I. Introduction:
· A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
· Burden of Proof is on the П, the Δ does not have to produce evidence unless he chooses.
· Jury Nullification: Jury believes that the prosecution has established its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but will NOT convict him on the charge in question.
o The right is given to the jury.
· The prosecutor is required to prove every element of an offense. However, he is not required to disprove any defense to the crime.
o MPC § 1.12(1) – requires the prosecutor to prove every “element” of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
o MPC § 1.13(9)(c) – the code defines “element” broadly to include the absence of any excuse or justification defense. Therefore, the MPC places a greater burden of proof on the prosecutor than is constitutionally required.
· Elements of a Crime
o Actus Reus
§ Conduct
§ Result
§ Attendant circumstances
o Mens Rea
§ State of mind
· MPC can be divided into 2 parts
o Interpretive Provisions: tell us how to interpret not only other parts of MPC, but any statute. Many jurisdictions who have kept their own criminal code, they have adopted the MPC’s interpretive provisions, or might rely on them.
o Substantive Provisions: its definitions of different offenses/crimes
II. Theories of Punishment
A. Retributivist Theory:
· Thinks of people as free will agents
· People deserve to be punished if they’ve done something wrong.
· A person who commits a crime has chosen to take something from society that he doesn’t deserve and therefore owes a debt.
· Punishment should be proportional to what they’ve taken from us and to how “morally blameworthy” they are.
· So, we look backward to see what Δ has done. If Δ has committed a crime in a morally blameworthy fashion, then he should be punished.
· No punishment given if none deserved.
· Negligence –
o Some state that a person who has not paid attention to a risk has not chosen to create that risk and therefore is not morally culpable
o Others (“Character” school) say that a person who has the capacity to be non-negligent and fails to use that capacity is morally blameworthy
· Examples:
o A murder should be punished more than a robber, b
n, they like pleasure, a would be criminal will commit a crime if it brings pleasure, but thinks about the pain if get caught — so balance the potential pleasure and pain and rationalize whether it’s worth the risk.
· Negligence –
o Some argue that punishing negligent Δs may encourage others to be more careful (deterrence)
o Others argue that persons rarely act w/o believing that they are acting rationally and reasonably and that they will not teach themselves to be more than what they believe is reasonable – no deterrent effect to punish
· Criticism:
o crimes are not being deterred (prison numbers going up)
o the notion that you could justify the punishment of an innocent person
§ Hypothetical: someone says that they will execute 1000 kids unless we execute the President. U would say that was ok.
Theory allows a “sheriff” to save the lives of many at the expense of one innocent man (arrest an innocent black
