General Principles Flashcards
What is the utilitarian view on the principles of punishment?
Forward thinking — Does the punishment produce more overall good for society than it costs?
Punishment will be net positive for the future.
What is “act utilitarianism”?
An unlimited utilitarian viewpoint. If the end result is net good we should do it no matter what.
(justifies even punishment of innocent in extreme examples where it would do net good)
What is “rule utilitarianism”?
Utilitarianism + rules (not pure). One of those rules being “we cannot punish innocent people” even if it produces the most good.
What is the retributive view of principles of punishment?
Backwards thinking. Focuses on “just desserts” — defendant is morally culpable, so they deserve punishment.
What is “positive retributivism”?
Punish the guilty full stop. Even if it doesn’t “do good” to society. Only focuses on blameworthiness.
What is “negative retributivism”?
Punish the guilty only if it does good.
What is denunciation / expressive theory of punishment?
Punishment is sending a message about what is acceptable or unacceptable in society.
What is MPC’s view of why we punish/sentence objectives?
1.02(2)(a)
(i) render punishment proportionate to offense (seems retributive)
(ii) achieve rehab, deter, incapacitate, restitution, etc. (seems utilitarian)
How much punishment is reasonable? Retributive viewpoint:
The right amount of punishment is the amount the offender deserves based on the offender’s moral blameworthiness (related to mental state) and the degree of harm inflicted.
How much punishment is reasonable? Utilitarian viewpoint:
The right amount of punishment is the amount that is required to prevent crime such that the benefits to society outweigh the costs associated with the punishment.
Consider the best use of finite resources, deterability, collateral consequences. (see Bantham’s five rules)
How much punishment is reasonable? Expressive/Denunciative viewpoint:
However much punishment is going to send the message we want to send — “we won’t tolerate this”
When is punishment a violation of the Eighth Amendment?
Proportionality is only a constitutional violation when the sentence is GROSSLY disproportionate to the crime. (Ewing)
Solem’s three factos relevante to the constitutionality of proportionality:
1. the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty
2. the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and
3. the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.
Principle of legality
There must be a criminal law that prohibits a person’s conduct in existence at the time the person engages in the conduct in order for the person to be prosecuted and punished for the conduct.
(based on Due Process — notice)
Corollary Principles (three)
- Criminal statutes should be understandable to normal people.
- Criminal statutes should be crafted to avoid delegating basic policy matters to police, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad how and subjective basis.
- Ambiguity in criminal statutes should be interpreted in a manner more favorable to the accused (lenity doctrine).
Which of the corollary principles does the MPC NOT follow?
Lenity doctrine
What is the void for vagueness doctrine?
Criminal statutes must not be unduly vague such that they fail to provide fair notice of the prohibited conduct to ordinary people and encourage arbitrary discriminatory enforcement. But vagueness bar is HIGHLY and vagueness must not be assessed in a vacuum.
See in re banks for method of analysis.
In re Banks statutory interpretations tools
- Look at the statute as a whole (how are other sections written).
- Phrasing and diction.
- Law prior to statute and how it has changed
- Legislative history
- What the statute is aimed at addressing and the remedy.
- Common law at the time of enactment.
- Previous interpretations of the same or similar statutes
What is the actus reus of the crime?
The physical or external part of the crime.
(1) a voluntary act (or rarely omission) (2) that causes (3) social harm
Voluntary act vs intentional act
A voluntary act does NOT mean intentional. You can voluntarily pull the trigger without meaning to shoot someone.
Difference between “my hand went up” and “I raised my hand”
MPC Voluntary Act
2.01
Has to INCLUDE a voluntary act
(2) has exceptions (what is classified as involuntary)
Unconsciousness & the voluntary act requirement
If a person is unconscious at the time he commits an act which would otherwise be criminal, he is not responsible for it.
However, if the unconsciousness is voluntarily induced (drugs/alcohol) then the state of unconsciousness is not a complete defense.
Implications for sleepwalking, hypnosis, tourette’s….
Time-Framing and the Voluntary Act Requirement
Every act does not have to be voluntary, just must include one per 2.01(1).
The point we start to look at defendant’s conduct can determine whether it was voluntary.
If you broaden the time frame enough you can encompass some voluntary acts…
Ex: People v. Decían (seizure unconscious hit children and killed them. Narrow view = he was unconscious at the time he hit the children. Broader view = he voluntarily drove the vehicle…
Status offenses and the Voluntary Act Requirement
Status offenses (punishing a state of being) do NOT satisfy the voluntary act requirement and are unconstitutional.
Ex: making it an offense to be addicted to narcotics.
Omissions (Voluntary Act Requirement) - Common Law
Rare circumstances where omissions can be legally substituted for voluntary act component of an offense where there is a legal duty to act and the person with the duty is physically capable of acting.
