Criminal Law Outline

Criminal Law Outline Justifications of Punishment 1. Consequentialist Theory a. Activities are ethically right if and just on the off chance that they bring about attractive results b. Depend on hypothesis of utilitarianism to legitimize discipline: Forward looking impacts of discipline. General prevention, explicit discouragement, restoration, crippling 2. Nonconsequentialist Theory c. Activities are ethically off-base in themselves, paying little mind to the results d. Hypothesis of Retributivism: glance back at the mischief and align the discipline to the wrongdoing Theories of Punishment ) Incapacitation: Incarceration to render them innocuous 2) Retribution: aggregate judgment of society weighing down. â€Å"Just Deserts† 3) Rehabilitation: give the criminal aptitudes and qualities to make them a decent resident 4) General Deterrence: hinder different crooks from carrying out violations 5) Specific Deterrence: prevent the rebuffed criminal from future wrongdoings Justific ations for Punishment in Context 1. The instance of Thomas Dudley (Eng. 1884): Stranded adrift for 24 days, 2 men plan and kill a third to eat. Accused of homicide and condemned to death a. Need resistance doesn't apply.Lawfully executing another to spare yourself is just regarding need and self-protection (savagery towards yourself) Retributive in nature 2. Individuals v Suite: Man claimed . 32 gauge gun, not authorized as required by 1980 enactment. Condemned to 30 days in prison b. Standard point of the weapon authorizing law is general discouragement. Decrease of prison time would announce that first time offenses would not bring about prison for first time guilty parties and would pronounce 30 days to be excessively brutal/maltreatment of attentiveness. Maintained to encourage guideline of general prevention governing body planned Standards of ProofProsecution: past a sensible uncertainty (state has high weight b/c honest until demonstrated liable) 1. Curley v US: Judge must in quire as to whether indictment has presented adequate proof with the end goal that a levelheaded jury could conclude that the arraignment has demonstrated its case past a sensible uncertainty. On the off chance that proof sensibly allows a decision of vindication or blame, choice is for the jury to make. Safeguard: by the prevalence of the proof. (self-protection, madness, need) Rule of Lenity When legal plan is hazy, the uncertainty must be settled for the Defendant.US v. Dauray Actus Reus Definition: Voluntary Act, social mischief An intentional demonstration that outcomes in social damage, or an oversight where there is an obligation to act. 1. Considerations don't comprise criminal acts 2. Activities constrained by the state don't establish criminal acts 3. Criminal â€Å"acts† must be intentional 4. No risk for oversight except if there is an obligation to act 5. â€Å"Status Crimes† are illegal Cases Act, not thought 1) Proposition against thought violations Stat e v Dalton: â€Å"act† was the composition of a youngster attack journal. Acquitted.From a discouragement point of view he ought not be liable; from restoration viewpoint possibly. Since system is commonly outfitted to discouragement it was the correct result 2) Hate wrongdoings/discourse Wisconsin v Mitchell: gathering of dark men whips youthful white kid a. Rule: Statutes punishing narrow-minded inspirations (musings) are defended b. Justification: these demonstrations are bound to incite retaliatory violations, so society has a more noteworthy enthusiasm for rebuffing them. Prevention and reprisal legitimize harsher punishments Voluntary, not automatic MPC 2. 01: Requirements of Voluntary Act 1) An individual isn't liable of an offense except if his risk depends on lead which incorporates a deliberate demonstration. (2) NOT intentional Acts: reflex/seizure; substantial development during obviousness or rest; direct during spellbinding; real development that in any case isn 't a result of the exertion or assurance of the on-screen character, regardless of whether cognizant or routine 3) Acting under State Compulsion-Martin v State: tanked on open parkway b/c police brought him there c. Rule: no intentional demonstration where state constrained the activity. d. Method of reasoning: keep the legislature from rebuffing the honest 4) Involuntary Acts-State v.Decina: epileptic who knew about his condition drives and executes kids e. Rule: an automatic demonstration can be deliberate when the individual knew about its probability and neglected to defensively act f. Method of reasoning: it doesn’t matter if an individual is oblivious when the mischief happens as long as the demonstration occurred simply because, during cognizance, there was awful speculation here, foolishness or carelessness in inability to forestall the damage. He intentionally put himself in a circumstance that made a further hazard. 5) Powell v Texas: Powell accused of open inebriat ion g.Rule: Voluntary since he could have forestalled his appearance in open h. Reason: condemning automatic conduct is savage and surprising (8); this wasn’t automatic MPC 2. 