crim law w arenella sp 08

8/10/2019 Crim Law w Arenella SP 08

1/34

MPC/page number index

Accomplice liability 2.06 pg. 14- 5.01(3) Accomplice liable though P is not p.Actus eus (!ol. act" omission" possession) 2.01 pg. 3Attempt liability 5.01 pg. 16#ausation 2.03 pg. $#iminal homici%e 210 p. 10

- #iminal homici%e 210.1- &u%e 210.2

- &anslaughte 210.3- 'egligent homici%e 210.4

uesscoecion 2.0* p. 26+eneal%e,initions i.e. mateial element 1.13nsanity 4.01 p. 2$ (iminishe% #apacity p. 2*

ntoication 2.0$ p. 10&ens ea 2.02 pg. 5&ental %isease o %e,ect 4.01-4.03&ista/e o, ,act 2.04 p. 6&ista/e o, la 2.04 p.

'ecessitychoice o, lesse e!ils 3.02 p. 22Po!ocation (# !esion o, &P# &) pg. 1112ape elate% o,,enses 213.1 p. 20

el,-%e,ense 3.04-3.0* p. 23- 7se o, ,oce in sel,-potection - 3.04- 7se o, ,oce ,o the potection o, othes 3.05- 7se o, ,oce ,o the potection o, popety 3.06- 7se o, ,oce in la en,ocement 3.0

- &ista/e o, la use o, ,oce in sel,-%e,ense 3.0*

oo/ ,o ,ailue o, poo, %e,enses 89: a,,imati!e %e,enses

7 A &A'; 9A#


2/34

- :nly some cimes ha!e a esult element? i.e. %eath o, human being in homici%e cimes. #imes that %o ha!e a esult elementalso eJuie poo, o, a ,i,th elementD causationbeteen the actus eus an% the esult

-Social #armis the esult" the nature of conduct that gets one there is irrelevant.(:,ten & is ele!ant to establishingculpability as to esult? ,o eample ,o mu%e)! #ausal lin/ beteen A an% esult

Alays %o ith cases? bea/ %on the statute into elementsD &AA9#esult $it# "C% look &or any t#at can be disputed by '

(i!e! i& t#ere is an argument and counter as to w#y t#ere is or is not a &ailure o& proo& de&ense as to t#at element)

$#en t#ere is comma separation in a statute% it can be disputed t#at t#e MR in t#e statute goes to t#at element t#at isseparated by commas (t#ere may be legislatie intent t#at no MR go into t#at element% ust to ot#er "C * that elementoul% be stict liability in that case? ,o social policy easons" i.e. social ham o, the con%uct that oul% esult is geate).oe!e? un%e &P#? i, the element is mateial then :& & must go to it? at least ec/lessness negligence.

+#eories o& Criminal ,iability/Principles o& Punis#ment * $#y Criminalie Some Conduct

Criminal Punis#ment:


3/34

- egee o, punishment (maimum ceiling an% minimum ,loo o, punishment) ,o any cime must be proportionatetothe %egee o, social ham cause% o is/e% by =s con%uct? andthe %egee o, =s moal culp. ,o engaging in con%uct

- SentencingD con!icte% o, a noncapital ,elony may ecei!e a sentence consisting o, a tem o, yeas o, impisonment?monetay ,ine? o combo (altenati!e noncaceati!e sanctions? i.e. comm. se!ice o shaming? ae pemitte% sometimes)

1. tate=s sentencing stuctue shoul% be consistent ith the theoies o, punishment that ae at the ,oun%ation o,that K%=s ciminal Kustice system

2. &P# 1.02D sentencing po!isions ae inten%e% to Fpe!ent the commission o, cimes (%eteence)G an%Fpomote the coection an% ehab o, o,,en%es (ehabilitation)G sentences shoul% %i,,eentiate among

o,,en%es ith a !ie to a Kust in%i!i%ualiCation o, teatment

Pe!iouslyD emphasis on in%eteminate sentencing stuctueD Ku%ge %e,ine% oute eaches o, a sentencebut paole boa% coul% elease be,oe completion o, sentence i, satis,ie% ehab goals

3. #uentlyD mo!ement toa% %eteminate sentencing (o,,en%e=s sentence %etemine% at the time o, sentencingpaole o,,ices cannot e%uce sentence) in,luence o, mo!ement toa% et" %isillusionment ehab" pessue,om public %uing high cime peio%s ,o longe pison sentences

4. oo/ ,o mie% mo%elD se!e both et (,ocus on culpability) an% ut concens

,34,0+2 PR01C0P,3:a cime shoul% alays be %e,ine% be,oehan% by the legislatue- 9ai aning to citiCens so they can con,om thei con%uct appopiately to a!oi% ciminal beha!io- nsue that cimes ae solely the po!ince o, legislati!e %e,inition- nsues against abitay %iscetion by posecution o la en,ocement (o gui%elines? police coul% aest someone

an% then hope ,o etoacti!e cout %ecision that they popely aeste% someone

'e&enses * Alays loo/ ,o ,ailue o, poo, %e,enses 89: a,,imati!e %e,ensesI. &P# 1.12D 'o peson may be con!icte% o, an o,,ense unless each elemento, the o,,ense is po!e% beyon% a

easonable %oubtII. "ailure o& Proo&D %e,enses that? i, belie!e% by the ,act ,in%e? negatean element o, the cime o at least raise a

reasonable doubt as to the existence of the element

a. &ista/e o, ,act (hen negating a mental state essential to the cime chage%)" mista/e o, ci!il la noms"!oluntay intoication (sometimes)" mens ea mo%el o, %iminishe% capacity %e,ense" in!oluntay actomission(i,


4/34

i. cuses negate=s moal culpability ,o the cimeD the act as ong? but thee is a easonable an%negating ecuse ,o thei actions (!s. Kusti,icationD spea/s to the ightness o, the act)

+93 3,3M31+S " CR0M3

0! C+.S R3.S * conduct (R) * bot# positie acts and omissions (&ailures to act)

a. A voluntaryactD conscious ille% bo%ily mo!ement (&P# 2.01(2)(%)) inclu%es erbal speec#MBs.involuntaryD e,lei!e actions (i.e.. epileptic seiCues)? sleepal/ing? hypnosis? being caie% somehee (i.e.&atin !. tateD =s con!iction ,o being %iso%ely in public o!etune% because o,,ices ha% caie% him to the

public place) hoe!e habitual!stressed outactions still !oluntayN

b. Concurrence principleD nee% to po!e that mens ea as pesent at the time o, Ac. A positi!e? conscious act is pupose,ul i, it satis,ies !ol act eJuiement. is culpable hen he ha% the ,ee

choice to engage in the acti!ity (ceptionD %uess an a,, %e,ense to a coece% !oluntay act)d! C, ! MPC

i. C,D #on%uct must be !oluntay a conscious? ,ee-ille% bo%ily mo!ementii. MPC8!7(): is not liable unless he pe,oms con%uct inclu%ing a voluntary acto the omissionto

pe,om an act o, hich he isphysically capable". 8!7(8):in!oluntay actsDa e,le o con!ulsion" a bo%ily mo!ement %uing unconsciousness

o sleep" con%uct %uing o esulting ,om hypnosis ; a bo%ily mo!ement that is not po%uct o,the e,,ot o %etemination o, the acto? eithe conscious o habitual

