Term
|
Definition
3.Criminal wrongs: the people vs the individual, 12 ppl on jury, prove case beyond a reasonable doubt
Civil wrongs: individual vs individual to get $$$, 6 ppl on jury, burden of proof is preponderance of evidence (51%<) |
|
|
Term
| 3 most common classification schemes: |
|
Definition
a .Felony and misdemeanors
b. Inherently evil and legally wrong
c. General and special parts of criminal law |
|
|
Term
| malum in se vs malum prohibita |
|
Definition
a. Malum in se is inherently evil, cross culturally wrong
b. Malum prohibitum is against law b/c there’s a statute that says its against the law |
|
|
Term
| 4 criteria for punishment |
|
Definition
a. Have to inflict pain or other unpleasant consequences
b. Have to prescribe a punishment in the same law that defines the crime
c. Have to be administered intentionally
d. State has to administer them |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a. General deterrence: aim to prevent the general pop from committing crimes by using punishment
b. Special deterrence: prevent past convicts from committing more crimes by punishing them
c. Incapacitation: lock up felons to prevent future crime
d. Rehabilitation: aims to prevent future crimes by changing individual offenders so they’ll want to play by the rules and wont commit crimes in the future |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| when judges apply a criminal statute to the defendant in the case before them..they stick strictly to letter of statute and judge ambiguities in favor of defendant and against the application of the statute |
|
|
Term
| constitutional vs pure democracy |
|
Definition
| 1. In a constitutional democracy, there are limits placed on the power of the Gov to create crimes on what the constitution protects as a fundamental right. In a pure democracy, the majority rules and gets what they want |
|
|
Term
| 3 elements of ex post facto law |
|
Definition
a. It criminalizes an act that was innocent when it was committed
b. It increases the punishment for a crime after the crime was committed
c. It takes away a defense that was available to a defendant when the crime was committed |
|
|
Term
| 2 main purposes of ex post factos law |
|
Definition
a. To protect private individuals by ensuring that legislatures give them fair warning about what’s criminal
b. The ban is directed at legislatures, preventing them from passing arbitrary and vindictive legislation (random choice or personal view) |
|
|
Term
| void for vagueness doctrine |
|
Definition
| Supreme court has decided that vague laws deny individuals their right to “due process” ---> if person doesn’t know it’s a crime, then they shouldn’t be punished for it |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The answer is objective; it’s the kind of notice where ordinary people would know that what they did was a crime |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| person convicted of a third felony get locked up for a very long time, sometime even life! |
|
|
Term
| 3 questions with criminal liability |
|
Definition
a. Is there a criminal act of some kind?
b. Is the act justified?
c. Is the unjustified act nonetheless excused? |
|
|
Term
| diff between actus reus and mens rea |
|
Definition
a. Actus reus: the actual criminal act
b. Mens rea: the criminal intent |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a. A “circumstance” connected to an act, an intent, and/or a result
b. Example: driving while intoxicated is the circumstantial element |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Crimes consisting of a criminal act and mens rea have this third element, meaning some kind of mental state has to trigger the criminal act |
|
|
Term
| diff between crim act and crim conduct |
|
Definition
a. Criminal act: voluntary physical bodily movements
b. Criminal conduct: the actus reus triggered by a mens rea |
|
|
Term
| Four rationales are given to as why only voluntary acts qualify as actus reus: |
|
Definition
a. Criminal law punishes people
b. We can only punish people we can blame
c. We can only blame people who are responsible for their acts
d. People are only responsible for their voluntary acts |
|
|
Term
| Two types of criminal omission: |
|
Definition
a. Failure to report something required by law
b. Failure to intervene to prevent injuries and death to persons or damage to property |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a. statutes
b. contracts
c. special relationships |
|
|
Term
| diff between moral and legal duties |
|
Definition
a. Moral duties: duties enforced by conscience, and social norms
b. Legal duties: duties enforced by law |
|
|
Term
| Good Samaritan Doctrine vs. American Bystander Rule |
|
Definition
a. Good Samaritan Doctrine: imposes a legal duty to render or summon aid for imperiled strangers
b. American Bystander Rule: there’s no legal duty to rescue or summon help for someone who’s in danger |
|
|
Term
| two types of control in possession |
|
Definition
a. Actual possession: banned stuff on your “person”
b. Constructive possession: banned stuff in place of your control |
|
|
Term
| two types of awareness in possession |
|
Definition
a. Knowing possession: your aware of what you possess
b. Mere possession: don’t know what you possess |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a. Subjective fault: required “bad mind” in the actor and is linked with immorality
b. Objective fault: requires no purposeful or conscious “bad mind” in the actor
c. No-fault liability: requires neither subjective nor objective fault |
|
|
Term
| diff between general and specific intent |
