Criminal Law
After being stranded at sea, Dudley and Stephens kill and eat a young cabin boy to survive. The court rejects their necessity defense and convicts them of murder.
Why might the criminal law punish Dudley and Stephens despite their desperate circumstances?
Answer D: Criminal law has an expressive function: it communicates society’s condemnation of certain conduct. A guilty-or-not-guilty verdict can be blunt, but sentencing gives judges more flexibility to account for the circumstances and moral nuances of an offense.
According to Morris, why is punishment justified when someone breaks the law?
It restores the burden of obeying rules the offender evaded
Morris's fairness-based account argues that people who obey the law accept burdens that offenders attempt to escape while still enjoying society's benefits. Punishment restores fairness by reimposing a burden on those who violated the rules. Shared compliance with the law helps preserve the conditions that make freedom possible for everyone.
Under utilitarianism, when will a rational person be deterred from committing a crime?
When expected costs outweigh expected benefits
Optimal deterrence assumes people respond to incentives. If the expected cost of the crime, considering both the probability and severity of punishment, outweighs the expected benefit, a rational person will refrain. The goal is to minimize the total social costs of crime and punishment.
If only 10% of embezzlers are caught, what might optimal deterrence suggest?
Increase punishment’s severity to offset low chance of detection
Under optimal deterrence, a low probability of detection may be offset by a more severe punishment. The expected cost depends on both the probability and severity of punishment. However, this does not mean severity should increase without limit. Excessive punishment can undermine proportionality and the legitimacy of the criminal justice system.
Of the options below, at common law, which best captures the difference between general and specific intent crimes?
b. General-intent crimes generally require the defendant to intend to perform the prohibited act, while specific-intent crimes require proof of an additional or more particularized mental state specified in the offense definition. This distinction matters because, under common law, an honest mistake of fact may negate the required intent for a specific-intent crime, whereas a mistake of fact must generally be both honest and reasonable to provide a defense to a general-intent crime.
Which stage of the criminal process defines crimes, elements the state must prove, and available defenses?
Answer C: There are three stages of the criminal process. The first is criminal definition, which defines crimes, the elements the state must prove to establish criminal liability, and the defenses a defendant may raise. This is the stage we focus on in this class.
The second is constitutional criminal procedure, which governs the rules and constitutional limits on how law enforcement investigates crime, including searches, seizures, and interrogations.
The third is criminal process and adjudication, which governs what the government can do after formally accusing someone of a crime, including the right to counsel, discovery, and the adjudication process.
Why would Kant object to punishing an offender solely to scare others away from crime?
It treats the offender as a tool for society's benefit
Kant's theory of punishment is primarily retributivist. Kant's categorical imperative requires treating people as ends in themselves, not merely as tools to achieve other goals. Punishing someone solely to deter others uses that person as an instrument for social benefit. For retributivists, punishment is justified by the offender's own wrongdoing, not simply by its usefulness to society.
When might utilitarianism suggest that criminal punishment should NOT be imposed?
When punishment cannot prevent harm or cost more than it saves
Punishment itself imposes social costs. Utilitarianism supports punishment only when it produces enough benefit to justify those costs. If punishment cannot prevent the harm, is unnecessary, or a cheaper alternative would achieve the same result, imposing it may reduce rather than increase overall social welfare.
Under common law, what type of mistake of fact can preclude liability for specific-intent and general intent crimes?
A specific-intent crime requires an honest mistake, while a general-intent crime generally requires an honest and reasonable mistake.
Under common law, an honest mistake of fact can negate the required mens rea for a specific-intent crime, even if the mistake was unreasonable. For a general-intent crime, the mistake generally must be both honest and reasonable to preclude liability.
In a MPC jurisdiction, a driver races through a crowded school parking lot at 70 mph. The driver recognizes the substantial risk of hitting someone but decides to keep driving that way. Which culpability level best describes the driver’s conduct?
Under MPC § 2.02(2)(c), recklessness occurs when a person consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The driver recognizes the danger and chooses to proceed anyway.