Legal Duties:
§ Statute imposes (mandated reporter teacher)
§ Certain status relationships (spouse, child-parent, etc.)
§ Contractual duty to care for another (baby sitter, etc.)
§ Voluntary assumption of care for another that made it less likely that others would help
§ Creation of risk of harm
Omissions (Voluntary Act Requirement) — MPC
2.01(3)
(very similar to common law)
Liability may not be based on an omission UNLESS
(a) the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or
(b) a duty to preform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law
What is the social harm component of the actus reus of the crime?
The harm or injury to a socially valuable interest which the criminal law aims to eradicate.
What are conduct crimes? What is the social harm of it?
Law prohibits certain conduct with no particular result required. Social harm is the negation, endangering, or destruction of something deemed socially valuable.
Ex: driving under the influence (doesn’t matter if you are driving perfectly well/safely/no one hurt)
What are result crimes? What is the social harm of it?
Law prohibits causing a specific harmful result. Loss is suffered not only by the victim but by society (feeling safe, etc.)
Ex: Murder
Can crimes be classified as BOTH conduct crimes and result crimes?
Yes — vehicular homicide
What are attendant circumstances?
Facts of conditions that MUST be present in conjunction with the prohibited conduct/result in order to constitute the crime.
What is the mens rea component of a crime?
The actors state of mind regarding the social harm of the offense.
What are the common law mens rea terms?
The ones we talked about:
Maliciously
Intentionally
Willfully
Common law definition of maliciously
When one either intentionally or grossly recklessly causes the social harm prohibited by the statute.
Common law definition of intentional
To consciously cause the result or when one is virtually certain it will occur as a result of their conduct.
Encompasses both purposeful and knowing….
“the ordinary presumption is that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions. (Conley)
MPC mens rea terms
§ 2.02(2)
(a) purposely
(b) knowingly
(c) recklessly
(d) negligently
MPC definition of purposely
2.02(2)(a)
If it is the actors CONSCIOUS OBJECT to cause such a result or if the element is attendant circumstances then he is aware of such circumstance or hopes/believes they exist.
MPC definition of knowingly
2.02(2)(b)
Actor is AWARE his conduct is of the nature prohibited or attendant circumstances exist. OR IS PRACTICALLY CERTAIN THAT HIS CONDUCT WILL CAUSE SUCH A RESULT.
Requires subjective awareness
MPC definition of recklessly
2.02(2)(c)
Actor CONSCIOUSLY DISREGARDS A SUBSTANTIAL AND UNJUSTIFIABLE RISK
requires subjective risk awareness
MPC definition of negligently
2.02(2)(d)
actor SHOULD BE AWARE OF A SUBSTANTIAL AND UNJUSTIFIABLE RISK
What does the MPC do if an element of a crime does not have a prescribed mens rea term?
2.02(3)
The mens era term is read in to require at a minimum recklessness (purposely, knowingly also satisfy)
Only for material elements of the offense (not things like jurisdiction)
Do we look at the actors mens era to do the act or to cause the harm defined?
People v. Conley
Has to intend (mens rea) to do the social harm, but not necessarily the specific injury (break radius).
Transferred Intent – Common Law
Legal fiction used to attribute criminal liability for harm done to an unintended victim, when the actor had an intended victim. “Bad aim doctrine”
Limits
- Cannot transfer between crimes with a different social harm (meant to hit joe, hit police officer)
- Cannot apply with statute requires intent directed toward an actual victim (intent to maim, disfigure, or disable such person”
Transferred Intent – MPC
2.02(a) & 2.03(a)
Codified common law transferred intent with one additional limit – can only transfer intent the same or less serious/extent of the intended result
General v. Specific Intent
General intent = no particular mental state required, only requires that the social harm was performed with a morally blameworthy state of mind.
Specific intent = statute expressly requires a mental state
Categories of specific intent
- Intent to commit a future act
- Special motive or purpose
- Awareness of an attendant circumstance
What is the doctrine of Willful Blindness generally?
A way to satisfy a requirement of knowledge of an attendant circumstance as part of an offense even when the actor may not 100% know.
Common law formulation of Willful Blindness Doctrine
MAJORITY
- The actor believes (subjective) that there is a high probability that the fact (attendant circumstance) exists, and
- Takes deliberate action to avoid confirming the fact or purposely fails to investigate in order to avoid confirmation of the fact.
MPC approach to the Willful Blindness Doctrine
§2.02(7)
Knowledge is established “if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist.”
Difference between MPC and CL Willful Blindness Doctrine
MPC doesn’t require the second prong of CL (deliberate action) and adds “unless he believes it doesn’t exist”
Missouri’s Willful Blindness Doctrine
Doesn’t exist lol. Can get away with intentional ignorance
See State v. Nations 16 year old stripper.