#. 8!7(6):mission: (3)(a)D &ust be epessly ma%e su,,icient by the la %e,ining the o,,ice"(3)(b)D thee is a %uty to pe,om the omitte% act impose% by la

$. 8!7(


5/34

#. &atin oul% ha!e been liable un%e &P#" cout coul% ha!e opene% up the time ,ame to ,in%!oluntay con%uct

iv. 9elony mu%e uleD uham (01)D ,elony use% ,o culpability analysis must be pe,ome% %uing thetansactionoccuence o, a ,elony mu%e. #an=t use ,elony that occue% pio (in uham? s ha%alea%y complete% the ,elony o, stealing a ca)

g. missionD ,ailue to act hee thee is a legal %uty to %o so %e,inition 1.13(4).i. $#en statute #as omission but silent as to MRD ea% in ec/lessness ,o &P# an% aaeness un%e

# -D must be aware of the facts triggering a legal duty to act. , not? has 9oP negating &ii. An in!oluntay omission is afailure of proof defenseD i, you aephysically incapableo, pe,oming

the positi!e action you ae legally obligate% to pe,om? then A element is not met (i.e. i, is inshoc/? can ague physical incapability but might Kust mitigate? not eculpate)

iii. t is not a ,ailue o, poo, %e,ense to say you %i% not /no o, you legal %uty. e has ,ai aningthough community moal noms stan%a%s. Posecution %oes not ha!e to po!e /nole%ge o, the

legal %uty? Kust o, the ,acts that tigge a legal %uty to %o something.iv. ec/lessness is the loest stan%a% ,o omissionsD negligence means that anyone can be hel%

ciminally liable. 'must be aae o, the is/s? not Kust a easonable peson.v. 9o /noing omissionsD %o not nee% to po!e /nole%ge o, the legal %uty to act? but o, the facts that

trigger the legal duty to do sth - has ha% upbinging e%ucation o, min. moal constaintsvi. tatutoyD the people ho ha!e a %uty to act? an% the positi!e action they ha!e a %uty to pe,om? lai%

out in a statute ( & can apply as elle! Common ,aw s! MPC

Common law * 40 de&ault MPC 8!78 * Recklessness de&ault (#ig#er t#an C, de&ault

o& 40 ) >>

1. Speci&ic intentD paticula /in% o, moti!e posecuto mustsho ha% at the time o, the act- n a speci,ic intent cime? the o,,ense %e,ines speci,ic

beha!io must engage in? along ith a paticula state o,min% that must accompany that beha!io nee% poo, that

1. PuposeD =s conscious ob&ectto engage in con%uct o tocause esult" aae o, A9# o belie!es o hopes they eist2. @nole%geD is aae that A9# eist? an% that his con%uctis poscibe%" an% he is aae that it ispractically cetain thathis con%uct ill cause a esult that is an element o, the cime.: ':< '#A


6/34

=s conscious obKect is to cause the social ham. , that state o,min% %oes not eist then is '+.- :,ten =% by Fith intent o pupose to %o OG. .e. lacenyDintent to pemanently %epi!e one o, his popety. o notnee% to po!e the esult occue%? Kust that he ha% the intent tota/e it.- o some ,utue actachie!e ,uthe conseJuence beyondcon%uct? o %e,inition o, cime po!i%es must be aae o,statutoy A9#

- +eneally eJuate% to &P#=s pupose o /nole%ge

2. 4eneral intent(# %e,ault) a moally blameothymin%set-+eneally eJuate% to &P# ec/lessness o negligence- 7se% in mala in se cimes- oe moal culpability than cimes- FmaliciousG I ec/less (#unningham 204D stole gas mete not ec/less as to esult o, %eath)- , the statute has no & an% no eplicit speci,ic intent? it is

pobably a + cime

3. Strict liabilityD 'o & in the %e,inition o, the o,,ense

%on=t ha!e to po!e a culpable state? Kust the obKecti!eelements o, the o,,ense- 7sually apply to hea!ily egulate% economic? publichealthel,ae (mala pro#ibita) cimes citiciCe moally

neutal beha!io ,o %eteent easons. , statute is silent as to& ,o mala pohibita cime? then cout ill ea% inlegislati!e silence on & as %elibeate- iecte% toa% people ho !oluntaily ta/e on the businessacti!ities they ae pusuing? an% they ae in a position to

pe!ent it- ess seious penalties; ess moal stigma o, con!iction;#on%uct being egulate% by these cimes %oes not tigge

seious community moal con%emnation" the goal is Kust to notencouage these /in%s o, o,,enses in!ol!ing moally neutal

but socially un%esiable con%uct- Can be applied to part of a generalspecific intent crime!i.e. "whoever knowingly distributes pot within 1# feet of a

school$ % can argue statutory construction as to why it

would be strict liability or whether a &' can be read into it

- Bicaious liabilityD Anyone in a position o, esponsibilityho has the poe to pe!ent the unante% ham can bechage% %i% not %o the con%uct elemen? hich as

satis,ie% by anothe? but is still liable (i.e. Pa/ omission o,,ailing to pe!ent contamination? otteeich esponsible

elation test (nee% to in the statute ho can be hel%!icaiously liable). 1o &air warning problem because a#ig#ly regulated area

- Policy ,oD pe!ents %angeous acti!ities" encouages thoseho paticipate to pocee% ith caution" cout=s inJuiy into& o, e!ey in,action oul% be ine,,icient.- Policy againstD those ho aen=t blameothy oul% be

punishe%" society places blameothiness as high concen ,ouphol%ing social noms -I posecutoial %iscetion" %on=t antto %ete socially use,ul beha!io

3. ec/lessnessD consciously%isega%s a substantial an%unKusti,iable is/ that the mateial element eists o ill esult,om his con%uct- ith speci&ic intentelements? that is not an eta mens ea

but an a%%itional pupose that must be satis,ie% pat o, the%e,inition o, the cime.


7/34

4. Mala in secimesD , statute silent on &? cout ill ea% inoiginal # & ,o the cime (usually %e,ault +? o puposecan o/) + i, possesse% morally blameorthymin%state

stict liability %oes not apply to mala in se cimes (:';P78# >9A #&)- oe!e? hee statute is silent as to & in mala in se? coutmight constue cime as + as to some elements an% no & asto othes (those hich they %on=t ant to pemit acJuittal ,o

policy easons? i.e. A9# o, a loa%e% gun e!en thee as aeas mista/e that gun as loa%e%? %on=t ant to allo a 9oP%e,ense bc o, the %ange5. +a%ingD & %oesn=t apply in 6. & nee% not go to all elements

M0S+@3 " "C+ * can be a &ailure o& proo& de&ense

0! is mista/en about one o moe cicumstances encompasse% ithin the %e,inition o, a cime? hich must eist ino%e ,o the cime to be committe% o ,o a eJuie% speci,ic intent to be caie% out

00! >hy sometimes eculpatesD %oesn=t ha!e the same oppotunity to a!oi% the social ham as he oul% i, he /nehat he as %oing ,ee%om o, choice un%emine%. 'o culpability %espite appeaances.

