The Seven Big Questions

Question 1

Discuss the seven Criminal Defences, and what makes them Tricky

Answer 1

1. Self-Defence: The defendant committed an offence in order to protect themselves from death or dismemberment. Tricky because you can’t really determine what amount of force is “reasonable”, and it HAS to be for means of ESCAPE ONLY
2. Necessity: They committed a crime in order to prevent a larger crime from being committed.
3. Duress: Was under imminent threat of harm to themselves or a loved one if they refused to commit a specific crime. Tricky, because how can you determine whether there was no means of escaping or seeking help?
4. Mistake of Fact: Genuinely believed something that, were it true, would have determined their actions to be “non-criminal”. Tricky, because ignorance of law is not mistake of fact!!!
5. Provocation: Something the victim did rendered the accused so elevated that they no longer aware of or in control of their actions. Tricky because the response has to be IMMEDIATE, and what determines immediacy? Also reasonable person test
6. Intoxication: Person was intoxicated to the point where they were no longer aware of the consequences of their actions (cannot form necessary mens rea) Tricky because alcoholism is starting to be seen as a mental illness. How to navigate that?
7. Non-Criminally Responsible due to Mental Illness: You do NOT want to do this. This only stands if you were having a psychotic episode that completely inhibited your ability to be reasonable AT THE MOMENT you committed the crime. If you are convicted on this account, you may be absolutely discharged, but if you are not (1 in 100) you will get sent to rehab, where there is no end date in sight and you are typically in there 3X longer than a prison sentence. If you fail to get off on this defence, regular court will NAIL you for trying to screw them over

Question 2

What are the Issues with Crime Stats?

Answer 2

1. The Dark Figure of Crime: We really only know about 30% of Crime
2. Police Coding: 3 levels - CAD, which happens when you initially call. If you are not specific, they will categorize it as “trouble not known”, which is useless for statistics. RMS is the records management system where data SHOULD be updated once they find the trouble, but it’s usually not. UCR, which is pretty much useless since different precincts do things different ways, so aggregating that data is REALLY difficult
3. Seriousness Rule: Some precincts, and the UCR, only record the most serious crime in a case. This cause the total crime rate to be underrepresented, the total violent crime rate to be inflated in proportion to other crimes, and the notion of which crime is most serious is actually subjective!
4. Unit of Court: What are you actually counting? It has to be consistent and coherent.

Question 3

Discuss Deterrence Theory

Answer 3

Great in theory, BAD in practice! Deterrence theory states that crime exists on a basis that there is nothing to deter criminals from doing so. If they create harsher punishments, criminals will find that the crime is not worth the risk of the threatened punishment. General deterrence is indiscriminate of the particular case, but specific deterrence seeks to make a point to a specific convict. In order for it to work, the criminal needs to be certain that the punishment will occur, the punishment needs to occur IMMEDIATELY after the crime, and the crime has to be severe enough to make a point. This doesn’t happen with our justice system, and often the consequences are too severe. They increase crime!

Question 4

Discuss Moral Panic

Answer 4

(Draw the circle) When an event happens and the media reports on it, the lobbyists make a big stink about it to the point where the politicians feel like they need to be seen doing something about it. They put a lot of pressure on police to do something about a problem that doesn’t necessarily exist. More cops go on the scene, as well as some cops who want to be seen finding SOMETHING, so they fake stuff. The problem LOOKS like it’s getting worse, and the whole thing starts all over again

Question 5

Discuss Routine Activities Theory

Answer 5

Worst thing ever. Sexist, ageist, racist, because often the police officer will only have the victim available to them, so they typically ending up blaming the victim for the crime out of a need to do SOMETHING. Needs offender, guardian, and victim.

Question 6

In class, we talked about 5 examples of when the media messed stuff up. What are they?

Answer 6

1. Newfoundland: Said that violent crime went up, even though they really just changed the coding of robberies from property to violent, and they actually started reporting domestic violence!
2. Canada: They claimed that crime increased 2500% from 1901 to 1965, when in reality people were just using cars more
3. Edmonton Gang Violence: Media MADE UP an increase in gang violence, and the police put more cops on the scene and the cops found more of what was already there!!!
4. Burning Woman: A woman was killed by someone she knew and was put into a burning car in broad daylight, and media switched it to a woman driving on a gravel highway at night when a stranger accosted her in her backseat. Created a BIG scare!!
5. California Three Strike Rule: Created over one case that could have been dealt with through the regular system

Question 7

Discuss Actus Reus and Mens Rea

Answer 7

Actus Reus: Guilty life

1. Conduct
2. Consequence
3. Circumstance

Mens Rea: Guilty mind (not necessary in regulatory offences)

1. Subjective: Prove that they had intention and knowledge that their act would bring about the consequences that it did, knew that those consequences would cause harm and did it anyway, and chose not to pursue further information about the harmfulness of their actions (willful blindness)
2. Objective: Reasonable person test - Would a reasonable person have acted in this way?