Intro to Punishment & Statutory Interpretation Cases Flashcards
Three men and a 18-year-old castaway sea with no food or water. They caught a turtle and ate it, but after the 12th day, the men spoke among themselves without the boy determining that they should sacrifice someone to save the rest if no vessel rescued them (one man dissented). None came so they killed the boy with a knife and fed on him until picked up by a passing vessel.
Are they guilty of murder and/or duress and why?
Yes. The men are guilty of murder in our sentence is death, but then the sentence was commuted to six months.
Murder: Dudley and Stevens intended to cause the death by agreeing to kill the boy
Duress: I likely to apply because I had no way of knowing of another turtle could not be caught or that a boat would not see them in time to rescue them = act was not immediately necessary to avoid death
Eating someone out of starvation is not justification for murder
The Queen v. Dudley & Stephens, England and Wales High Court of Justice (1884) — Retribution
D had a three burglaries and one robbery prior to the arrest. He stole golf clubs and was charged with account of felony grand theft of personal property.
Sentenced to 25 years to life
Was this justified?
Yes. California has a “three strikes your out” law which sentences repeat felons to prison for 25 years to life. The sentence is justified with states public safety interest in incapacitating and deterring recidivist felons.
- not grossly disproportionate = does not violate 8th A.
Concurring: Proportionality is nonsense for deterrence and only relevant for retribution. This should be a policy analysis which the courts can’t do
Sentencing a repeat felon to 25 years’ imprisonment under the state’s three-strikes law does not violate the 8th A’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment
Ewing v. California (2003)
D’s charged with Racketeering (fraudulent business dealings) and Conspiring to Launder (conceal origins of) Monetary Instruments for Involvement with the Cali Colombian drug mob by providing a method for laundering cash through their interior design decorating company
Sentenced to 8-10 years but the judge lowered the sentence saying these are snot the typical money launderers the guidelines are meant to punish
Why?
D’s are homosexual lovers and their status will increase their vulnerability in prison
- may need to be removed from general prison population for their own safety —> solitary confinement (much harsher penalty)
- prllechua is HIV positive and has a special regimen he prob could not upkeep in prison
Blarek & Pellecchia: Colombian drug cartel
Dee sold marijuana and carried it in his truck to sell. Police found a handgun locked in the truck’s glove compartment.
Can he be convicted of crime “of violence or drug trafficking crime… used or carries a firearm…?
Yes. “Carries a firearm” applies to a person who knowingly possesses and conveys firearms in a vehicle, including a locked glove compartment or trunk.
Accepted the contemporary meaning of “carry”. Use dictionary, literature, legislative history, statutory structure.
- narrowly interpreting “carry” (only on the person) would remove the act of carrying a gun in a car from statute’s reach —> gap in coverage
Dissent: viewed “carry” in context of statutory phrase “carries a firearm.” If ambiguity, must fall back on rule of lenity
the phrase “carries a firearm” is not limited to carrying firearms on a person and applies to guns in the glove compartment and in the trunk
Muscarello v. United States (1998)