000! 8u%en o, poo, is on posecution" i, e!i%ence o, mista/e o, ,act aises a eas %oubt as to hethe ha% &? thenacJuittal. oe!e? has the bu%en o, aising mista/e o, ,act issue.

0A! Common law

Mistake o& "act

S0 crimes Any honest mista/e that negates element o, the o,,ense? negating eJuie% &(hethe easonable o not)i.e. +een !. tate 1$5D %i% not ha!e intent to steal hogs bc he thought they ee his on)

40 crimes easonable (un%e the cicumstances)? non-negligent mista/e that negates culpability 4ot must proe

t#at t#ere was any &orm o& negligence (w#et#er criminal (s#ould be aware o& substantial% unusti&iable

risk B gross deiation &rom standard or care o& a reasonable person in 's situation) or ciil) .- !en i, he honestly ma%e a mista/e? go!t can Kust sho that ma%e an unreasonable evaluation of the factsD tate !. >al/eD ,athe ab%ucte% a chil% he mista/enly belie!e% as anothe peson as entitle% to a Kuyinstuction on mista/e o, ,act since he %i% not act gen cim intent)a. . is chage% ith ape un%e the statuteD Fseual intecouse by a male ith a ,emale not his i,eithout he consent.G , his mista/e ega%ing consent as easonable? he=s '+. , it=s uneasonable? is +.

Criti=uesD , uneasonable? %enying %e,ense because someone as negligent? a peson is not nomallynegligent unless negligence as goss. Plus allos someone to be con!icte% ho is negligent ong%oe as i,he ee guilty o, intentional ong%oing.

mistake reas! made is a de&ense only i&% on t#e &acts as ' belieed t#em to be% no crime would #ae

been committed (p! D ga%e% on the basis o, hat as %one? not hat as thought to ha!e been %one)

40 crime

wit# S0

element

&ista/e must be easonablenon-negligent- ome Kuis%ictions eJuie easonable mista/e an% only i, ,acts? as belie!e% them to be? %i% not constitute acime (i.e. &P#)

S, crimes

(i!e! stat!

rape)

'o %e,ense

ttempt e,ense bc it negates speci,ic intent to bing about a esult that is ciminally pohibite%S0 crimewit# 40

element

peci,ic intent mista/e o, ,act ule only applies to the speci,ic intent. 9 the mista/e o, ,act is ele!ant to anelement o, the o,,ense othe than ? then + mista/e o, ,act is use%.- ;emian (1$*)D ma%e a mista/e about a K%tl element? hich is not a mateial element.


8/34

A! MPC 8!7


9/34

a. 8!78(D):7nless one o, the cime elements ma/es you ciminal la ignoance o mista/e ele!ant? it is no%e,ense. ;ou cannot ha!e the ecuse that you ignoance about the ciminality o, you actions is a mental state.enies a %e,ense ,o ignoance o mista/e o, the ciminal la. 8u%en o, poo, is on the %e,en%ant 9oP

i. F Peson ho commits an act hich the la %eclaes to be ciminal cannot be ecuse% ,ompunishment upon the theoy that he misconstue% o misapplie% the laG)

b. 0& statutes re=uire knowledge o& an attendant circumstance %o not ant to apply & to an A9# that

ma/es eplicit e,eence to a ciminal la nom? because this oul% allo ignoance o, cim la %e,ense.#:7 ':< A:> 9oP 9' 8; A'+ ' A' & +:'+


10/34

-


11/34

- MPC 8!7GD intoication is not a %e,ense unless it is a ,ailue o, poo, %e,ense (negating an element o, the cime).


12/34

2. 210.1D #iminal omici%e is guilty i, he causes the %eath o, anothe no matte his mental state. nclu%esmu%e? manslaughte? o negligent homici%e.

3. 210.2D >hen #iminal homici%e constitutes mu%e 201(2)(a)D committe% puposely o /noingly

210(2)(b)D committe% recklesslyun%e cicumstances mani,esting extreme indifferenceto the !alue o,

human li,e. ec/lessness an% in%i,,eence aepresumed(see 1.12) un%e cetain con%itions (inclu%ingin!ol!ement in ,elony 9& ule ee &P#) ina%!etent mu%e

3xtreme reckless indi&&erence (3R0) mu%eD oeD Ku!enile ,oun% guilty o, %epa!e%

in%i,,eence mu%e a,te /illing ,ien% though ussian oulette game (though this beha!io

,olloing the mu%e suppots mee ec/lessness? not eteme ec/lessness? hich %issentagues shoul% Kust be ec/less o in!oluntay manslaughte)

#ontempt ,o human li,e" shos conscious aaeness o, substantial an% unKusti,iable is/ o,

%eath highe & than simple ec/lessness? shoing highest le!el o, moal culpability an% ahigher mental state

&P# aims ,o Kuy to ma/e a moal Ku%gment about =s chaacteD hethe he is among ou

most culpable an% %angeous - nee% ,o geate penalties to incapacitate these people


13/34

9-9' 7D i, ec/lessly o negligently e!aluate% the nee% to ,ie a gun an% /ill in

sel,-%e,ense (i.e. alene 8uce)? then Kuy coul% pobably ,in% that she as ec/less o negligent. ,negligent she can be con!icte% o, negligent homici%e.

- Common law: 0noluntaryD1. (1) An unintentional /illing the esult o, Fan act? la,ul in itsel,? but %one in an unla,ul manne? an% ithout

%ue cautionG # !esion o, negligent homici%e) :

2. (2) An unintentional /illing that occus %uing the commission o attempte% commission o, an unla,ulact,elony (that is not inheently %angeous)

3. &ental statesD Recklessas to the esult o, %eath (eteme ec/less in%i,,eence)D substantial? ga!e is/ o,

%eath" an% cueltyantonness o, con%uct lea%ing to the %eath (i.e. oe %istinguishing beteen ina%!etentmu%e ina%!etent manslaughte)

4. ationaleD patial Kusti,ication (!ictim somehat at ,ault)? =s e%uce% culpability? less %angeous to society- AoluntaryD intentional /illing in the su%%en heat o, passion (&) as the esult o, ade+uate provocation(see belo) o

impe,ect sel,-%e,ense- cannot be con!icte% o, attemptedin!oluntay mansl (hich is base% on & o, ciminal negligence o state o, min%

othe than intent to /ill cannot intentionally commit an unintentional cime

- can be con!icte% o, attemptedB:7'hethe o not thee as a%eJuate po!ocation is a Kuy Juestion- "unction is to grade degrees o& criminal liability: hile the elements an% esults may be the same ith to

homici%es? thee may be a %i,,eence beteen the /illes (causal lin/D less culpable oul% not ha!e /ille% absentpo!ocation). iscouage boa% posecutoial an% sentencing %iscetion legislatue shoul% %eci%e this.

