General Flashcards
Justifications of Punishment
Utilitarian
Retributivism
Retribution
Backwards thinking, ensures that the person convicted recieves their just deserts.
Expressivism
The people of an area share the same ideas of moral wrongs
Utilitarian
Deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation
forward thinking
specific and general deterrence
Specific Deterrence
for the individual
we do not want YOU to do the harm again
General Deterrence
The rest of us will see what happens and will decide that we do not want that same sentence, so therefore we will not put ourselves in a similar situation
Mercy in punishment
allows healing for some, others think it is unecessary
Utility of Deserts
“get what you get” becauase we have a similar idea of what should be/ what needs to be done in society, we can maintain compliance
The Written Statute Requirement
there must be a legilstaive expression written that tells us what the offense is and what the law is
whether you have read the law or not, you are held to the standard of knowledge that you know that law because it was available to you
Retroactivity
you cannot be found guilty of something that was not criminal at the time you did the act.
The nature of the legal prohibition must have come before the defendant has committed the act in question.
Vagueness
If it is not clear, then it is not fair and it may not be constitutional
Violates the first essential of due process law
How do we hold people accountable for the law that they do not know
issues of unequal justice
Lenity
all things being equal, the advantage is still to the person “throwing the ball (plt)” therefore, the effort of the runner (dft) is taken into account when it is ambiguous. We are going to say, give it to the runner.
If there is ambiguity in the meaning of the terms, because the legislature had their opportunity to write and enact this clearly (they had the power and duty to make the law clear), we should not disadvantage those who are having to defend themselves against it
Act requirement/ Actus Reas
A physical act (or unlawful omission) by the defendant
MUST be voluntary
reflexive and convulsive acts do not count
Acts performed while the dftt was either unconscious or asleep do not satisfy the act requirement unless the dft knew that they mght fall asleep and engaged in that behavior
Equation
Crime = actus reas + mens rea + causation, unless excuse or justification
Causation
A harmful result caused both factually and proximately by the dft’s act
Justification
A justification renders an action “right,” “permissible,” “not wrongful,” or “not punishable.”
Excuse
An excuse means that the offender is not blameworthy or, at least, not punishable.
Omission/ Failure to act
A legal duty established by
a statute
a contract
a relationship existing
creation of the peril
Mens Rea
State of mind of intent of the dft at the time of the act
Guilty mind
want to distinguish between inadvertant acts and acts done with a guilty mind
DOES NOT MATTER FOR STRICT LIABILITY
Ladder of Culpability (MPC §2.02)
Purposely
knowingly
recklessly
negligently
Willful Blindness
a judicially-made doctrine that expands the definition of knowledge to include closing one’s eyes to the high probability a fact exists
Scienter
A legal term that refers to a culpable state of mind. In other words, scienter is a defendant’s knowledge that an act or conduct is wrongful and intent to act despite this knowledge
Common law causation
What is the but-for (actual) cause?
What is the proximate/ legal cause?
Determining proximate cause in common law
was the response abnormal or normal in response to the action?
was it responsive? (reasonably foreseeable, does not break the chain of causation)/ coincidental (breaks chain of causation because it is not contingent upon the first defendant’s action)
MPC approach to causation
Conduct is the cause of a result when:
- It is antecedent “but for”
- Purpose or Knowledge
Purposely or knowingly causing a particular result is an element of an offense, look to…
- Not too remote or accidental in its occurrence
- To have a just bearing on defendant’s liability
For reckless/ negligent, need to establish that it was within the risk that the actor was aware of (reckless), or something he should have been aware of (negligent)
Then the rest is unless….point 2
Common law mens rea
Specific intent (the thought and then the doing)
General intent (awareness of a high likelihood that the crime will take place)
Strict liability
MPC Mens Rea
Purposely (intentionally)
Knowingly (Willfullness)
Recklessly
Negligently
MPC Purpose
A person acts purposely with respect to their conduct when it is their conscious object to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result
MPC Knowing
A person acts knowingly when they are aware That their conduct is of that nature or that certain circumstances exist
They are deemed to be aware of the circumstances when they know there is a high probability that they exist and deliberately avoid learning the truth/ ignore the truth
They act knowingly with respect to the result of the conduct when they know the conduct will necessarily or very likely cause the result
MPC Reckless
Conscious disregarding of the substantial and unjustifiable risk or that a prohibited result will follow and this disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in that situation
Realization of the risk is not enough they must know that the injury might result
So both (1) unjustifiable risk and (2) awareness
MPC negligence
A person acts negligently when they fail to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or result will follow and, such failure constitutes a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances
Common law mens rea
Malice
Mistake
A mistake of law defense can help negate the criminal intent requirement as he did not believe he was conspiring to do anything illegal. Mistake of fact, on the other hand, refers to a legal defense where someone who was accused of a crime shows that: They did not have the intent to commit an offense
Who has the burden for mistake
Dft asserts mistake of fact or law as a defense
THEN
Burden of persuasion falls to prosecution, to establish, beyond a reasonable a doubt that dft acted with the required mental state
Moral wrong
we’ll recognize the mistake, but if you were doing something that was morally wrong and you knew that, we are not going to allow a defense in that.
Legal wrong
he dft could subjectively believe they were doing something unlawful, but they still believed they were doing a lesser offense. “I did not think i was doing the first degree offense, I thought I was doing the second degree offense”
unfair when it comes to punishment
Mistake of fact CL
Looks to see whether or not the mistake that was made pertains to the specific intent element of definition of that offense
If the do not have they requisite, specific intention, to commit the added aspects of what makes it larceny, then the elements are not met and mistake covers it.
If general intent, look to see if it was reasonable (if unreasonable, don’t get it)
mistake of law CL
ignorance of the law is not an excuse
Mistake of law MPC
MPC recognizes that legal mistakes might be relevant if knowledge or awareness of the law is a material element of the offense
applies when:
Official statement or ruling later determined to be erroneous or wrong
Where someone with administrative or official authority has the authority to determine what the law means (determined by highest legal authority in jxn)
Mistake of fact MPC
a mistake of fact is a defense if and only if it negates the required mental element of the offense: “purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness, or negligence.
what is a mistake of fact
A mistake of fact is a mistake about a material factual element or mistaken belief other than a mistake of law. Examples include erroneous beliefs about the meaning of a legal term or about the identity of some person
What is mistake of law
a mistake about the legal effect of a factual situation
