Criminal Law – C. Hessick – Fall 2016
Punishment Theories
Retributivism – punishment is justified because the person who committed a crime deserves it.
“eye for an eye”, Backward looking
Proportionality – amount of punishment must be in proportion to harm caused and the defendant’s culpability
Utilitarianism – finding the optimal level of punishment, forward looking, trying to prevent future crime.
Deterrence – punishing to discourage/disincentivize future crime
General Deterrence – deterring general population from committing crime
D is punished to deter the general community from committing criminal conduct in the future
D is used as a means to a desired end, namely, a net reduction in crime
Specific Deterrence – deterring past offenders from repeating offense
D’s punishment is meant to deter D from committing crime again
Incapacitation – removing (jail) or restricting (probation) criminals from acting out
Rehabilitation (changed mindset) – reduce crime by reforming criminals through treatment programs and giving them skills.
Theories can be either descriptive, prescriptive or normative
Descriptive – theory intended to describe past behavior
Prescriptive – theory attempting to describe how states will react to & shape policy in response to criminal behavior
Normative – theories suggesting the right thing to do. Prescriptive can often be normative
Actus Reus
Crime has two parts: actus reus & mens rea
Actus Reus – the physical act or external part of the crime (Guilty Hand)
An act [conduct]
Must be voluntary
Two views of Actus Reus
Narrow view – just the action (stabbing)
Expanded view – action & result (stabbing & death)
Mens Rea – the mental or internal part of crime
“Guilty Mind”
Involuntary Acts – Common Law
The actus reus element must be voluntary
Cannot be voluntary if done through by force of another
Martin v. State
Not involuntary if you cannot remember (State v. Utter)
Involuntary if automatism (State v. Utter)
Involuntary Acts – MPC
No person may be convicted of a crime in he absence of voluntary act
Not a voluntary act if
reflex or convulsion;
a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep;
conduct during hypnosis
a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual (if Dan forced me to punch Mike)
Omissions
Omission is the failure to act
Omission liability – expectation to act, but you did not
Common Law standards for omission liability (bright line rules)
Where statute imposes a duty
Where one stands in a certain status relationship with another
Parent to Child
Spouses
Master to Apprentice
Ship Captain/Crew
Innkeeper/Inebriated customer
Where one has assumed contractual duty for another
Where one has voluntary assumed care and secluded person to prevent others from aiding
If person creates a risk of harm to another – i.e. if someone hits a pedestrian – must help or get help for that person
MPC standards for omission liability (flexible standards)
“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 (law says omission is a crime)
i.e. failing to pay taxes
duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law
What are the details of this duty?
P. 1018 Article 2, Section 3
Questions to ask when considering omission liability
Do you have a duty to act?
Do you know about that duty/risk
Would the steps you need to take actually make a difference?
Would it cause harm to one’s self to take those steps/
Mens Rea
Mens Rea “Guilty Mind”
The mental state someone has when engaging in an act
Broad view – ‘guilty mind’ ‘vicious will’ – refers to any morally blameworthy state of mind (whether it be intentionally or recklessly)
Narrow view – mental state must have had with regard to social harm
General Intent – no particular mental state is set out in definition of crime
Prosecution needs only to prove crime was performed with any mens rea
If MPC, you use gap filler
Specific Intent – offense w/mens rea is expressly laid out in definition of crime
i.e. larceny and burglary
Larceny is the taking and removal of one’s property with the intent to permanently deprive that person of said property
the intent to permanently deprive that person of the property
Categories of Mens Rea
Applies elemental approach to mens rea, prosecutor must prove each element
Most culpable state and most difficult to prove at the top, and least culpable and least difficult to prove at bottom.
Purposefully – intended your conduct & intended result
Ex: poisoning & killing your husband at dinner party
Knowingly – intended your conduct, knew result was essentially certain
Ex: poisoning & killing other guests at dinner party
Recklessly – conduct involves substantial & unjustifiable risk, disregard risk.
Ex: getting drunk at Alabama football p
(Common Law)
(D)’s conduct, based on facts he believes to be, you charge him of the more serious offense of which his conduct exemplifies.
Ex: If (D) thought he was dealing cocaine (lower offense), but he was actually dealing heroin (greater offense), he would be convicted of dealing heroin under the Legally Wrong Doctrine.
MPC
Convict the lesser crime, of which his conduct exemplifies
Ex: If (D) thought he was dealing cocaine (lower offense), but he was actually dealing heroin (greater offense), he would be convicted of dealing cocaine under MPC.
Mistake of fact not available if actor would be guilty of another offense had circumstances been as supposed.
Mistake Analysis Framework
Break down statute into each of its elements
What is the mens rea of each element?
Did mistake negate the mens rea of one of the elements?
Does the jurisdiction require the mistake to be reasonable?
Look for mismatch between defendant’s conduct & defendant’s beliefs
Mistake of Law
Mistake of law is not an excuse except when court presumes the legislature so intended
The court presumes that the legislature so intended when . . .
When word willful modifies conduct in a federal regulatory statute.
Minority – When legislature specifically provides for some form of reasonable reliance upon a legal authority as an excuse
When offense definition incorporates a legal circumstance or element
Mistaken not about the law that defines the offense, you are mistaken about a different law – the result of which creates the offense.
Ex. Whether property was mine or someone else’s – Whether my prior conviction was a felony or not – Whether my divorce was legally valid in a bigamy prosecution
But This Depends on what the required Mental State is .
Awareness or Knowledge: Even an unreasonable mistake means that you did not have required mental state
Reckless or Negligence: Your mistake must be reasonable in order for you not to have been negligent or reckless with respect to that circumstance
Strict Liability: Even a reasonable mistake is not a defense
