Week 1
Purpose of criminal law
– General deterrence: punishing a criminal in order to send a message of wrongdoing to the public and prevent the public from committing the wrongdoing
– Specific deterrence: punishing a criminal in order to prevent the person from committing the wrongdoing again
– Incapacitation: putting a criminal into a jail
– Retribution: a criminal just deserves to be punished
– Rehabilitation: changing a criminal into a better person by methods other than incarcerations
Theories of punishment
– Utilitarian theory: the threat of punishment will reduce crime because human beings act rationally and hedonistically. A person contemplating crime will calculate the expected benefits of the crime against risks. The person will avoid crime if the perceived potential pain as result of crime outweighs the perceived potential pleasure.
– Retributive theory: a criminal should be punished whether or not it will reduce crime. A criminal deserves punishment when he/she freely chooses to violate society’s laws. A criminal just deserves punishment solely based on his/her voluntarily committing crime.
Dudley and Stephens
– Surviving cannibalism was acceptable at the time
– Now it is not
– Law changes over time as its context changes
Downey, Hicks, Warmke cases
– Corpus delicti rule: In order to convict an accused of a felonious homicide, the prosecution must prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) a death occurred and (2) the death was caused by the accused as criminal agency.
– Both elements of the corpus delicti can be established when there is only circumstantial evidence. The rule does not require dead body to be found.
– Out-of-court admission from the accused alone cannot establish the corpus delicti because false conviction of an innocent may result.
– Direct and circumstantial evidence are equally persuasive to prove the corpus delicti.
– Standard of proof at preliminary examination: prosecution must establish with given evidence to probable cause that the accused did the crime.
– Standard of proof at trial: prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.
Week 2
Malice aforethought
– Malice occurs if he intentionally (express malice) or recklessly (implied malice) cause the social harm prohibited by the offence.
– Malice is essential for murder (first and second degree)
– Four things to prove malice: in
hows to be an offense included in fact with the offense charged.
Involuntary manslaughter
Criminal negligence
– Gross deviation from a reasonable person’s conduct
– 1) very high risk 2) reasonably foreseeable (D as a reasonable person should have been aware of the substantial and unjustifiable risk) 3) no provocation, justification, excuse
– State v. Hardi: D thought a gun was harmless, threatened a woman with it, pointed at her, but accidentally shot her and killed her. D is liable for involuntary manslaughter because a reasonable and prudent person in D’s position would not act in such manner. The defendant’s act is evaluated against objective standard. Social policy for this test is to prevent anyone from testing whether the gun is working by aiming at another person.
People v. Rodriguez: D left her children at home and fire occurred and her son died. D’s mere negligence is not sufficient to prove criminal negligence required for involuntary manslaughter. D’s conduct must be unreasonable in the face of
