CRIMINAL LAW Tells individuals what behavior is criminal Defines punishment Not all behavior is criminal even though it
is offensive WHY?????
BECAUSE Expensive and intrusive
into privacy and liberty U.S. Constitution Principles of criminal liability –elements of a crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt Principles of justification and excuse(defenses)
PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY Elements of a crime
Criminal act Actus Reus (guilty act) Criminal intent Mens Rea (guilty mind) Concurrence of the criminal act and criminal intent Some crimes also require—causing a particular result
ACTUS REUS THERE MUST BE AN ACT OF
COMMISSION OR OMISSION BY THE ACCUSED THERE CANNOT BE A LAW THAT MADE
BEING ADDICTED TO DRUGS A CRIME CRIMINAL ACT
MENS REA A GUILTY STATE OF MIND
INTENT
CAN BE A PROBLEM WHEN DETERMINING A SUSPECT’S CAPABILITY OF UNDERSTANDING
CONCURRENCE FOR MOST CRIMES ACTUS REUS AND
MENS REA MUST BE PRESENT FOR AN ACT TO BE CONSIDERED
ILLEGAL, THE ACTION MUST BE VOLUNTARY
SEVEN PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW LEGALITY ACTUS REUS CAUSATION HARM CONCURRENCE
MENS REA PUNISHMENT ALL 7 MUST BE PROVED
CRIMINAL ACT PUNISH FOR WHAT THEY DO
Can be attempted Agree to commit a crime (conspiracy)
NOT WISHES, HOPES, MIGHT DO OR
WHO THEY ARE
Failure to act if there is a legal duty to act Criminal omissions
Not filing income tax Child neglect Failure to intervene when someone is in danger Special relationships (Doctor/patient)
CRIMINAL INTENT/MENS REA LEVEL ONE---
PURPOSEFUL (SPECIFIC, ON PURPOSE) LEVEL TWO— KNOWING (YOU KNOW YOU ARE COMMITTING AN ACT LEVEL THREE— RECKLESS (CONSCIOUSLY CREATE A RISK OF HARM
MENS REA CON’T LEVEL FOUR—NEGLIGENT (LIKE
RECKLESS BUT UNCONSCIOUSLY CREATE A RISK
CONCURRENCE Criminal intent has to trigger a criminal act Plan to kill someone, change your mind, they
later die Is it murder?????
CAUSING A HARMFUL RESULT TWO TYPES OF CAUSE
CAUSE IN FACT— “but for” actions of the defendant the result would not have happened
LEGAL CAUSE---asks “Is it fair to blame the defendants for the results of the actions they set in motion?” Jury decides this.
CIVIL LAW Set of formal rules that regulate disputes
between private parties Mainly concerned with issues of personal injury and compensation Disputes that arise between individuals
TORT NON CRIMINAL LEGAL WRONGS PRIVATE PERSONAL INJURY ACTIONS
CRIMINAL LAW SET OF FORMAL RULES
MAINTAINS SOCIAL ORDER AND CONTROL
CONSIDERED CRIMES AGAINST SOCIETY BECAUSE THEY BREAK RULES ESTABLISHED FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY
DEFENSES FAILURE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO
PROVE ALL ELEMENTS OF A CRIME BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT DEFENSE OF AN ALIBI DEFENSE OF JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE OF AN EXCUSE
DEFENSES CON’T ALIBI—outright innocence. Supported by
witnesses and documentation JUSTIFICATIONS– “less of two evils” “Kill or be killed” JUSTIFIED IF:
You didn’t provoke attack Reasonably believed you were going to be attacked RIGHT NOW You used only enough force necessary to repel attack
DEFENSES CON’T DEFENSE OF HOME AND PROPERTY
Under common law (origins in early English hx, body of unwritten legal precedents from everyday English social customs, rules and practices and supported by judicial procedures) killing nighttime home intruders was justifiable. Modern law continues this idea BUT force must be reasonable. Deadly force used for protection of property??? Booby traps????
