TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I. INTRODUCTORY MATERIALS. 2
Section 1: The Nature of Criminal Law and its Analytic Structure. 2
Section 2: The Legality Principle. 3
Section 3: Theories of Punishment4
PART II. OFFENSE REQUIREMENTS. 6
Section 4: Culpability Requirements. 7
Section 5: Culpability & Mistake. 9
PART III. HOMICIDE AND RELATED ISSUES. 13
Section 6: Homicide: Doctrines of Aggravation. 13
Section 8: Homicide: Doctrines of Mitigation. 15
Section 9: Causation. 17
PART IV. INCHOATE LIABILITY.. 19
Section 10: Attempt Liability. 19
Section 11: Impossibility. 22
Section 12: Conspiracy. 24
PART V. DOCTRINES OF IMPUTATION.. 27
Section 13: Voluntary Intoxication. 28
Section 14: Complicity. 31
Section 15: The Act Requirement & Liability for an Omission. 33
Section 16: Corporate Criminality. 36
PART VI. GENERAL DEFENSES. 38
PART VI.A. JUSTIFICATION DEFENSES GENERALLY.. 39
Section 17: Lesser Evil Defenses. 40
Section 18: Defensive Force Justifications. 42
Section 19: Public Authority Justification. 43
Section 20: Mistake as to a Justification. 45
VI.B. EXCUSE DEFENSES GENERALLY.. 46
Section 21: Mistake Excuses. 47
Section 22: Insanity. 48
Section 23: Disability Excuses. 50
PART VI.C. NONEXCULPATORY DEFENSES GENERALLY.. 53
Section 24: Entrapment53
DEVIATIONS FROM DESERT. 55
PART I. INTRODUCTORY MATERIALS
Elements Satisfied?
1) Objective Elements
a. Causation
2) Culpability Elements
Is there a General Defense?
1) Justification (understandable)
2) Excuse (not responsible)
3) Nonexculpatory (other)
4) Mistake
5) Criminalization
Missing Element Imputed?
Complicity
Causing crime by innocent
Felony Murder
Voluntary Intoxication
No Liability
Liability
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
Section 1: The Nature of Criminal Law and its Analytic Structure
I. Overview
A. Objective elements – conduct, circumstance, result (some offenses don’t have all 3)
B. culpability elements – purposeful, knowing, reckless or negligent
1. at least recklessness must be read into every objective element for which no culpability requirement is expressly stated
C. General defenses
1. Justification defenses are lesser evils, claim that while what was done was a violation, the harm was outweighed by the special justifying circumstances (ex-ante defenses that modify defense definitions)
2. Excuse defenses are a determination that what was done was the wrong thing, but the defendant couldn’t be expected to avoid the violation.
3. Non-exculpatory defenses are defenses that let defendants off to promote some other (public) interest (eg, diplomatic immunity or statute of limitations) – don’t condone activity
4. Failure of Proof could be ignorance or mistake; no proof of
culpability elements
5. Offense Modification is specific to offense definition such as
consent.
II. Criminal v. Civil Law
A. Civil law shifts blame onto those who can bear it best
B. Criminal law has a moral/punishment component: assigning blame and condemnation
C. Culpability differences: need realization of doing act
Section 2: The Legality Principle
Crime should be defined in writing beforehand, with sufficient clarity and precision. If statute is ambiguous, it would trigger one of the interpretation rules. If it’s vague (no specific interpretation), it may be void.
I. Doctrines
A. prohibits judicial creation of offenses, common law offenses, vague offenses & ex-post facto
II. Interpretation
A. rule of strict construction/rule of lenity – with ambiguously defined offenses, interpret in favor of D
1. exceptions – “not to be construed so strictly as to defeat the obvious intention of the legislation” or “to override common sense” not necessary to give “narrowest meaning” or “forced, narrow or overstrict construction”
2. in practice, courts use discretion to decide whether ambiguity exists. They may act as if there’s no ambiguity and use their preferred interpretation.
B. rule of fair import – Gives courts authority to interpret statutes in a way that does not frustrate the legislative purpose; yet, by relying upon the fair import of the terms, the rule seeks to ensure that some reasonable notice of the offense is possible. Adopted in lieu of strict construction by mo
sought to be deterred
D. prerequisites for deterrence
1. know what law is
2. be able to rationally calculate costs and benefits of engaging in prohibited conduct
3. conclude that it’s in their interest not to commit crime
E. deterrence pros – can prevent crime
F. deterrence cons
1. People don’t know law
2. people aren’t rational
3. people may still decide that it is in their interest to commit crime, with or without making the rational calculation; costs may not outweigh benefits
4. may not be just b/c more visible criminals get more punishment on deterrence theory
G. incapacitation – most direct means of preventing future offenses
1. pure incapacitation would want to predict people’s dangerousness & incapacitate
2. pros – works to prevent & has no prerequisites
3. cons – immoral to punish before they commit crime, maybe more effective to use civil commitment system instead of criminal system
4. cons – must identify dangerous persons before they act; behavioral sciences are limited in making such accurate predictions
H. rehabilitation –takes away desire or need to commit crime; need not wait until after a potential offender has committed an offense; effectiveness depends on whether:
1. people in danger of committing an offense in the future are accurately identified
2. there is an ability to find treatment regimes that will rehabilitate
3. there is an accurate ability to determine when a person under treatment is rehabilitated
II. Just desert (retributivist theory)à punishment is a desirable aim in itself
I. 2 conceptions of desert
1. moral philosophy derived from principles of right & wrong
product of social psychology based on empirical date: what drives lay persons
