Crim Terms Flashcards
General Detterence
Criminal punishments deter other people from committing that act
specific deterrence
criminal punishment deters the actor from committing that act again
Incapacitation
Incarceration keeps people from committing crimes
rehabilitation
people can be “cured” of their criminal tendencies
retribution
just deserts and vengeance justify criminal punishment
expression of community values
criminal punishment educates people about what is wrong
actus reus
the physical component of the crime
voluntary act
is an act that is only voluntary if it is a product of a person’s free will, manifested by a corresponding, external body movement
involuntary act
is an act that is only involuntary if it is NOT a product of a person’s free will, manifested by a corresponding, external body movement
Omissions
when accused person had failed to act, he or she has not committed a criminal act and ordinarily cannot be convicted of a crime based upon that failure
What are the ways a person does have legal duty to act - and hence can be convicted for a failure to act?
Where a statute imposes such a duty
Where a close “status relationship” exists
Where a contractual obligation exists
where a person takes the initiative and performs an act
where the act has created the peril that confronts the victim
A person cannot be convicted for failing to act even though he or she has a duty to act IF
he or she is unaware of the need to act
or does not have the physical capacity
Mens rea
the “guilty” mind and/or the traditional name for mental state requirement
MPC four levels of intentionality to be used as mens rea tests
Purpose
Knowledge
Recklessness
Negligence
Mens rea - MPC - Purpose
Accused’s “conscious object” was to commit criminal act charged
Mens rea - MPC - Knowledge
Accused was aware that nature of conduct was like that charged or was “practically certain” that it would cause criminal result
Mens rea - MPC - recklessness
accused “consciously” disregarded substantial and unjustifiable risk of committing or causing criminal act which was “gross deviation” from what reasonable person would do
Mens rea - MPC - negligence
Accused “should” have been aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk of committing or causing criminal act which was “gross deviation” from what reasonable person would do
Recklessness v. Negligence - MPC -Mens rea
Recklessness, accused has to actually be aware of risk of criminal conduct, while for negligence, accused merely should have been aware
general intent
when conviction requires only proof of intent to commit act that causes the harm
specific intent
when proof is required of an additional intent beyond committing act that causes the harm
sufficiency
intoxication or drugged condition must be so extreme that accused did not possess prescribed mens rea
causation
actual (but for) causation + legal causation
actual (but for) causation
But for the accused’s actions, would criminal result have occurred when it did?
multiple actors - more than one person may be actual cause of same criminal result