1. Retributiism: 9ocus on culpability (&P# ,ocus)D Po!ocation %iminishes /ille=s sel,-contol capacity thea%eJuately po!o/e% /ille is less moally culpable? bc oul% not ha!e ha% intent to /ill absent B=s a%eJuate

po!. oe!e? e still epect moally accountable people to easonably %eal ith stesses in thei li!es" thus?no eoneation but Kust less se!ee punishment.

2. .tilitarianism:9ocus on ,utue %angeousness (# ,ocus along ith culpability) - +#e more unusual t#eproocation% t#e less likely it was t#at t#e killing was not due to 's bad c#aracter! Po! allos ,o dim

culpabilityo, =s state o, min% a%eJuately po!o/e% /ille might be less li/ely to /ill again? thanintentional /ille ':< espon%ing to some etao%inay etenal e!ent

ncapacitationD 'ot all intentional /illes ae eJually %angeous to us. those most %ang.

- 4 elements o, the # po!ocation test1. as actually po!o/e% by an etenal e!ent angeras test %e,. o, ange %i,,es among K%s

u%%en ange (po!o/es you to ash action) !s. cumulati!e ange (a boa%e i%ea o, a%eJuate

po!ocation +ounigasD /ille% man ho so%omiCe% him in public ee/s a,tea%s" though long timein beteen? so%omy is the type o, etao%inay e!ent that %iminishes you culpability)

9e%%oD mee o%s not enough un%e some # Kuis%ictions

Peme%itation is not suppoti!e o, po!ocation %e,ense

2. easonable peson? in actors situationoul% ha!e been po!o/e% too 1ormatie/obectie standardo, the easonable pesonD >hethe an o%inay peson oul% ha!e lost

sel,-contol in a simila situation (easonable pesonD o, %ecentmoal chaacte" a!g intelligence"%ecent sel,-contol i, someone o, o%inay sel,-contol oul% ha!e been so po!o/e% that they oul%too ha!e acte% iationally? then shoul% eoneate)

FOG pecial taits that eplain hy can=t intepet (,acts /non to ) o act li/e the easonable

peson ae ':< consi%ee% because they oul% %estoy the nomati!e stan%a%

8e%%e ($11)D seually impotent teen /ille% hen ma%e ,un o,. + cannot gi!e the

easonable peson =s chaactestics? because this %estoys the nomati!e stan%a%. Fn acto=s situationG All ,acts /non to " any ,actsin,eencesintepeations o, ,acts that eas

peson in acto=s sit oul% see o ma/e" any special epetiseabilites o, actual ele!ant to (1)e!aluation o, is/ its Kusti,iability" (2) =s ability to mitigateeliminate is/ i.e. i, is cipple%?

hat oul% a easonable cipple% peson ha!e %oneH acial insults also can be consi%ee% bc it

13


14/34

%oesn=t un%emine the nomati!e stan%a%) 'ee% to e!aluate natue an% se!eity o, =s po!.? as longas it %oes not compomise the o%inay sel,-contol stan%a% o, a eas. peson

hee ma/es culpable choice to %o ong? hel% esponsible ,o all conseJuences o,

ong,ul choice see tial cout instuction in 9aul/ne (the ol% !ie o, &)b. eteence o, community o, %angeous to li,e ,elony in manne is/ing human li,e

c. ocial ham o, %eathD punishment popo. to se!eity o, social ham cause% by =s ,elonious con%ucti! etD %istinguishing beteen moe o less seious cimes? so shul% be moe o less culpableii! 7tD pesence o absence o, social ham

d. Poce%ual bu%en o, poo, Kusti,icationD ease posecution=s bu%en o, poo, by conclusi!ely pesumingculpability %eath but no eJuiement to po!e it see accomplice poblem (PesumptionD &P#)

e. 9om a etibuti!ist point o, !ie 9& ule is unKusti,iable %oes not lin/ mu%e ith =s culpabilityi! 'ote '; statuteD a,,imati!e %e,ense ,o mu%e that occus %uing a ,elony hee as not ame%

an% %i% not /no his co-,elons ee ame%. &P# has no ,elony mu%e ule (but 210.2 po!i%es ,o murder conviction hen someone is killed during a felony

e!en i, attempte% o as accomplice to it? it must be shon that %isplaye% eteme ec/less in%i,,eence to

the !alue o, human li,e? an% %isega%e% a substantial an% unKusti,iable is/ to human li,e).

14


15/34

a. MPC: 87(8)(b):ec/less an% in%i,,eent mu%e ispresumedi, pe,ome% in the commission o, a ,elonyb. 1.12(5)D pesumptionD hen thee is e!i%ence o, the ,acts hich gi!e ise to the pesumption? the issue o, the

eistence o, the pesume% ,act must be submitte% to the Kuy has a chance to ebut the pesumption

c. &P# eJuies some mental stateD a compomise ith # ith eJuies no mental state as to 9&B. o to o/ ith ,elony mu%e

a. 9ist the pe%icate ,elony (i.e. obbey? laceny) an% %etemine i, can be con!icte% o, that on its oni! , has a ,ailue o, poo,a,,imati!e %e,ense to the ,elony? he is '+ o, mu%e

b. , gi!en a statute? see i, language embaces one o moe limits i, no clea limits? see i, it uses # o &P#language to see hat the policy %ecision is

c. nchoate cimes i.e. buglayD %on=t eJuie poo, that the obKecti!e social ham (i.e. pemanent %epi!ation o,popety) has occue%.


16/34

a! >hen the posecution=s e!i%ence establishes that only the pincipal %i% the A most typical. %i% notengage in the ciminal con%uct element o, the taget cime (i.e. ussellD %epesse% i,e %one% hesel, an%/i%s hile husban% stoo% by '+D his i,e as a ,ee agent)

b! >hen a goup o, in%i!i%uals commits a cime an% thee is little e!i%ence that as pesonally in!ol!e%c! >hen =s ciminal con%uct %i% not cause the esult element (i.e. ussell? lugashD shot B hen B ha%

alea%y been shot an% it as uncetain i, B as alea%y %ea% hen shot again '+ o, mu%e). Pincipal must complete A elements o, the cime un%e # (ecept the esult element sometimes? in hich case

the cime is attempt).


17/34

AccompliceA

'ee% to po!e that hat %i% somehocontibute% to pincipal=s ciminal con%uct

&ust be actual assistance o omission (i, un%e alegal %uty to %o something)- # eJuies some ,om o, assistance tociminal con%uct to sho culpability-(


18/34

Accomplice &D#D pupose (not /nole%ge) to ,acilitate the ciminal con%uct&P#D pupose to ai% P=s ciminal con%uct (coul% possibly alsogo to A9# but not necessay)-oo/ at the ,acts an% con%uct hich shos &-'1+nee% accomplice & as to esult

#ulpability- & as to A9#? A? esult- Any speci,ic intent hich shos eta pupose

#ulpability o, the cime chage% (mens ea going to A# an%esult? 1+ R) an% any a%%itional mental state (i.e. speci,icintent i, one is eJuie%)

- , a resultcimeD pupose? /nole%ge? o belie, the esult illoccu

- - Strict liabilitycimesD as to the A# must be po!en ,oboth accomplice o pincipal (con!esely? i, neg goes to theA#? then posecution must po!e that neg ,o both P an% A)

- , statute silent as to &? ea% in geneal intentGguilty min%Go ec/lessnessnegligence can be con!icte% o, e!ennegligence (i.e. %og ,ight hypo)

Pincipal=s con%uct is impute% to the accomplice

7n%e &P#D the only %i,,eence beteen P an% A is mens ea.