|
Definition
a. General intent: means the intent to commit and criminal act considered actus reas in the criminal statute
b. Specific intent: attitude represented by subjective fault where there is a “bad mind” or will |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a. Intentionally: acting purposefully to commit a crime or object to commit crime
b. Knowingly: awareness but without the purpose object of causing harm
c. Recklessly: consciously creating risks of substantial and unjustifiable harm, without the intent to cause harm
d. Negligently: unconsciously, but reasonably, creating risks of substantial and unjustifiable harms |
|
|
Term
| 1.Identify five types of justification defenses |
|
Definition
a. Self-defense
b. Defense of others
c. Defense of home and property
d. Necessity
e. Consent |
|
|
Term
| diff between justification and excuse defenses |
|
Definition
a. Justification defense: Defendants admit they were responsible for their acts but claim what they did was right (justified) under the circumstances
b. Excuses defenses: Defendants admit what they did was wrong but claim that under the circumstances, they weren’t responsible for what they did |
|
|
Term
| how affirmative defenses work |
|
Definition
| a. defendant has burden of production |
|
|
Term
| perfect vs imperfect defenses |
|
Definition
a.Perfect defenses: Defendants are acquitted
b. Imperfect defenses: Defendants are guilty of a lesser offense |
|
|
Term
| Why aren’t preemptive strike and retaliation protected by the justification of self-defense? |
|
Definition
a. Preemptive strike: Are not allowed because you cannot use force to prevent an attack that’s going to take place tomorrow or even this afternoon
b. Retaliation: You cannot use it to “pay back” an attack that took place last year or even this morning |
|
|
Term
| 4 elements of self defense |
|
Definition
a. Unprovoked attack – the defender didn’t start or provoke the attack
b. Imminent danger – the defender honestly and reasonably believes there’s a need to use force to defend against the attack
c. Necessity – the defender honestly and reasonably believes there’s a need to use force to defend against the attack
d. Reasonable force – the defender uses only the amount of force she reasonably believes is necessary to repel the attack |
|
|
Term
| 3 circumstances for good self defense claim |
|
Definition
a. The necessity is great
b. It’s imminent, meaning it exits “right now”
c. It’s for prevention only |
|
|
Term
| Define initial aggressor and how the withdrawal exception relates to it |
|
Definition
a. A person who begins a fight can’t claim the right to self-defense
i. With the withdrawal exception, if the person that starts the fight completely withdraws from the fight they provoked, they can claim the defense of self defense. |
|
|
Term
| Why does present danger void the justification of self-defense? Give an example |
|
Definition
a. You have time to escape or call the police
i. Battered woman
ii. Unless you’re being beaten right then, you cannot take the law into your hand. |
|
|
Term
| Identify the values behind the retreat doctrine and the stand-your-ground doctrine |
|
Definition
a. Stand-your-ground: If you didn’t start the fight, you can stand your ground and kill
b. Retreat rule: You have to retreat but only if you reasonably believe that backing off won’t unreasonably put you in danger of death or serious bodily harm |
|
|
Term
| Identify the three elements in the choice-of-evils defense |
|
Definition
a. Identify the evils
b. Rank the evils
c. Choose the lesser evil to avoid the greater evil that’s on the verge of happening |
|
|
Term
| 4 limits to the defense of consent |
|
Definition
a. It is given by a person who is legally incompetent to authorize the conduct
b. It is given by a person who by reason of immaturity, mental disease or defect, or intoxication is manifestly unable and known by the actor to be unable to make a reasonable judgment as to the nature or harmfulness of the conduct
c. It is given by a person whose consent is sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense
d. It is induced by force, duress or deception |
|
|
Term
| 3 elements in defense of consent |
|
Definition
a. Voluntary
b. Knowing
c. Authorized |
|
|
Term
| why insanity is legal term and not medical term |
|
Definition
| What psychiatry calls a “mental illness” may or may not be legal insanity. Mental disease is legal insanity only when the disease affects a person’s reason and/or will |
|
|
Term
| explain guilty but mentally ill |
|
Definition
| When juries can find the defendant sane but mentally ill at the time the crime was committed |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a. The right-wrong test: depends on the defendants mental capacity to know right from wrong
i.Two elements must be met:
1.The defendant had a mental disease of defect at the time of the crime
2.The disease of defect caused the defendant to not know either the nature and the quality of his/her actions or that what he/she did was wrong
b. Volitional incapacity test: (irresistible impulse) according to the irresistible impulse test, even if the defendants know what they are doing and that it is wrong, they can qualify for a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity if they suffer from a mental disease that damages their will power
c. Substantial capacity test (MPC): defendants have to lack substantial, not complete, mental capacity
i. Emphasizes both qualities in insanity that affect culpability: reason and will
d. Product-of-mental-illness test (Durham rule): acts that are the “products” of mental disease or defect excuse criminal liability