01: Voluntary, automatic, oversight, ownership * Involuntary: Convulsion, moving while oblivious or sleeping, lead during mesmerizing, or a development not a result of the exertion or assurance of the on-screen character; Voluntary characterized by the negative * Omission: obligation for an exclusion can't emerge except if the exclusion is made adequate explicitly in the language characterizing the offense, or an obligation to perform is forced by law. Ownership: D probably known about belonging for adequate period to have been capable 2 end it Status Crimes-Criminalizing a status disregards eighth Amendment: Cruel and Unusual 1) Robinson v California: man with track marks accused of opiates expansion a. Rule/Rationale: The demonstration of utilizing opiates can be condemned; habit can’t. Crimina l punishments may not be delivered upon an individual for INVOLUNTARY acts. 2) Powell v. Texas: a constant alcoholic was accused of being smashed in open b. Rule: open intoxication isn't a status wrongdoing since it is PUBLIC. c.Rationale: sentenced for being D. I. P. not constant heavy drinker. Volitional demonstration of deciding to drink without keeping oneself from being out in the open is adequately proximate to the untouched demonstration of going out while alcoholic to give the express an ACT to rebuff. 3) Jones v City of Los Angeles: rebuffed conduct on walkways every minute of every day which vagrants can’t stay away from. d. Rule: it is unlawful to rebuff acts emerging out of an automatic status on the grounds that these demonstrations are likewise fundamentally automatic. Oversights 1) Omission can be an actus reus where there is a legitimate obligation to act, and D was genuinely equipped for acting. mens rea, causation, simultaneousness despite everything require d) a. Agreements for care b. Uncommon connections c. Legal obligation d. D made the danger of mischief e. D deliberately expected consideration (particularly on the off chance that others are kept from giving consideration) 2) People v Beardsley: man and lady become inebriated over end of the week, she secretly takes morphine and passes on after D offered her to another person to let her work it off f. Rule: no legitimate obligation existed in light of the fact that none of the 5 above were available. g. Method of reasoning: a legitimate obligation isn't equivalent to an ethical commitment; associates aren’t close enough socially to make a lawful obligation without one of the abovementioned. ) Commonwealth v Howard: mother neglected to forestall her daughter’s torment and murder by an outsider h. Rule: guardians have a lawful obligation to ensure their youngsters unique relationship I. Reason: guardians can be legitimately compelled to act; moreover, the oversight was the immediate reason for the demise (clinical declaration). 4) Commonwealth v Pestinikas: couple contracted to think about elderly person for $300/mo j. Rule: inability to think about another is just a penetrate of a legitimate obligation when the guardian has embraced the obligation of care through agreement or willfully k.Rationale: the oversight in circumstance of obligation caused hurt D could have forestalled. Mens Rea Definition The specific mental state accommodated in the meaning of an offense. Method of reasoning for Requiring Mens Rea Deterrence or Utilitarian Justification: you can't deflect somebody who doesn't have a blameworthy brain. Retributive Justification: â€Å"Just Deserts. † You ought not rebuff somebody who is ethically guiltless. MPC v Common Law Equivalents of Mens Rea MPC 2. 02(2)| Common Law| Purposefully: cognizant article to commit| Intent-characteristic and likely auses| Knowingly: mindfulness; generous certainty| Knowledge-mindful of the reality , or effectively trusts it exists, including stiff-necked blindness| Recklessly: cognizant dismissal of predictable hazard abstract norm. Mindfulness. | Concepts of â€Å"recklessness† and â€Å"negligence† are regularly embodied| Negligently: ought to have known about hazard and dismissal it-sensible individual would have been awareNo differentiation b/n general, explicit intent| Distinction b/w general, explicit intent| CL: Uses the idea of mens rea in numerous terms: Willfully, mischievously, vindictively, purposely, deliberately, negligently.No consistency across states as to definitions MPC: 4 mental states that are exactly characterized. On the off chance that no psychological state is referenced in a resolution, read in foolishly. Demonstrating â€Å"Intent†, customary law-characteristic and plausible outcomes principle 1. Regina v Cunningham: Son in law took gas meter to sell; relative was presented to coal gas. a. Vindictiveness implies (I) a real goal to do the specific sort of mischief that was in certainty done or (ii) carelessness with regards to whether such damage ought to happen or not (anticipated hazard; proceeded in any case) 2.State v Fugate: D shoots and murders storekeeper in the wake of constraining him into cellar. b. Purpose can be surmised from orderly conditions and composite picture created by proof, including instrument used to deliver demise and the way of causing a deadly twisted. c. Expectation to murder might be assumed where the regular and plausible outcome of an illegitimate demonstration is to create demise. 3. Predictability Issues: If hurt is so predictable as to nearly be sure to happen, aim can be found. Demonstrating â€Å"Knowledge†, customary law-determined visual deficiency 1.US v Jewell: an individual demonstrations purposely for precedent-based law if th