, P is ,oun% not guilty ,o ,ailue o, poo, & %e,ense? thenAcc can still be hel% accountable as long as obKecti!e elementsae pesent P must still %o the actus eus o, the cime

B. ccomplice to attempt:'ee% to sho (1) acc mD pupose to ai% ciminal con%uct constituting the attempt(substantial step)" (2) acc aD ai% o attempt to ai% the ciminal con%uct (subst step)? & o, attempte% taget cimeto all elements ecept going to A

O. ccomplice liability B &elony murder: ,ist i, pincipal guilty o, pe%icate ,elony. , yes? then P is guilty o,

9& i, his con%uct cause% the %eath. Accomplice also nee%s to be ,oun% guilty o, pe%icate ,elony to be '+ o, 9&(so nee% to consi%e a,,imati!e %e,enses ,o accomplice? i.e. %uess)O. (.#1!3*+ Can accomplice be conicted i& principal&ound not guiltyH ' un%e #? ; un%e &P#

a!


19/34

b! 2.06(6)(b)D =s con%uct is ine!itably inci%ent to the commission (i.e. postitute an% he buye 2 people aere+uired,o commission o, cime) - %on=t ant to un%uly eten% scope o, ho can be con!icte% as acc.

c! 2.06(6)(c)D teminates his complicity pio to the commission o, the o,,ense an% eithe in,oms laen,ocement be,oe it happens o ma/es it impossible to happen

i. t is not an a,,imati!e %e,ense to accomplice liability i, the cime still occus a social ham has

occue%? an% utilitaian %eteence as not achie!e%ii. oe!e? 5.01(4)D enunciation o, #iminal PuposeD a!e to ha!e somehat o, a moal eason to

aban%on the cime.


20/34

9$3A3R: impossibilityproblem: i& ' beliees t#at "C o& target crime exist% but t#ey

are actually missing% t#en can still be conicted o& attempt crime * belie& as to "C is

good enoug# w#en t#e crime #s is being conicted o& exists (i!e! i& ' goes to store to stab

someone but A is not t#ere% it is not a &ailure o& proo& de&ense t#at A was absent een

t#oug# it was impossible t#at t#e crime occur)! imilaly? lugash cannot be con!icte%o, mu%e since B may ha!e been %ea% but can be con!icte% o, attempte% mu%e since he ha%the intent to /ill.

Pe,om A ith the speci,ic intent o, o, committing taget cime (but mista/es can negate this

speci,ic intent)

, esult? speci,ic pupose o, causing the esult 3xception: ttempted #omicide (conduct completed): some K%s %o not eJuie attempt speci,ic

intent to /ill


21/34

1o a&&irmatie de&ense under C, because it re=uires actor to get muc# closer to doing t#e actual

crime% so t#ere is less problem t#at ' will c#ange #is mind

2. Policy easoning (,o i.e. not ciminaliCing pepaation)D the ealie you ciminaliCe? the moe li/ely to con!ictsomeone ho eithe is not tuly capable o ho %oes not yet ha!e a ,im intent to commit the taget cime.+i!e someone a chance to choose not to go ,oa% e!en a,te pepaing

ssues o, ,ai aning an% posecutoial %iscetion

&any acts un%e # not su,,icient to impose ciminal liability

.ne=uiocal act testD Fcon%uct spea/s ,o itsel,G - the act :' ' %emonstates acto=s

ciminal intent %eman%s mani,est e!i%ence o, =s blameothiness not use% in many K%s

oeD attempte% seual con%uct ith a chil% coul% be applie% to him i, he appoache% a /i%an% too/ his pants o,," but not Kust i, he goes into a pa/ hee chil%en ae pesent

Pippin (2*)D cannot loo/ at status? only act an% see i, it satis,ies the con%uct element

)cts alone rarely satisfy this test 1 difficult to kno actors end aim or criminal desires &ust

by his conduct

'angerous proximity to success test:loo/ at =s con%uct an% see ho close the actions ae to the

A o, the taget cime. -o much is left to be doneH

:nly hen the anticipatoy con%uct comes %angeously close to accomplishing the ham

ultimately ,eae% loo/ing at %angeousness o, the complete% con%uct isel,

iCCoD attempt A not satis,ie% ,o taget cime o, ame% obbey? though culpability clea

eJuies a%eJuate e!i%ence o, =s commitment to ciminal pupose limits liability ,o

attempt to pesons ,imly esol!e% to commit social ham

>ea/nessD ho to sepaate those ho ae tuly intent on ciminal miscon%uct ,om those ho

may not complete the o,,ense. #annot ciminaliCe people hee thee is poe,ul e!i%ence o,thei ciminal liability yet they coul% not be con!icte% on that basis alone

# tying to %ete people ,om engaging in %angeous con%uct in society hoe!e? poblem is that

too many %angeous in%i!i%uals oul% ha!e no culpability. 'o ciminal liability ,o ealie pepaatoyacts? e!en hee eliable e!i%ence o, ciminal intent.

:nly inte!ene un%e # hee %ange is etemely li/ely an% the is/ o, social ham is geat thus?

police might not ha!e a%eJuate oppotunity to inte!ene be,oe complete% cime occus3. MPC ?!7()(c):puposely %oes o omits to %o anything hich is an act o omission constituting a substantia

step in the couse o, con%uct planne% to en% in the commission o, a cime 5.01(2)(a-g)D con%uct hich I substantial step stongly coobati!e o, cim pupose

D Accepting anothe=s o,,e to secue a %ug %eale cooboates =s pupose to buy &L

As/s i,? loo/ing at all independent evidence already haveo, =s culpability (not Kust loo/ing atalea%y complete% acts)? is =s con%uct is strongly corroborative o, ciminal pupose. asie test.

&uch boa%e liability ,o attempt than #D ,ocuses on hat has been %one? athe than hat emains

to be %one. Allos the la to inte!ene soone to pe!ent cime commission

, e alea%y ha!e an a%mission o, hat he is thin/ing? the ea/ene% A test oul%

cooboate an in%epen%ent con,ession an% the test oul% be satis,ie% %i,,eent ,om #

P test? hee oul% not be close to success istinct ,om eJui! act testD much ea/e %on=t ha!e to loo/ at act alone" can look at the act in the

context of other available acts2 look at other evidence of 3R that the acts corroborate

oeD un%e &P# he coul% be con!icte% o, attempt ,o %opping his pants" but un%e # nee% to ait

until he gets close to touching the chil% be,oe liable.

""0RM+0A3 '3"31S3D 5.01(4)D &P# allos an a,,imati!e %e,ense o, complete

!oluntay enunciation o, ciminal pupose" # %oes not bc &P# allos ealie

inte!ention? nee% to allo some %e,ense bc ciminaliCing less signi,icant actions. oe!e?ha!e to ha!e some moraleason ,o aban. to in%icate lac/ o, %angeousness an% culpability.