i.Misses the point of mental illness in the defense of insanity, legislators did away with this test |
|
|
Term
| diff between diminished capacity and diminished responsibility |
|
Definition
a. Diminished capacity: an attempt to prove the defendant is guilty of a lesser crime by negating specific intent
b. Diminished responsibility: is a defense of excuse, the defendant argues “what I did was wrong, but under the circumstances I’m LESS responsible”
c. Both only apply to homicide |
|
|
Term
| 3 categories of age in common law |
|
Definition
a. Under 7: children had no criminal capacity
b. Ages 7 to 14: children presumed to have no criminal capacity, but the presumption could be overcome
c. Over 14: children had the same criminal capacity as adults |
|
|
Term
| 7 criteria judges use to waive a judicial proceeding into adult criminal court |
|
Definition
a. Seriousness of the offense
b. Whether offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated, willful manner
c. Whether the offense was against a person
d. Amount of evidence against juvenile
e. The sophistication and maturity of the juvenile
f. The prior record of the juvenile
g. The threat the juvenile poses to public safety |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a. Threats amounting to duress: death threats in some states, serious bodily injury in some states, some states don’t specify
b. Immediacy of the threats: harm has to be instant in some states, imminent harm in some states
c. Crimes the defense applies: duress isn’t defense to murder in majority of states, it’s a defense to all crimes in some states, some states are silent on the point
d. Degree of belief regarding the threat: most states require a reasonable belief the threat is real, some states demand the threat actually be real, some states say nothing on the point |
|
|
Term
| Types of intoxication and when its an excuse to criminal liability |
|
Definition
a. Accountability: those who get drunk should take the consequences of their actions
b. Culpability: criminal liability and punishment depend on blameworthiness
c. Its only an excuse to criminal liability when its INVOLUNTARY intoxication and only under extreme conditions |
|
|
Term
| 2 tests courts use to determine if someone was entrapped |
|
Definition
a. Subjective test: the defense has to prove the gov pressured the defendant to commit crimes they normally wouldn’t have committed without pressure
b. Objective test: doesn’t focus on predisposition of defendants but on the actions the gov agents take to induce individuals to commit crimes |
|
|
Term
| Define syndromes and importance in excuses to crim liability |
|
Definition
a. Syndrome: a group of symptoms or signs typical of disease, disturbance or condition
b. Some syndromes are taken seriously (and should be) as excuses |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a. Battered wife syndrome
b. Premenstrual syndrome
c. Post-Traumatic stress syndrome |
|
|
Term
| Identify the basic idea of criminal law reflected in complicity (parties to crime) and vicarious liability |
|
Definition
iii. Complicity
1. Established when you can be criminally liable for someone else’s conduct
2. Applies criminal liability to accomplices and accessories because they participate in crimes
iv. Vicarious liability
1. Establishes when a party can be criminally liable because of a relationship
2. Transfers the criminal conduct of one party to another because of their relationship |
|
|
Term
| Explain the basic difference complicity (parties to crime) and vicarious liability |
|
Definition
A.Complicity
i.When teamwork turns malicious you can be criminally liable for someone else’s conduct
B.Vicarious liability
i.When a party can be criminally liable because of a relationship
ii. Ex. Business relationships
1. Employer-employee
2. Corporation-manager
iii. Ex. Holding parents liable for their children’s crimes |
|
|
Term
| diff between accomplice and accessory |
|
Definition
a. Accomplices: Participants before and during the commission of crimes
b. Accessories: Participants after crimes are committed |
|
|
Term
| What’s the thinking behind punishing accomplice and accessory liability differently?’ |
|
Definition
a. Accomplices
i. Prosecuted for the crime itself
ii. Punishment for being an accomplice is the same as someone who actually committed the crime
b. Accessories
i. Punished for misdemeanors, looked at as obstructers of justice, not as felons
c. Reason
i. Accomplices are prosecuted for the crime itself because they helped commit the crime. Accessories are punished for misdemeanors because they are looked at as obstructers of justice and not as felons |
|
|
Term
| Identify and give examples of the core idea of accomplice actus reus |
|
Definition
a. The actor took some positive act in aid of the commission of the offense
i. Serving as a lookout
ii. Driving a getaway car |
|
|
Term
| The trouble accomplice mens rea creates for courts |
|
Definition
| Jurisdictions vary and and are sometimes confused as to whether knowledge, recklessness, or negligence qualifies |
|
|
Term
| 4 elements of accessory liability |
|
Definition
a. The accessory personally helped the person who committed the felony ~ actus reus
b. The accessory knew a felony was committed ~ mens rea
c. The accessory helped for the purpose of hindering prosecution ~ mens rea
d. Someone other than the accessory actually committed a felony ~ circumstantial |
|
|
Term
| Two doctrines prosecutors rely on to prove corporate liability |
|
Definition
a. Strict liability
b. Vicarious liability |
|
|
