Crim Law—Stinneford—Fall 2015
THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT:
UTILITARIAN: Punishment is justified if it increases the overall level of social “happiness” or “pleasure”
· REASONS FOR UTILITARIAN:
o Deterrence: Trying to deter others from committing the same crime
o Rehabilitation: Reducing criminal’s riskiness
RETRIBUTIVE: Punishment is deserved regardless of what good/bad comes out of it as long as a crime was committed.
PRINCIPAL OF LEGALITY:
· Common law cannot apply new laws after the fact because it violates the ex post facto clause.
· Only Legislature define what is and is not criminal
· Statute should be specific enough to give fair warning to defendant and not give rise to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement (Chicago v. Morales= Too vague).
· It most be interpreted with regard to the evil it is intended to suppress
o Rule of Lenity: When a rule is subject to multiple interpretations, the court should adopt the one more lenient to the defendant.
RULE FOR GUILT:
RULE: In order to be guilty of a crime one must prove (1) Actus Reus, (2) Mens Rea, and (3) Causation
ACTUS REUS:
COMPONENTS (act, attendant circumstances, result):
· Act: Some bodily movement done voluntarily or an omission stated in MPC §2.01
o Common law duty to act:
§ (1) Statutory duty to rescue or report
§ (2) Status of the relationship (parent/child)
§ (3) Contractual Duty (doctor/patient)
§ (4) Assumption of care/Seclusion of victim
§ (5) Causation of risk
o MPC 2.01:
§ Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless:
§ (a) the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense (ex: aware of a fire with potential to cause harm); or
§ (b) a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law.
§ Possession is an act, within the meaning of this Section, if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession. (narcotics, etc.)
· Result: The act creates the contact/harm it is intended to create
· Attendant Circumstances: Fact(s) that is/are legally relevant but is neither the act or the harm.
· Social Harm: An act must injure a group, interest deemed socially valuable or an individual in such a way that it offends society.
INVOLUNTARY ACTS: (1) reflex, (2) bodily movement while unconscious, (3) conduct during hypnosis and (4) a bodily movement that is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor
MENS REA:
DEFINITION: Must have a guilty mind (culpability) with respect to the “social harm” elements in the offense
· The intent of the act must be criminal
ELEMENTS: A person must commit an act intentional or knowingly
· COMMON LAW Intent: (1) It is his desire to cause the social harm, (2) He acts with knowledge that social harm is a virtual certainity to occur based on his conduct
· MPC Minimum Requirements of culpability:
o Purposely: (1)It is his conscious object to engage in conduct of the nature or to cause the
pposed. (LEGAL WRONG) In such case, however, the ignorance or mistake of the defendant shall reduce the grade and degree of the offense of which he may be convicted to those of the offense of which he would be guilty had the situation been as he supposed.
MISTAKE (OR IGNORANCE) OF LAW:
(COMMON LAW)Mistake or Ignorance of law is not an excuse unless…
· Reasonable Reliance: A person reasonably relying on an official statement of law, interpreted in a reasonable way may excuse mens rea of a crime
o NOT reasonable reliance: (1) personal interpretation of the law or (2) Advice on the law from a private council
· Fair Notice: If a person had no way of knowing there conduct was a crime they can not be liable
· Failure-of-Proof: Prosecution must prove the mens rea requirement
o Specific Intent: Mistake of law is an excuse whether reasonable or not
o General Intent: Mistake of law is not an excuse regardless of reasonableness
MPC 2.04(1) IGNORANCE OR MISTAKE AS FACT OF LAW:
(a) the ignorance or mistake negatives the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense; or
(b) the law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense.