Problems wit# t#e MPC approac#D by ,ocusing on acto=s culpability an% %angeousness? &? not

A? becomes citical element in attempt Allos A to be su,,icient be,oe might change min%.

s opposed to C,D not ,ocusing on =s culpability o %angeousness? but athe on =s con%uct an%

hethe con%uct itsel, came close to succee%ing.

C,s goalD %eteence o, ciminal ,om committing the taget o,,ense? by gi!ing them time to

change thei min% thus the late inte!ention.

21


22/34

- ccomplice/attempt liability e!en i, the pincipal is '+ un%e &P#? Acc can be hel% liable ,o attempt to ai% but':< : un%e common la hich has %ei!ati!e liability

- Attempte% homici%e poblemsD1. 7n%e common la? attempt & o, special intent to /ill not ecogniCe% ,o attempte% mu%e2. Attempte% 9&D not a cogniCable o,,ense attempte% mu%e eJuies a speci,ic intent to /ill? but =s intent to

commit a ,elony %oes not substitute ,o the intent to /ill (ee essle 420 ,o hen a K% %oes ecogniCe it)3. Attempte% manslaughteD attempte% !ol mansl is possible i, is po!o/e% an% ,ails to /ill he alea%y

possesses the speci,ic intent to /ill 'on-&P# K% can ecogniCe attempte% ec/less manslD ha% the & to /ill? %i% the con%uct? an% as

ec/less toa%s the A# so can be chage% %espite no eta attempt & &P# : eJuie the attempt speci,ic intent to /ill (but uses puposebelie, that esult ill occu)

&P# : ':< ecogniCe attempte% ec/less manslaughte since it eJuies attempt & o, pupose

o belie, that the esult ill occu. ithout consentG is a social constructionthat eJuies a nomati!e !alue Ku%gment about hat constitutes aeasonable intepetation o, the !ictim=s acts an% o%s

c. ac/ o, consentD can be a poblem hen it is not !ebaliCe%. 'o one has pi!ilege% access to anothe=s innethoughts? so you can=t po!e hat she as eally thin/ing i, she %i% not ant to ha!e se ith .


23/34

A eual intecouse 1' &orce or t#reat o& &orce(Kust seual intecouse is ':< ':7+ toestablish A ,o ape)- eJuies poo, o, some positi!e con%uct by (i.e. us/D slight cho/ing? ta/ing he /eys)- 9ocible con%uct by is moe inKuious thanFnonconsensualG intecouse- mith (3)D must eithe use ,oce o theatenits use by o%s o con%uct that oul% reasonably

generate fear of physical in&ury- eD &hat about hen ,emale is !oluntaily intoicate% butconsciousH ee p. 3$6.

& as to lackof consent

+eneal intentD an aaeness that he is ,ocing seon a oman against he ill? an% he inten%s to %oso

- nee% not inten% that intecouse benonconsensual. Lust has to ha!e a moally

blameothy state o, min% ega%ing helac/ o, consent

- &aKoityD - , ha% a genuine an%reasonable/non'negligent% belie, that sheha% consente% (an% Kuy can ,in% beyon% aeasonable %oubt that Bictim=s o%s an%actions in%icate consent)? he is eculpate%

- Posecution must po!e negligenceas tolac/ o, consent

- ntecouse ith a oman in capable o,consenting (i.e. bc intoicate%) is ape

ec/lessnessPupose- An uneasonable mista/e o, ,act as to consent

II ec/lessness: negligenceH >oul% a easonable peson in =s

position ha!e been aae o, a lac/ o, consentH

&P# a!oi%s the Juestion o, lac/ o, poo, as to !ictim=sconsent

& as tothreat of force

Puposeintent (i.e. us/D slight cho/ing)

n compaison

to each othe

eJuies obKecti!e poo, o, !ictim=s lac/ o,

consent

ape %e,ine% in tems o, male=s acts o, aggession o

o!e-eaching? athe than ,emale=s lac/ o, consent- oes not eJuie poo, o, !ictim=s esistance

B. ape an% sentencingD male !s. ,emale nom con,lict i, thee is ambiguity? ule o, caution shoul% apply (ut)a. , thee ae to competing stoies? loo/ at the ,acts to ma/e sue that eithe stoy i, belie!e% ce%ibly aises

hethe ma%e a mista/e as to lac/ o, consent. hen a statute is silent as to &? it is !ey unli/ely that a cout ill ea% in speci,ic intent coul% aise a

mista/e o, ,act %e,ense about consent i, go!t must po!e pupose/nole%ge as to lac/ o, consent? then any

mista/e o, ,act by ? e!en i, ec/lessly o negligently ma%e? is a ,ailue o, poo, %e,ense.b.


24/34

1. A/in to voluntary intoxicationD 2.0$(S1) is a ,ailue o, poo, %e,ense i, it negates an elemento, the cime" 2.0$(2)D unaaeness is immateial i, he is unaae o, a is/ that he oul% ha!e

been aae o, i, sobe

""0RM+0A3 '3"31S3S : !en hen e!ey element o, the cime is satis,ie% beyon% a easonable %oubt? the la mustecogniCe ho to %eal ith special cicumstances not anticipate% by the geneal ules o, con%uct authoiCe% by the ciminal laAll a,,imati!e %e,enses apply to stict liability cimes

. 5usti&icationsD eceptions to nomal cim la con%uct ule (1) c#oice o& lesser eils (necessity) (2) sel&-de&ensea. Lusti,ications ae complete %e,enses? suggesting that the act itsel,? un%e special cicumstances? is not ong,ul

b. ithe ,om a utilitaian pespecti!e? by a!oi%ing a geate e!il (!iolating the con%uct ule geneates a netsocial el,ae gain that oul% be lost i, complie% ith ciminal la con%uct ule)? o etD >hen you /illsomeone in sel,-%e,ense? it is bette that the innocent !ictim li!e o!e the moally culpable aggesso

. 13C3SS0+2/C90C3 " ,3SS3R 3A0,S %e,ense a!ailable hee acte% in the easonable belie, that

committing cime O oul% pe!ent the occuence o, a geate cime ; (a geate ham o e!il)a. eJuies an E53C+0A3shoing that cime O is not only ose than =s lesse cime ;? but that the lesse

cime as 13C3SSR2to a!oi% O.


25/34

!s. !alues se!e% by outlaing it an% still eKecte% it.5. +#ere must be no ot#er% less #arm&ul ways to aert t#et#reat!

oe!e? i, is chage% ith a pupose o /nole%ge

cime? then a ec/less o negligent mista/e is a %e,ense.- ': &&''#; E7&'< un%e &P# (as

un%e common la)- &P# eJuies an :8L#


26/34

". 3xceptions:6!7


27/34

". A peson ho genuinely belie!es? hoever unreasonably? in the eistence o, Kusti,icatoy,acts has a defenseto any cime eJuiingpurposeo knoledge.

