CRIMINAL LAW
I. The History of the Model Penal Code:
1. Model for States
a. All 50 states have been influenced
i. Did not copy word for word
b. Consequence
i. More clarity & focus
1. State law has fuzzy areas so hard study
ii. Easy translate in law any state
II. PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF CRIMINAL LAW
1. Why do we have these rules? What if we made people responsible that know about a crime, but have no intention to help? Should we make people liable if know about a crime and don’t do anything?
a. is our particular view of freedom.
i. Should not impose criminal liability unless that person is intending to harm someone.
2. If you were rewriting the criminal code, what would you make different?
a. Most criminal law written by fallible people
b. Rules crafted to respond to various situations where people live together.
3. State of Nature: No freedom; at any point neighbor can cut off head w/axe.
a. Hobbes/Locke: Anything that is real freedom is security & to have security need law & gov’t
4. Why does crime fascinate us?
a. Distinctive Element = The actions of people involved, particularly the ∆.
i. Are doing something unusual/different
1. Disruptive
2. Violating social order
a. Rules most of us assume bind us together
b. Allow us to live together in society
5. Other Areas of Law v. Criminal Law:
a. Other areas coordinate activity
i. NOT criminal law
1. People corrupting social rules & bringing about harm.
ii. Outlaw=Put themselves outside law/requirement so can live together harmoniously
1. Assume can identify law that that person violated
a. act has to be something that is prohibited & person has to be doing it with full awareness.
6. 2 Elements that Run Through all of Criminal Law:
a. Actus Reus-Criminal act
i. What did he do?
b. Mens Rea- Criminal state of mind
i. Awareness
7. Act requirement:
a. If didn’t require an ACT, could prosecute for thoughts
i. Allows people to think, fantasize about anything w/o crim liability
1. Implicit in respecting other people & their freedom.
8. State of Mind Requirement:
a. Morally unfair punish people act in a purely accidental way
i. In a toy store, playing with gun. Happens to be real & you kill someone. Probably cannot be punished for homicide?
Worried about intention to cause harm.
9. Hard define social order
a. Complications
i. i.e. pornography
1. No social consensus & disagreement
10. Should standard law imposes be easy or a high moral standard hard for people live up to
a. Dudley Case: latter
b. MPC: need standard most people can follow most of time
11. Constitutional constraints.
a. Due process (freedom)
i. Should be protected unless intended violate CLEAR laws
b. Have protect small individual from big gov’t
i. Charge brought by gov’t
1. Have give special protections so not railroaded
a. High Standard Proof
b. Rt. Jury
III. DUDLEY & STEPHENS
The Queen v. Dudley & Stephens: 4 member crew of English yacht shipwrecked in storm. No water, no food, 1000 mi away from land. 18th day w/o food, 2 members crew approached a 3rd & suggested sacrifice 1 person save the rest. 3rd dissented, 4th member not consulted. 3 members had families, 1 was a boy so suggested better kill him. Boy didn’t assent being killed, didn’t resist, weakened by famine. 1 member slit throat & 3 members fed on him for 4 days. 4th day boat picked up by a passing vessel.
1. PROBABLY would not have survived if did not eat boy
a. Died famine w/in time before boat picked them up.
b. Boy weakest & most likely die 1st.
c No prospect of relief at time murder.
d. No other way save their lives except kill 1 of them.
2. Jury couldn’t determine if killing = felony & murder
a. Asked advice Ct.
3. Ct. says was willful murder.
a. Fatal divorce law & morality
b. No absolute necessity to preserve OWN LIFE
c. Cannot compare lives
i. Not more necessary kill boy than any other person
ii. People benefited decided who to kill
4. Not improper law set high standards
a. EVEN when circumstances incredibly dire
b. Higher calling=sacrifice their lives.