If there is a mens rea term in a statute, which elements does the mens rea term apply to?
If not clear on its face, courts will seek to interpret in line with legislative intent (see In re Banks)
General rule (Flores-Figueroa) = interpret mens rea terms going forward.
Not a hard and fast rule though. Most important thing is legislative intent.
MPC 2.02(4) = to all material elements of the offense.
What is the definition of a strict liability crime?
Crime that does not require mens era for one or more elements of the actus reus.
CL presumptions of strict liability crimes and justifications for those presumptions
Extremely strong presumption against strict liability.
Hard core retributive values — not morally culpable so you can NEVER justify strict liability.
Does the voluntary act requirement apply to strict liability crimes?
Yes
MPC’s exception to reading in mens rea requirements (strict liability)
Violations.
Violations are civil offenses, so there is no moral condemnation (traffic tickets, etc.)
What are most strict liability crimes?
Public welfare offenses
What are three characteristics of public welfare offenses?
- Even one violation of them causes great harm to our collective public interest
- Usually short sentences relatively
- Less repetitional damage
How do you know if a statute is strict liability if it doesn’t say?
Start with a strong presumption against strict liability
Look at the language of the state
Try to determine the legislative intent (see In re Banks)
Mistake of fact — Common Law analysis
If the mistake relates to a specific intent portion of a crime and thus would mean the defendant had no moral culpability, then you can get acquittal.
If the crime is a general intent crime, in order to get acquittal the mistake would have the be an honest, reasonable mistake such that the defendant would have no moral culpability (assuming legal wrong or moral wrong doesn’t apply).
Mistake of fact Moral Wrong Doctrine
CL only
Even if the actors mistake of fact is reasonable, his intentional commission of an immoral act supplies the requisite blameworthiness to justify conviction.
Highly controversial and rare.
Mistake of fact Legal wrong doctrine MPC v. CL
Based on your mistake of fact, you thought you were committing a less serious offense than you are.
CL = too bad. You cannot escape liability for the greater offense based on mistake of fact. You are prosecuted for committing the greater offense.
MCP 2.204(2) you can only be prosecuted for the lesser act if you only have the mens rea for the lesser act.
Mistake of Fact — MPC Analysis
2.04(1)(a)
If the mistake of fact negates the required mens era for an element of the offense, it is a valid defense.
Mistake of Law — Common Law Approach
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Narrow exceptions:
1. Reasonable reliance (actor relied on misinterpretation of the law form an official of the law)
2. Fair notice (based on due process)
3. Negation of Mens rea for a specific intent offense (whether reasonable or unreasonable, if the mistake negates the specific intent in the offense — Cheek v. US D thought he didn’t have to pay taxes.
Mistake of Law — MPC Approach
Defense only when
(a) statute not known to actor and not published or otherwise reasonably made available prior to conduct or
(b) acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous
Actual Cause test for both CL and MPC.
“But for [D’s voluntary acts (or omissions)] would [social harm] have occurred when it did?”
How does the actual cause test work/apply when there are concurrent sufficient causes? (Two people shoot V in the head at the same time)
Common law = Substantial factor test — was D’s conduct a substantial factor in bringing about social harm
MPC 2.03(1) = Just make the but for test super specific. “But for the one D shooting V in the head, the victim would not have died from two mortal bullet wounds.”
Acceleration & aggravation — Actual Cause
Acceleration of the result (such as death) can create a but-for cause.
Aggravation is not the same. You can make the V’s pain more intense without accelerating (Oxendine v. State).
What is proximate cause?
Determines who or what events among those that satisfy the actual cause should be held criminally responsible for the resulting harm.
What is a superseding act?
Breaks the causal chain — displaces causal responsibility.
Common law factors to consider whether an intervening act is superseding:
- Foreseeability (was it responsive (involves the reaction to the conditions created) or was it coincidence (certain place at certain time which made it possible).
- Apparent Safety Doctrine (once you get to safety, causal chain is broken)
- Voluntary, deliberate, informed, human intervention
- Intervening cause is only a de minimis contribution to the social harm (very minor but for cause—acceleration by seconds)
- Intended consequences doctrine (if the consequence intended and the one that happened belong to the same general manner of what was wanted, it is not superseding).
- Omission v. Affirmative action (can an omission ever be superseding??)
MPC Approach to Proximate Cause
(2) When purposely or knowingly . . . element is not established if the actual result is not within the purpose or the contemplation of the actor unless:
(b) the actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as that designed or contemplated and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a [just] bearing on the actor’s liability or on the gravity of his offense.
(3) When recklessly or negligently . . . the element is not established if the actual result is not within the risk of which the actor is aware or, in the case of negligence, of which he should be aware unless: (b) the actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as the probable result and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a [just] bearing on the actor's liability or on the gravity of his offense.
Common law definition of willfully
Voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty
