Term
| Justifications of Punishment (from Packer article) |
|
Definition
Retribution
Deterrence
Socialization
Incarceration/Incapacitation
Rehabilitation |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Revenge - community bloodlust
Expiation - atone sin
CRITICISMS: not solid, no empirical support |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Specific - this exact criminal
General - everyone else
Bentham Model (gains/losses)
Psychological Model (says it won't work for crimes of passion)
CRITICISMS: not for crimes of passion, not for people at the bottom of the totem pole (jail is better than sleeping on the street) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Part of deterrence
Criminal law is a societal institution
If violence isn't punished, it would be more prevalent
Make criminals outcasts
Certain acts are not acceptable |
|
|
Term
| Incarceration/Incapacitation |
|
Definition
Remove the criminal from society
Most efficient because we know it works (can't commit crimes in jail)
CRITICISMS: often the least deserving people suffer (addicts), how long do we incarcerate for? Hard to reintroduce to society |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Goal = Modify (change) criminal
When there is an indefinite sentence, can get out of prison when you are no longer a danger to society (ex: 2-15 year sentence)
CRITICISMS: Is it MORAL to change people? |
|
|
Term
| Integrated Theory of Punishment |
|
Definition
Conditions of Punishment:
1. Crime prevention is necessary but not sufficient.
- Anything else is savagery
- Need a good reason to inflict suffering (duh)
2. Blame is necessary but not sufficient.
- Need blame limitation because we are uncertain of the effectiveness of the justifications of punishment
- Crime prevention is NOT the only goal (balance crime prevention with human autonomy) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Non-MPC = based on case law
MPC = not "law," ALI write it and states can adopt, most states have crim in codes and still interpret with case law |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Exertion of the will manifested in the external world or a non-occurrence involving a breach of a legal duty to act
- 2 Legal Theories:
1. Affirmative (start fire)
2. Omission (fail to put it out) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Statute
Undertaking
Create the peril
K (contractual duty)
Status/relationships
[SUCKS] |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Ability to control behavior
Must be voluntary to be criminal
"All intentional acts are voluntary, but not all voluntary acts are intentional." |
|
|
Term
| Examples of Involuntary Acts |
|
Definition
Reflexes/Spasms
Sleepwalking
Hypnosis |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| "An unwarrantable act without a vicious will is not a crime" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
SUBJECTIVE awareness is necessary
Actually have to know the result is probable
RECKLESS |
|
|
Term
| Faulkner - Fitzgerald View |
|
Definition
Only need OBJECTIVE awareness
Should have known
Negligence |
|
|
Term
| Mens Rea as to ELEMENTS of a crime |
|
Definition
General Rule: Need a MR for each element
Exception: Don't need MR for jurisdictional element (not material) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
AR + MR associated with that AR
"Knowingly take the umbrella"
Knowingly is the MR and taking the umbrella is the AR |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
AR + MR associated with that AR + ADDITIONAL MR to commit some further crime
"Knowingly take the umbrella with the intent to steal"
With the intent to steal is the additional MR element to commit a further crime |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- A good defense if it negates the SPECIFIC MR element
- No defense for a general intent crime WHY?
- - - Rare to get past just freeing inhibitions
- - - Hard for juries to tell
- - - Easy to allege, hard to rebut
- - - We favor crime control
- - - Save court time
- - - You voluntarily got drunk |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- A good defense if it negates a subjective MR element
(PURPOSE, KNOWING)
- No defense where the MR element is NEGLIGENCE (because level and awareness OBJ) RECKLESS (even though awareness is SUBJ). WHY? Similar rationale to Non-MPC limitations on general intent crimes:
- - - Rare to get past just freeing inhibitions
- - - Hard for juries to tell
- - - Easy to allege, hard to rebut
- - - We favor crime control
- - - Save court time
- - - You voluntarily got drunk |
|
|
Term
| Mistake of Fact (Generally) |
|
Definition
| A good defense if it negates MR |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Must be RZBL to negate objective MR:
(level of) recklessness
(both awareness and level of) negligence
Can be UNRZBL to negate subjective MR
purpose
knowing
(awareness of) recklessness |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Some jurisdictions require RZBL mistakes only
Some say you only need a RZBL mistake to negate a general intent MR and the mistake can be UNRZBL to negate the additional specific intent MR) WHY?
- - - It is too easy to allege and too hard to rebut
- - - We don't trust juries
- - - People would lie |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
GENERAL RULE - Mistake of law is NO DEFENSE
but it may be a good defense if:
CAVEAT 1 - Knowledge of the law is an element of the crime
CAVEAT 2 - Mistake as to a collateral legal matter
CAVEAT 3 - If due process requires knowledge of the law
EXCEPTION - If you reasonably believe your conduct is legal because of some government action or inaction |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
unintended killing that takes place during the commission of another crime; Prosecution’s Legal Theory: During the commission of a crime, doesn’t matter if killing was intended or not
Need to know C/L rule, rationale, criticisms, and limitations |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Purposeful
-Conduct= D's conscious object was to engage in conduct that results in death
-Circumstance= D aware and hopes they exist
-Result= conscious object to cause death
Knowing
-Conduct=D aware he is engaged in conduct that results in death
-Circumstances= D aware they exist
-Result= D knew it was practically certain death would occur |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
*Term of art, distinguishes murder from manslaughter in Non-MPC
+Intent to kill
+Felony-murder
+Serious bodily harm
+Depraved heart
- NO RZBL provocation (negates malice) |
|
|
Term
| Provocation "Heat of Passion" |
|
Definition
4 Prongs:
1. Would the provocative act provoke a RZBL person? OBJ
2. Did it provoke D? SUBJ
3. Would a RZBL person have cooled? OBJ
4. Did D cool? SUBJ
*Should a judge or jury decide prong 1? |
|
|
Term
| Premeditation and Deliberation |
|
Definition
Non-MPC 1st Degree Murder
-More than just intent to kill
-calm, cool, cold-blooded
Courts split
-reflection on act, however short
-need evidence of conscious reflection |
|
|
Term
| Extreme Emotional Disturbance (EED) |
|
Definition
Affirmative defense, not as rigidly OBJ as heat of passion
-doesn't amount to insanity and not just unhappiness
-don't need a provoking event
*RZBLness of excuse measured by a person in D's situation as D believed it to be
-Physical handicaps (OBJ) ok
-no "RZBL terrorist" (SUBJ) so not ok |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Reckless under the circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life
-Awareness= SUBJ
-Level=Gross, OBJ |
|
|
Term
| MPC Unintended Manslaughter |
|
Definition
Reckless
-Awareness=SUBJ
Level=Gross, OBJ |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Negligence
-awareness=OBJ, RZBL person would be aware
-Level=Gross, OBJ |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
"lawful act unlawfully"
3 options in level/awareness, look at flashcard in my locker** this is important |
|
|