5. ∆ sentenced to death,
a. Commutated to 6 mo. imprisonment
i. Morally based
ii. Having cake & eating it
1. Throw book at them but not that hard
a. Can produce inconsistencies
b. At mercy of public opinion & people in position of power (president/Queen)
c. May not treat like situations same
d. Justice served system follows through w/decisions
6. Never occurred crew would be prosecuted
a. Believed law necessity would protect them
i. Did it preserve their lives
ii. Not unlike self defense
7. What if crew drew straws & Stephens got the short 1 so ate him instead. Process all agreed to initially/consensus. Change result?
a. Judge says no more rt. kill consenting person
i. No rt. Kill UNTIL someone threatening you
b. Same for: What if boy not weak & unoffending; Strongest person. Said b/c all have families, I will sacrifice myself. Make difference?
8. What ifknew ship routes & knew ship would not pass for 2 wks. If did not eat person, would not survive. If eat person, can survive 2 ½ wks. Make difference?
a. No, still killed innocent person
b. Murder if take life individual
9. Defenses
a. Ct. says only justification is self defense
i. No threat, no defense
1. Only narrow circumstance where can kill
b. Necessity was limited to self defense
i. Ct. says if put forth necessity argument, really has be self defense argument
c. DUDLEY LOOKS GOOD UNDER MODERN LAW: Can use necessity defense
i. Counting Bodies
1. Whichever person would have died, alternative = 4 would have died
a. 4 deaths v. 1 death
ii. Parallel Example: Climbing mountain w/2 friends. Suddenly 2 friends behind you say they are both slipping off rock. Person realizes dead weight of friends attached to him. Has sharp knife. Says to himself, likely in next 20 sec. will pull him off the ledge & they will all crash & die. OR could slice rope & send t
ice for help enforcing order. Prosecutor instead had Dr. fill out police report & the state charged D w/3 counts of assault in 2nd degree.
∆ ARGUMENT= Statute unconstitutionally vague
a. Argued law unconstitutionally vague
b. Ct. said intent evident
i. Told neighbor if he was going die, everyone else was
ii. Doesn’t take up vagueness issue
c. Most states use recklessness, not intent
Johnson v. State: P convicted for taking drugs before umbilical cord cut (but not a fetus). Lower Ct. convicted Ms. Johnson for delivery of an ingested controlled substance to a minor. The court has to decide when a pregnant woman takes an ingested controlled substance knowing the substance will be passed through the bloodstream.
a. Overturned b/c not intent legis.
i. Up legis. to change
VI. What Should We Criminalize?
1. Can use civil law
a. High taxes on cigarettes to try discourage people from smoking OR taxes for gas guzzlers
VII. DUE PROCESS AND FAIR WARNING; VAGUENESS
1. Keeler v. Superior Court:
a. Facts: Wife divorced husband & had bf. Husband didn’t know wife pregnant by bf & lived with him. Wife drops off other kids at home & is driving away. Husband comes from other direction & blocks the road. Wife pulled over. Husband says knows she’s pregnant, opens car door & helps her out. Sees baby bump & gets really upset. Says is going to stomp the baby out of her & proceeds to knee her in the abdomen & hit her in the face several times. Wife miscarried.
b. Issue: Unborn but viable fetus human being w/in meaning of CA statute defining murder?
c. Court:
i. Legislature did not intend this meaning when drafted 1872
1. Originalism: looking at original meaning people enacted law had
2. Problems: Odd results
a. Example: A’s worst enemy just had major surgery & is on life support. A goes into hospital in dead of night & unplugs all life support equipment. Cameras everywhere & A arrested next day for homicide. A’s Defense: Not intent of legislature; weren’t thinking about life support
i. If criteria = what on the minds people in 1872, A pretty good argument.
3. Evolution of Concept Principle
a. Instead originalist theory, EVOLVED MEANING
i. Only works if pinpoint some evolved meaning people generally concede as case.
ii. Fetus not entity recognized by law
iii. LAW not unreasonably VAGUE, only when dealing w/fetus
1. Can keep statute in tact & let legislature rule on fetus issue
2. Due process = umbrella term w/many meanings
