Chapter 1: Criminal Law and Punishment in U.S. Society Flashcards
social reality of U.S. criminal law
the dual nature of U.S. criminal law divided into two categories: a small number of serious, core offenses and a large number of lesser crimes, or “everything else”
criminal law imagination
the contributions of law, history, philosophy, the social sciences, and sometimes biology to explain the moral desires we wish to impose on the world
Felonies against persons
the core offenses of murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, and robbery
Felonies against property
the core offenses of felonious theft, robbery, arson, and burglary
hard punishment
a sentence of a year or more in prison
police power
all federal, state, and local governments’ executive, legislative, and judiciary’s power, including uniformed police officers, to carry out and enforce the criminal law
torts
private wrongs for which you can sure the party who wronged you and recover money
compensatory damages
damages recovered by tort plaintiffs for their actual injuries
punitive damages
damages recovered by tort plaintiffs to punish the defendant for their “evil behavior”
mala in se crimes
offenses that require some level of criminal intent
mala prohibita offenses
offenses that are crimes only because a specific statute or ordinance prohibits them
felonies
crimes punishable by death or confinement in the state’s prison for one year to life without parole
misdemeanors
offenses punishable by fine and/or confinement in the local jail for up to one year
State criminal codes
criminal law created by elected representatives in state legislatures
Municipal codes
criminal law created by city and town councils elected by city residents
U.S. Criminal Code
criminal law created by U.S. Congress
Administrative agencies
appointed participants in creating criminal law that assist U.S. Congress
Criminal court opinions
create criminal law by interpreting state and municipal criminal codes
Criminal law enforcement agencies
create criminal law through informal discretionary law making to decide how the criminal law process works on a day-to-day basis
codified
written definitions of crimes and punishment enacted by legislatures and published
Model Penal Code (MPC)
proposed criminal code drafted by the American Law Institute and used to reform criminal codes
criminal liability
conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests
administrative crimes
violations of federal and state agency rules that make up a controversial but rapidly growing source of criminal law
Federal system
52 criminal codes, one for each of the 50 states, one for the District of Columbia, and one for the U.S. criminal code
punishment
intentionally inflicting pain or other unpleasant consequences on another person
criminal punishment
penalties that meet four criteria:
(1) inflict pain or other unpleasant consequences
(2) prescribe a punishment in the same law that defines the crime
(3) administered intentionally
(4) administered by the state
theories of criminal punishment
ways of thinking about the purposes of criminal punishment
retributionists
inflicting on offenders physical and psychological pain (“hard treatment”) so that they can pay for their crimes
preventionists
punishment is only a means to a greater good, usually the prevention or at least the reduction of future crime (also called consequentialists)
culpability
only someone who intends to harm their victim deserves punishment; accidents don’t qualify
justice
depends on culpability; only those who deserve punishment ought to receive it
deterrence
the use of punishment to prevent or reduce future crimes
specific deterrence
aims to reduce crime by inflicting the actual punishment to convince offenders not to commit crimes in the future
general deterrence
aims to reduce crime by the threat of punishment to convince criminal wannabees in the general population not to commit a crime in the future
incapacitation
prevents convicted criminals from committing future crimes by locking them up, or more rarely, by altering them surgically or executing them
rehabilitation
aims to prevent future crimes by changing individual offenders so that they want to play by the rules and won’t commit any more crimes in the future
hedonism
the natural law that human beings seek pleasure and avoid pain
rationalism
the natural law that individuals can act to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, permitting human beings to apply natural laws mechanistically (according to rules) instead of having to rely on the discretionary judgment of individual decision makers
classical deterrence theory
rational human beings won’t commit crimes if they know that the pain of punishment outweighs the pleasure gained from committing crimes
principle of utility
permits only the minimum amount of pain necessary to prevent the crime
“medical model” of criminal law
crime is a “disease”, and criminals are “sick” in need of “treatment” and “cure”
“not guilty” verdict
doesn’t mean “innocent”; it means that the government didn’t prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt
“guilty” verdict
legally, not necessarily factually, guilty; it means the government proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt
trial courts
where the cases for the state and the defense are presented; their witnesses and the physical evidence are introduced; and the fact finders (juries in jury trials or judges in nonjury bench trials) decide what the “true” story is and whether the evidence all adds up to proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
appellate courts
in most states and the federal government, the two levels of appeals courts: an intermediate court of appeals and a supreme court
the court’s judgement
the court’s judgement (sometimes called the court’s decision) is how the court disposes of the case
the court’s opinion
“the point of the story”; the court backs up its judgement by explaining how and why it applied the law (general principles and the elements of crimes) to the facts of the case
Court’s Holding
the legal rule the court has decided to apply to the facts of the cases
Court’s Reasoning
the reasons the court gives to support its holding
majority opinion
the law of the case; the opinion of the majority of justices on the court who participated in the case
concurring opinion
agrees with the conclusions of wither the majority or the dissenting opinion but provides different reasons for reaching the conclusion
plurality opinion
an opinion that represents the reasoning of the greatest number (but less than a majority) of justices
case citation
members, letters, and punctuation that tell you where to locate the full case report
