L3 criminology + crime Flashcards
what is the consensus theory?
criminal laws represent a consensus within a society about what acts should be prohibited
disagreement re: consensus theory
+ modification
disagree: some ppl think certain things should be illegal and legal. diff opinions.
- also this theory suggests that law is fair for everyone which may not be true.
mod: laws are a codification of values shared by most members of society
conflict perspective
- reject idea that laws reflect consensus in society
- class conflict theorists see law as tool used by ruling class to maintain privilege by keeping “common people” under control. law isn’t made equal.
- belief that laws are result of political process, which involves conflict between different interest groups.
what are consensus crimes
widespread agreement that these are inherently wrong, harmful, and mandate severe response
what are conflict crimes?
illegal acts, but there is vast disagreement about whether they should be illegal, how serious they are, and how we should respond
incarceration rates
- 2 highest?
- where is canada?
US, Russia
canada - middle/low end
incarceration rates per 100,000 ppl
- highest
- what factors contribute?
US is highest, + el salvador, turkmenistan, cuba, maldives, thailand, russia
factors:
- commitment to political values
- religious factors
- money (prison for profit)
- hypercriminalization
categories of offences in canada (3)
indictable offences
- summary offences
- hybrid offenses
what are idictable offences?
serious offences,
max penalty - life (25 years) in prison
- no expiry on prosectution - no statute of limitations
ex: assault causing bodily harm, homicide
what are summary offences
less serious
- max sentence: 6 months in jail, $5,000 fine or both.
- prosecuted within 6 months
ex: property offence, stealing
what are hybrid offences
certain offences can be tried as either indictable or summary.
- decided by crown prosecuter.
correctional services in canada
federal govt/prison: if sentence is 2+ years
provincial/territorial govt.
- prison : if 2 years, less a day.
- community sentences : fines, community service, probation
- young offenders
- awaiting trial : remand. can be transferred to federal system after trial.
canadian justice service costs
- hard to get new stats.
- corrections is 32% of budget. expensive “lesson”
trend in federal custody, procinvial custody, and remand over time
fed: increased around 2014, decreasing again.
remand: just below fed, increasing atm at fed decreases (legally innocent)
prov: lower than both fed + remand. declining in recent years
AB: incarceration of sentenced vs unsentenced.
sentenced : 28%
unsentenced (in remand, awaiting trial) : 72%
- remand reserved for those dangerous to society + those who are a flight risk.
- but often non-violent, non-dangerous
-Ab has highest remand in country
people in court:
judge: public official appointed to decide (unless trial by jury - accused can decide) cases in court of law
jury: members of public who hear the case and decide if accused is guilty
accused: person charged with offence
defense: lawyer who represents accused. ensures the guarantee of rights as canadian citizen are protected.
prosecutor/crown: gov’t lawyers ho prosecute criminal cases
true crimes vs regulatory offences
tc: engage in conduct that is not only prohibited but also constitutes a serious breach of community values. perceived as inherently wrong + deserving of punishment
ro: regulate inherently legitimate activities connected with trade, commerce, industry or every day living. carry minor penalty is convicted
defenses to criminal charge
- conviction happens when?
- mens rea
defense: plead guilty (argue for less harsh punishment or why one shouldnt be punished, treat ppl differently than others)
- conviction of “true crime” should not occur unless accused person is considered blameworthy
- crown must prove mens rea
- no mens rea = mistake of fact
- if there is mens rea, but no reasonable alternative choice
what is mistake of fact
- not ignorance of law (expect overall understanding of right/wrong)
- rather, ignorance of illegality: mistake or ignorance is negates element of crime.
= honest mistake, or if crown can’t prove mens rea.
intoxication as defense
- complex.
- can result in disinhibition that renders accused less able to control their conduct.
- only for offences that required complex mens rea - specific intent. not valid for basic intent offences, most intoxicated have basic knowledge
offenses with specific intent
mens rea differs for crime committed.
- specific intent = complex mens rea, intentional complex way of thinking. if intoxicated, shouldn’t be able to form the level of intent in your mind.
- depends also if purposefully intoxicated or accidentally intoxicated
necessity as defense
- accused person commits lesser evil of crim to avoid occurrence of greater evil
- when the only way to avoid disaster is to break the law.
duress as defense
- accused was forced to commit a crime as consequence of threat of death, bodily harm by another.
- threat must be serious.
- accused believes that it will be carried out
- court satisfied, that reasonable person under same situation would act the same way
provocation as defense
- required elements
- partial defense to a charge of murder. will reduce to manslaughter.
- accused responded to a wrongful act or insult that was of such nature that an ordinary person would have been likely to lose the power of self control
- that accused acted “on the sudden and before there was a time for their passion to cool”
- compassionate response to human frailty
self-defense as defence in court
a peson may use a reasonable amount fo force in self defense if they reasonably believe that they or another individual are the target of actual force, or that threat is made against them.
- was actio reasonable within situation? (threat? imminent? other way to respond? physical capabilities of parties? proportionality of force?)
- in case or property, must be reasonable
Lavalle Case + Battered Woman sydrome
- women who are assaulted by their partners may suffer Battered woman’s syndrome + are judged against “reasonable women who face ongoing abuse”
lavalle: shot husband as final desparate act , acquitted.
Mallot + Battered woman Syndrome.
- pieces of evidence presented to assist jury in understanding mens rea (4)
- why an abused woman might remain in abusive relationship
- nature and extent of violence that might exist in an abusive relationship
- ability to perceive when her partner was dangerous
- whether she reasonably believed that she couldn’t otherwise protect herself
list of defenses
mental disorder - not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder
general: mistake of fact; necessity, duress; provocation; self-defense; intoxication as defense **