1. ec/lessnessD belie, must be not only sincee but also non-ec/less2. 'egligenceD the mista/en belie, must be easonablenon-negligent3. ess than a!g intelligence not consi%ee% in e!aluation o, easonableness

#. to a sel,-%e,ense claimD pet testimony about past abuseD

hen oman testi,ies she belie!e% moe abuse as about to occu? Kuy is less li/ely to minimiCe these!eity o, the imminent theat shos that she ma%e a easonable e!aluation o, the imminent theat

hich Kusti,ies he !iolence to pe!ent moe !iolence.


28/34

. # !s &P#D un%e &P# is coece% i, peson o, easonable ,imness oul% ha!e been? but un%e # i, noimminency then no %uess %e,ense a!ailable. oe!e? both emphasiCe unla,ul ,oce theat o, bo%ily inKuy

.


29/34

imminent ham as easonable. #outs moe li/ely to a%mit e!i%ene to sho that she ha% special /nole%ge o, thecicumstancse? athe than suppot the claim that she ,eae% he claim as easonablea. oe!e? i, she ha% ealistic oppotunity to lea!e be,oe the coeci!e theat as ealiCe%? that oul% be

ele!ant to hy she coul% not get a %uess %e,ense

Summary o& duress C, analysis MPC 8!7D

1ature o& t#e t#reat

(in bot# C, and MPC% t#e nature o&

t#e t#reat triggering duress #as to be

unlaw&ul p#ysical #arm)

(.e. aney p. 4$3)1. mminent theat o, seious bo%ilyham o imminent %eath to o a 3 %

paty2. =s ell-goun% ,ea that the theatill be caie% out3. o 3%paty=s lac/ o, a easonableoppotunity to otheise a!et thetheatene% ham

uess ecuse1.No imminency re+uirement(imme%iacy o, %ange Kust one

cicumstance o, many to consi%e ine!aluating hethe a peson o,easonable ,imness oul% ha!e beenable to esist the theat)3. 7nla,ulphysicalham (othe ,omso, ham? such as eputational? o Kust!ey mino physical ham li/e a slap? %onot apply)

Causes 1. easonable ,ea that theat ill beeecute%2. ac/ o, easonable ay to a!oi% thetheat3. #oecion must cause cime

1. #oece% by ,oce o theat o, ,oce2. #ime must be the only ayto a!oi%the theat

3xcusing condition 1. coece% to commit cime2. Peson o, easonable ,imness oul%ha!e been coece% to commit cime

1. ,elt coece% to commit cime asubKecti!e inJuiy (can loo/ at pesonalchaacteistics o, )2. Peson o, reasonable firmness in hissituation oul% ha!e been unable toesist nomati!e stan%a%

"or&eiture o& de&ense 1. ec/esslynegligently placingyousel, in coeci!e situation

ec/lessly place yousel, in coeci!esituation no %e,ense

'egligently place yousel, can only

be chage% ith negligent cime

01S10+2 '3"31S3 A Ku%gment about =s moal esponsibility.


30/34

Poce%ues ho %i,,eent ,om ciminal Kustice systemD the mentally %iso%ee% (mental con%ition %etemine% by ci!il tial?hee go!t has to po!e is mentally ill an% %angeous) is sentence% to in!ol ci!il commitment. 8u%en o, poo, o, clea an%con!incing e!i%ence. epi!ing libety at this point not ciminal punishment bc no moal con%emnation yet.9o tialD loo/ at =s mental state at the time o, the cime.

00!


31/34

1. istinction beteen psychoses (schiCophenia? bipola %iso%e? etc.) hich ae so seiousthat has geat %i,,iculty eithe intepeting eality cogniti!ely? o his emotional esponses toeality ae !ey o,,-/ilte" an% pesonality %iso%es (i.e.

iii. imite% impact i, popely applie%" most e!i%ence %oesn=t %ispute & but eplains hy actoengage% in the con%uct

31


32/34

i!. 'ot nee%e% (agument)D e!en insane people can ,om intent to /ill? e!en i, they thin/ +o% tol% them to%. easons ,o ,eaing that tial couts ill not popely apply it - easons to ba psychiatic testimonyD too

con,using an% sophisticate% ,o the Kuye. 'iminis#ed responsibilitymo%el (only eists in 7@" e%uces mu%e to !ol. mansl. o 2n%mu%e) anothe

patial a,,imati!e %e,ense #8 p. $24D Fsu,,eing such abnomality o, min% as substantially impaie% hismental esponsibility ,o his acts an% omissions in /illingG et. ga%ing scheme

i. Patial ecuse ationale to mitigate %egee o, ciminal liability ,o sane but mentally %isable% o,,en%echage% ith mu%e allos ,o e%uction hene!e the Kuy belie!es that =s mental %isabilitye%uce% his culpability? as oppose% to his nomal countepat ho commits the same cime? hose

capacity ,o sel,-contol an% ationality is not impaie%ii. Analogy to po!ocation o & patial ecuse (closest analogy in 7.. is &)

iii. >hyD culpability Ku%gments cannot be a%eJuately a%%esse% by & itsel,? e!en though intent tocommit the cime is still pesent? so that culpability is e%uce%

i!. oesn=t eist in any 7.. Kuis%iction (closest is & %e,ense)b. ationales ,o ecogniCing the %e,ense

i. Amelioate the nao %e,inition o, a ,ull insanity ecuse1. :,ten mental abnomality %oes not Juali,y as ,ull insanity2. Applies most in &='aughten Kuis%ictionsD this %e,ense pemits Kuies to consi%e e!i%ence o,

=s impaie% !olitional contols that theoetically cannot be use% to %emonstate his insanity3. &ost 7.. Kuis%ictions employ insanity tests ith eplicit !olitional components

ii. Pe!ent eecution o, mentally %isable% but sane o,,en%es1. $thamen%ment seen to eJuie in%i!i%ualiCe% sentencing %iscetion ,o most capital o,,enses

iii. Pemit moe thoough an% in%i!i%ualiCe% inJuiy into %egee o, o,,en%es than is pemitte% bystatutoy mens ea ga%ing elements? such as peme%itation an% %elibeation o malice

1.


33/34

does the accomplice also have to have some mr going to the ac of 'within 100ft of aschool zone'#

!!!if the crime is sl as to the ac of within 100 ft$ the same sl would apply to bothacc and principal$ conversely$ if neg goes to that ac$ prosec must prove same culpas to ac for both princ and acc

n!oluntay ci!il commitmentD a bac/up ,o those ,e in%i!s hose moal agency e shoul% not espect because o, some se!ee mental illness

- hy use ciminal la to incapacitate themD highe bu%en o, poo, than in ci!il tialD beyon% a eas %oubt !s. clea an% con!incing e!i%enceoe

1) hat is so ba%H 7n,aiH angeous about use o, pe!enti!e %etention (incapacitation Kusti,ie% ,o libety %epi!ation base% solely on ,.. ,in%ingH2) >hy shoul% e pe,e ciminal la as pimay ay e a%%ess an% Kusti,y %epi!ation o, libety hee incapacitation is the pimay goal se!e%H - #ininal la has built into it

mino constaints that %on=t allo us to %o goss inKustice to the ciminal o,,en%e

oeD a %angeous se o,,en%e ho su,,ee% ,om pesonality %iso%es o, pe%ophilia ehibitionism %o not Juali,y as se!ee mental illness? but mental abnomality

