’t justified.
§ MORAL INFLUENCE
Ø Punish an offender can educate us, shape our values, make the rest of us more likely to hold values and less likely to commit a crime.
Ø Teaches us how society feels about certain issues. Works through education and values before the time of the crime.
o Innocent but looks guilty= YES. So long as the public as a whole believes he is guilty, then it sends the right message that we are morally influenced in saying murder is wrong. If believe that he is guilty then has the right MI. it sends the right message if we commit murder we will be punished.
§ INCAPACITATION
Ø You can punish someone if it will incapacitate them and prevents them from committing more crimes. Prevents them from committing future crimes
o Cons- determining future dangerousness (someone that has committed v. someone that hasn’tà we are all bad) Can hurt other people in jail.
o Innocent but looks guilty = YES b/c he’s not dangerous and therefore will not hurt others and is justified.
§ DETERRENCE
Ø IF it will deter others from committing the same crime.
Ø Fear plays an important role, punishing the offender will scare the rest of us, we are scared of pain, we don’t want to experience pain/punishment.
o Cons- it assumes people will be rational. Different people might attach different values to others. Not a lot to loose and a lot to gain.
o Innocent but looks guilty = YES the state can punish even though the state thinks he’s innocent but society thinks he is guilty b/c GD sends the message that guilty people get punished & if it deters us its justified,
2. NON-UTILITARIAN = Does not calculate a net gain to society
§ RETRIBUTION
Ø IF an Offender deserves it à THEN Punishment is Justified
Ø Feels Just & Protects Innocent people
o Innocent But Looks Guilty = NO
Topic = ACT ELEMENT
Elements of a Crime: A (+R) + AC + MS
A = Action
R = Result
AC = Additional Circumstances (Not Required)
MS = Mental State
A = Act Elements
· Act Required
Must be Voluntary
ØThreats / Commands– Voluntary, literally you have a choice
Non-Voluntary
ØPhysical Coercion– Involuntary: Body is physically taken & Manipulated
Ø Seizure – Involuntary
Ø Hypnotism – Involuntary
Ø Unconsciousness – Involuntary
Ø Sleepwalking –Involuntary
· Omissions à2 Omissions = Act
An omission can be considered an act by law and can satisfy the act element. Failure to act is an act.
GOOD SAMRITAN LAW
When knowingly failed to help a person in grave danger, when you could have provided reasonable assistance, w/out any danger to yourself.
Cons- difficultly of interpreting the emergencies in front of you; Fear, danger etc., might hurt the wrong person, helpers might get hurt. When should you intervene?
MANSLAUGHTER – Failure to act when one had a legal duty to do so:
LEGAL DUTY to act—can be convicted of manslaughter. Omission can serve an act when the D 1st had a duty to act but 2nd failed.
STATUE = parents must provide food/shelter/medicine to their minor. Law doesn’t want to impose many.
STATUS or SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP = some relationships come with legal duties, captain/passenger, employer/employee husband/wife, parent/child; they have a duty to care of.
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION = nursing home, babysitter.
ASSUME CARE & SECLUDE = Do something to set up the situation and failure to help when the danger materializes (have to step in to the solve the problem). Took someone in when they were already at risk. Even if you justifiably put someone in peril, you have a duty to help once the attacker becomes incapacitated. They were better off before you helped them.
CONTRIBUTE to the RISK = IF one creates or increases the risk of harm then there is a duty to act and failure to do will result in an omission
MENTAL STATES- to be guilty of a result crime you have to have a certain mental state. It’s the attitude, what is going on in your mind at the time you committed the act, which defines the grade of the crime.
Model Penal Code- only 4 distinct mental states. HIERARCHY
Purposely- Conscious objective to commit the act or result that they brought about. They wanted this result to happen. You wanted them to die, it was your conscious objective to cause them death.
Knowingly- you have to be practically certain. You are aware, practically certain that it will bring about that result/act. 99.9% certain that it will happen. Awareness of what you are doing and aware that it will bring about a particu
treat as strict liability, no MS. 4 factors when the court will take the statute at face value, to determine whether reg or not. The conduct they regulate is not:
Not Inherently Evil: conduct they regulate is not inherently bad (selling alcohol/food/medicine v. murder).
Inherently Dangerous: Transporting hazardous material.
Not Widespread: don’t want the courts to apply strict liability statute to a lot of people (gun possession)
Light Punishment: has to be. If it’s just a fin, they will treat it as regulatory law.
Exceptionà statutory rape, protecting children.
Topic = CAUSATION
· To know if one is liable for ANY crime/act the (D) must have “Actually” and “Proximately” caused the result … Only Applicable to Result Crimes
Basic Test = to satisfy the basic test both causes must be satisfied:
1- Actual cause à“OBJECTIVE” The act was an essential link in the cause of results
2- Proximate cause à“INTUITIVE” Reasonable Foreseeable that the act caused the result
o If it is Extraordinary that the act would cause the result then the act is not the proximate cause and causation is not met
Policy = It is a 2 prong test because the actual cause is too broad … to incriminate one whom just actually caused the occurrence is not “fair” … Fairness and Justice requires that it be reasonable for the act to have caused the result
Classic Problems
Simultaneous Cumulative causes à2 Acts which individually are incapable of causing the result but together the result occurred.
o Cumulative Acts that could only bring about the result jointly
o Here both causes are liable … Must prove that each act: “actually” and “proximately” caused the result (4 prong test)
o 2 causes working together to bring about a result that on they own wouldn’t
HYPO: A stabs X it would kill him in a day, then B stabs X which would kill him in a day … both occur X dies in an hour
Ø A & B = liable because both “Actually” and “Proximately” caused the result
Ø Cumulative because Result = Death in 1 hour
Simultaneous Sufficient causes à2 Acts which individually would be enough to have caused the result