Justification con’t DURESS—DEFENDANT COMMITS AN
ILLEGAL ACT BECAUSE THEY WERE THREATENED BY ANOTHER WITH DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM NECESSITY—MUST BREAK THE LAW TO
AVOID A GREATER EVIL THAT IS CAUSED BY NATURAL FORCES
MISTAKE OF FACT
If suspect has made a mistake on some crucial fact
2008, college professor attending a baseball game buys his 7 year old son a “lemonade.” Due to the fact that they did not watch TV, he had no idea he was purchasing alcohol for his underage son.
DEFENSES CON’T CONSENT—limits on use
No serious injury results Injury happens during sporting event Conduct benefits consenting person (Dr. treating patient) Consent is of free will Sometimes used in cases of sexual asphyxia or bondage
DEFENSES CON’T EXCUSES—act was wrong but defendant
wasn’t responsible
Age—age 7 cannot reason logically—roots from Christian Church Criminal prosecution can begin as early as 14 or otherwise Juvenile court Old age can also be a defense
DEFENSES CON’T DURESS—not a murder defense. “Any unlawful
threat or used by a person to induce another to act (or refrain from acting) in a manner he/she would not (or would).” ENTRAPMENT—defense to crimes with no complaining witness. Encouragement can be used and is not entrapment. Different is in predisposition.
ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE IS THAT THE DEFENDANT
WOULD NOT HAVE COMMITTED IF NOT FOR PERSUASION AND TRICKERY BY THE POLICE. IF OFFICERS PLAN A CRIME, PLANT THE IDEA OF THE CRIME IN A PERSON’S MIND AND PRESSURE THE PERSON INTO DOING IT.
DEFENSES CON’T INTOXICATION—between two conflicting
principles
ACCOUNTABILITY—if you drink you face the consequences of your actions CULPABILITY—can’t punish someone who is not responsible for their actions. VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION IS NOT A DEFENSE Involuntary intoxication???????
DEFENSES CON’T INSANITY—legal not a medical term. Attracts
public attention but rarely successful. Raised in less than 1% and successful in about 1/4th of them. THREE TESTS OF INSANITY
Right/wrong test Right/wrong supplemented by the irresistible impulse test The substantial capacity or American Law Institute Test
RIGHT/WRONG TEST M’Naughten (McNaughten) Rule 1844
Daniel M’Naughten tried to kill Sir Robert Peel (British Prime Minister), shot Edward Drummond, his secretary instead. Jury acquitted him of delusional self-defense. On appeal, the House of Lords (highest court) formulated the right/wrong test
RIGHT/WRONG TEST Right/wrong test evaluates:
Mental disease/defect caused such damage to defendant’s capacity to reason That either they didn’t know what they were doing or they didn’t know it was wrong Has been supplemented with the IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE TEST
RIGHT/WRONG TEST Defense focuses on will power or ability to
control actions Necessary elements
Suffered from a mental disease/defect Caused them a loss of power to choose from right and wrong 1994 Lorena Bobbitt used this defense-successfully
SUBSTANTIAL CAPACITY TEST Focus on both reason and will---blending of previous
two
Defendants had mental disease/defect that caused them to lack substantial capacity to understand the wrongfulness of their act or to conform their behavior to the requirements of the law Substantial—doesn’t require total mental incompetence or total will Difficult to define
OTHER DEFENSES BATTERED WOMENS SYNDROME PMS “TWINKIE DEFENSE” BLACK RAGE CULTURAL DEFENSES
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Tells public officials what power they have.
Lays down rules at each step of the criminal process. Due Process and Equal Protection apply to all
stages
DUE PROCESS OF LAW Right to fair procedures. Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments. 1833 it was determined by Chief Justice John Marshall that the constitution was binding only upon the Federal Government. States had their own Bill of Rights Many debates throughout the years By the end of 1960’s it was determined that the Bill of Rights sets the minimum standard that all states have to follow
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT STATES “NO
STATE SHALL DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS”
