CRIMINAL LAW
Session 1 (p.67-105)
The Justification for Punishment
A. What is Punishment
a. Punishment can be a fine, probation, imprisonment, etc..
B. Blame and Punishment
a. Regina v. Dudley and Stevens
i. Dudley and Stevens were indicted for the murder of Richard Parker on the high seas after they decided to kill and ate him because they were starving on the high seas after their boat got caught in a storm.
ii. If the men did not feed upon the boy, they would probably not have survived.
iii. The question is whether killing under these circumstances set forth in the verdict can be murder.
iv. Instead of casting lots to see who would survive, they rejected this idea, and D and S decided to kill the boy. Thus the morality argument went out the window.
v. In order to save your own life, you may lawfully take away the life of another, when that other is neither attempting nor threatening yours, nor is guilty of any illegal act whatever towards you or any one else.
vi. He says that he ought rather to die himself than kill an innocent.
vii. If extreme hunger does not justify larceny, how can we say that these circumstances justify murder?
viii. They were sentenced for death after being found guilty, but later had their sentence commuted by the Crown after six months in prison.
ix. The court said they could not kill the boy, even if it meant to save their lives because:
1. They are forbidden by legal authority
2. They are forbidden by morality
3. It’s difficult for the court 2 calculate the worth of Parkers life
4. Others would be encouraged to commit crimes in similar circ.
5. the Crown can correct our mistake if there is to be one
6. The law cannot accommodate human weakness.
C. Why Punish?
a. Justification for punishment falls into 2 categories: Retributive and Utilitarian.
i. Retributive
a. Claims that punishment is justified because people deserve it, and the wrongdoer should be punished, whether or not it will result in a reduction in crime (backwards looking)
b. It is the view that punishment is justified by the moral culpability of those who receive it.
c. An innocent person never deserves punishment because he has no debt to repay to society.
d. Punishment for wrongdoing is morally right, even obligatory.
2. Forms of Retributivism
a. Public Vengeance
i. It is morally right to hate criminals.
ii. Revenge factor.
b. Victim Vindication
i. Once the criminal receives punishment proportional to the offense, the score is made even.
ii. Utilitarian
a. Seek to justify punishment on the basis of the good consequences it is expected to produce in the future. (forward looking)
b. The purpose of laws is to maximize the net happiness of society.
c. Its hope is to use punishment to prevent or reduce crime in the future, assuming that humans act hedonistically and rationally.
d. Punishment is undesirable unless it will result in a net benefit to society.
2. Forms of Utilitarianism
a. Crime prevention
b. Deterrence
i. General Deterrence
1. D is punished in order to convince the general community to forego criminal conduct in the future.
ii. Specific Deterrence
1. D’s punishment is meant to deter future misconduct by D.
iii. If criminal law is to deter, the potential offender must (1) know of the rule, (2) perceive the cost of violation as greater than the perceived benefit, and (3) must be able and willing to bring such knowledge to bear on hi
e conviction, holding that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to instruct the jury as to defendant’s involuntary, unconscious state. Involuntary unconsciousness provided a complete defense to a particular crime because it negated capacity to commit any crime. Defendant’s evidence warranted an instruction concerning unconsciousness.
3. The court said that because the defendant had been shot in the abdomen before he fired any shots himself, and the testimony of the doctor who agreed with this story of unconsciousness after being shot in the stomach, the court allowed the jury to hear unconsciousness as a defense to criminal homicide.
4. Unconsciousness is a complete defense to a charge of criminal homicide, the court said. This includes, coma, inertia, incapability of locomotion or manual action so it should be allowed for the jury to hear.
Rationale for Voluntary Act Requirement (Policy)
1.) It is fundamental that a civilized society does not punish for thoughts alone
2.) The law cannot hope to deter involuntary movement or to stimulate action that cannot physically be performed
3.) The sense of personal security would be undermined in a society where such movement or inactivity could lead to formal social condemnation of the sort that a conviction necessarily entails.
4.) People whose involuntary movements threaten harm to others may present a public health or safety problem, calling for therapy or even for custodial commitment; they do not present a problem of correction.
No act is punishable if it is done involuntarily, thus there are some exceptions listed below:
But it does not include simply not remembering it or because he could not control his impulse to do it. The “I couldn’t help myself” or “I didn’t mean to” defense does not work.
Involuntary acts are never blameworthy, but voluntary acts are not always blameworthy.
Exceptions of Voluntary Acts
1.) Cases of Seizures
2.) Convulsions