#aneD @' has ea/ene% eJuiement" no only mental abnomality is su,,icient ,o incapacitation

oe entee% a pa/ ith intention to ma/e seual contact hich a chil%? but then change% his min% an% le,t. Police thought he pose% a signi,icant is/ o, ,utue %angeous beha!ioH- >hat is the best mechanism o, coeci!e social contol to coect this poblemH

o #iminal laD 7tilitaian goalsD incapacitation not pe!enting peson ,om committing cimes in society? but a Ku%gment that some ciminals ae %angeous? an% e

selecti!ely incaceate the most %angeous ith the Ku%gment that they ae li/ely to eo,,en% in the ,utueo #aneD incapacitation is one state inteest se!e% by the in!oluntay ci!il commitment mo%el.

o >hat is so ba%un,ai%angeous about a pue pe!enti!e %etention system? base%solelyon a ,in%ing o, ,utue %angeousnessH

uch a system oul% allo us to incaceate oe go!t coul% sho clea an% con!incing e!i%ence that he pose% a signi,icant %ange to othes because o,

his pesonality %iso%es oe!e? poblem ith this /in% o, systemD e!en i, e only use it at ,ist to incapacitate the most clealy %angeous in%i!i%uals? thee is the slippey

slope concen that once you Kusti,y a system to incaceate solely base% on ,utue %angeousness? it is ha% to con,ine the system to Kust those /in%s o,people

>hat i, the system oul% not ha!e that slippey slope poblem? an% only tuly ,utue %angeous people ae incaceate% still a poblemD it shos a lac/

o, espect ,o , ee ill in a libeal state that assumes all o, us ha!e minimum capacities to ma/e choices about ou contemplate% actions? this systemoul% ha!e a lac/ o, espect ,o that capacity to ma/e the choice

n!oluntay ci!il commitmentD a bac/up ,o those ,e in%i!i%uals hose moal agency e shoul% not espect because o, some se!ee mental illness-thus? hen @' ea/ens eJuiement to Kust in%i!i%uals that commit %angeous acts? this begins to 1) not espect the moal agency status o, some people? an% not ait ,o them to ma/echoices" an% 2) instea% o, elying on ciminal la ,o social contol? the in!oluntay ci!il commitment system coul% be the pimay? not bac/up? system to se!e incapacitation goals- >hy e,e to ciminal la as pimay system o, social contol to incapacitate %angeous people in ou societyH

o n ciminal la? poce%ual %ue pocess constaints ae highe bu%en o, poo, beyon% a easonable %oubt? !s. Kust clea an% con!incing e!i%ence o, ,utue

%angeousnessD a pe%iction ,o hich the most eliable in%ication is past acts- >hat is ong ith ciminal la=s esponse to oe an% incapacitating himH >hy can=t ciminal la be the most e,,icient ,om o, incapacitation o, %angeous in%i!i%ualsH

o #iminal la has to ait until an action has been committe% the act eJuiement.


34/34

o >hy pe,e ciminal la (Juestion 2 abo!e)D anseD the ciminal la on=t let us be completely e,,icient in ,ocusing Kust on incapacitation. , no popotionality

pinciple? %on=t nee% to t is a%%essing puposes o, punishment that sometimes con,lict ith each othe

o 7tilitaian might not ant to get i% o, cetain etibuti!ist constaints on state=s ability to se!e incapacitationD to sen% out nom ein,oecemen an% %eteence message?

nee% to %istinguish beteen moe an% less %angeous #ost o, hol%ing people e,,iciency scace esouces can=t incapacitate e!eyone

ncapacitation-,ocuse% societyD oul% be moe totalitaian

9ee ill? though a etibuti!ist concept? still pomotes social el,ae because pomotes notion o, esponsibility an% accountability

social utility to etibuti!ist Kusti,ications o, punishment

- ant to eJuie them to ma/e an in%epen%ent ,in%ing that he has geat %i,,iculty contolling himsel,

- calia=s citiJue o, Fgeat %i,,iculty o, sel,-contolGD hy %oes he ague that once is shon to ha!e the eJuisite mental abnomality? that is enough to commit hitH- P. 66D @' statute eJuies that the mental abnomality ma/e it %i,,icult ,o peson to contol his %angeous beha!io caliaD legislatue alea%y eJuies a ,in%ing that has lac/

o, sel,-contol? that his mental abnomality pe%isposes the in%i!i%ual to act in this ay. o ,in%ing pe%ophila est. a clea causal lin/age beteen that con%ition an% ,utue acts? that%oes not compel a ,in%ing tthat that peson ill %o it in the ,utue

- #ausation !s. compulsionD all actions cause% by ou pe!ious ational choices.- 9in% geat %i,,icult in sel,-contol shoul% cae that e shoul% only subKect to in!ol ci!il commitment people ho ae not moally accountable agents. 'ee% to espect the choices

o, moally accountable actos ho can still contol themsel!es? albeit ith %i,,iculty thus 8eye=s eJuiement o, ,in%ing geat %i,,iculty o, contolling his ba% choices un,aito blame you hen you ha!e the ong choice

- uessD i, you ha!e no la,ul ay o, a!oi%ing a theat ithout committing a cime? you ae not blame% because you ha!e been %enie% a ,ai oppotunity to comply ith the la- 8eye tying to limit the ci!il commitment system to mental abnomality that ill eally ha!e a signi,icant impact on someone=s moal capacity. 63 %istinguish beteen the

%angeous seual o,,en%e ho can be subKect to ci!il commitment !s. someone ho is %angeous but typical- >hat is at sta/eD o you stic/ to elying on the ciminal laH : %o you go toa% pue pe!enti!e %etentionH

9oucha - Automatically committe% to an institutionA statuteD '+s cannot be elease% unless a Ku%ge %etemines that they ae no longe mentally ill an% a %ange

9oucha as not mentally illD ha% a %ug-in%uce% psychosis. oe!e? can=t guaantee he on=t be a %ange in the ,utue he acte% out at the 9eliciana institution. 8ecause o, the mino assaultseing on the si%e o, o!e-con,inement

People ho might be a ,utue %ange? but no longe mentally ill? nee%e% to be elease% A statute !iolate% that.

644D @enne%y=s %issentD this is a ciminal case elying on the ciminal mo%el o, libety %epi!ation (ciminal la) to teat '+s? not ci!il commitment mo%el. e as ,oun% not guilty byeason o, insanity substanti!e guilt shon at the tial? all element o, the cime shon beyon% a easonable %oubt. :nly eason not guilty as because o, insanity %e,ense teating that as theeJui!alent o, a guilty !e%ict.

- i, elying on ciminal la mo%el? ho long can e con,ine himH oo/ to the maimum sentence alloe% ,o con!iction.- :=#onno Koins maKoity because A statute is o!eboa%

#ommitment %oesn=t espect the ,iction o, ,ee illAltenate ,om o, incapacitation" hoe!e less %esiable because no popotionality

crim law w arenella sp 08

Documents