General

Question 1

Justifications of Punishment

Answer 1

Utilitarian
Retributivism

Question 2

Retribution

Answer 2

Backwards thinking, ensures that the person convicted recieves their just deserts.

Question 3

Expressivism

Answer 3

The people of an area share the same ideas of moral wrongs

Question 4

Utilitarian

Answer 4

Deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation

forward thinking

specific and general deterrence

Question 5

Specific Deterrence

Answer 5

for the individual

we do not want YOU to do the harm again

Question 6

General Deterrence

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Mercy in punishment

Answer 7

allows healing for some, others think it is unecessary

Question 8

Utility of Deserts

Answer 8

“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

Question 9

The Written Statute Requirement

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Retroactivity

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

Vagueness

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Lenity

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Act requirement/ Actus Reas

Answer 13

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

Question 14

Equation

Answer 14

Crime = actus reas + mens rea + causation, unless excuse or justification

Question 15

Causation

Answer 15

A harmful result caused both factually and proximately by the dft’s act

Question 16

Justification

Answer 16

A justification renders an action “right,” “permissible,” “not wrongful,” or “not punishable.”

Question 17

Excuse

Answer 17

An excuse means that the offender is not blameworthy or, at least, not punishable.

Question 18

Omission/ Failure to act

Answer 18

A legal duty established by

a statute
a contract
a relationship existing
creation of the peril

Question 19

Mens Rea

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Ladder of Culpability (MPC §2.02)

Answer 20

Purposely
knowingly
recklessly
negligently

Question 21

Willful Blindness

Answer 21

a judicially-made doctrine that expands the definition of knowledge to include closing one’s eyes to the high probability a fact exists

Question 22

Scienter

Answer 22

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

Question 23

Common law causation

Answer 23

What is the but-for (actual) cause?

What is the proximate/ legal cause?

Question 24

Determining proximate cause in common law

Answer 24

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)

Question 25

MPC approach to causation

Answer 25

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

Question 26

Common law mens rea

Answer 26

Specific intent (the thought and then the doing)

General intent (awareness of a high likelihood that the crime will take place)

Strict liability

Question 27

MPC Mens Rea

Answer 27

Purposely (intentionally)

Knowingly (Willfullness)

Recklessly

Negligently

Question 28

MPC Purpose

Answer 28

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

Question 29

MPC Knowing

Answer 29

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

Question 30

MPC Reckless

Answer 30

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

Question 31

MPC negligence

Answer 31

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

Question 32

Common law mens rea

Answer 32

Malice

Question 33

Mistake

Answer 33

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

Question 34

Who has the burden for mistake

Answer 34

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

Question 35

Moral wrong

Answer 35

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.

Question 36

Legal wrong

Answer 36

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

Question 37

Mistake of fact CL

Answer 37

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)

Question 38

mistake of law CL

Answer 38

ignorance of the law is not an excuse

Question 39

Mistake of law MPC

Answer 39

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)

Question 40

Mistake of fact MPC

Answer 40

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.

Question 41

what is a mistake of fact

Answer 41

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

Question 42

What is mistake of law

Answer 42

a mistake about the legal effect of a factual situation