A criminal statute has two genuinely reasonable interpretations. Which should a court choose under the rule of lenity?
The interpretation that favors the defendant
The rule of lenity directs courts to resolve genuine ambiguity in a criminal statute in favor of the defendant, after ordinary interpretive tools have been exhausted. It reinforces fair notice and limits judicial expansion of criminal liability.
Can a person be convicted of a crime based solely on their thoughts?
No, criminal liability generally requires conduct
Criminal law generally requires an act or other legally sufficient conduct, not merely thoughts or intentions. Thoughts alone are difficult to prove and punishing them would threaten individual liberty. The conduct requirement helps limit the government's power to punish.
A statute states that a person commits an offense if they “knowingly cause serious bodily injury to an election worker at a designated polling place.” The statute does not distinguish among the material elements. Under MPC § 2.02(4), how does “knowingly” generally apply?
When the statute prescribes a culpability level without distinguishing among material elements, that mental state generally applies to all material elements unless a contrary purpose plainly appears.
Suppose unarmed robbery carries 5 years; armed robbery carries 15. What are the extra 10 years designed to achieve?
Creates a marginal deterrence effect by inducing robbers not to bring guns
This is the idea of marginal deterrence. The greater punishment gives the robber an incentive to commit the less harmful offense if he is going to rob the store anyway. The additional punishment for using a gun therefore deters escalation from unarmed to armed robbery.
Under the MPC, must every element of an offense involve a voluntary act?
No, at least one voluntary act generally suffices
Under MPC, criminal liability generally requires conduct that includes at least one voluntary act; not every element of the offense must be voluntary. When a statute is silent or ambiguous about the conduct required, courts may have discretion to determine how the voluntary act requirement applies on a case-by-case basis. The key is that criminal liability cannot rest entirely on involuntary conduct.
A theft statute prohibits taking the movable property of another. Which of the following is an attendant circumstance?
The property belongs to another person.
Attendant circumstances are facts that must exist for the offense to be committed. The property's ownership and its status as movable property are attendant circumstances.
A court punishes murder to communicate society’s moral condemnation of intentional killing. Which theory fits best?
Expressive condemnation
Expressive condemnation views punishment as a way to communicate society's moral disapproval of criminal conduct. Its central purpose is sending a moral message, rather than primarily deterring crime, rehabilitating the offender, or restoring fairness. This theory highlights the expressive function of criminal law and the role of public conceptions of morality in defining wrongdoing.
A defendant sets fire to a building to collect insurance money, knowing that a security guard inside is practically certain to die. The defendant does not want the guard to die. What is the defendant's mental state regarding the guard's death?
Knowledge applies when the defendant is aware that a result is practically certain to occur. Purpose requires that causing the result be the defendant's conscious object. Intentionally performing an act does not automatically mean the defendant acts purposely regarding every resulting consequence.
In a common law jurisdiction, Alex intends to steal a necklace worth $50 but accidentally takes a necklace worth $10,000. The higher value makes the offense grand larceny. What is the likely result?
Alex may be liable for grand larceny because the value is a grading element subject to strict liability under the rule discussed
A grading element distinguishes different levels of an offense and increases the potential punishment. If the defendant has the required mens rea for the underlying offense, a mistake about a grading element generally does not prevent liability for the higher-graded offense. For example, if the defendant intends to steal a $50 necklace but steals a $10,000 necklace, the defendant may be guilty of grand larceny even if they did not know the necklace's true value.
Under MPC, what are the three categories of offense elements?
Conduct, attendant circumstances, and results
The MPC divides the act elements of an offense into conduct, attendant circumstances, and results.
Police drag a drunk man from his home into to street. Can he be convicted of public drunkenness?
No, because the police caused his presence in public
In Martin v. State, police officers took the defendant from his home onto a public highway while he was intoxicated. His presence in public was not voluntary, so the voluntary act requirement was not satisfied. The key lesson is that the defendant must voluntarily perform the conduct required by the offense.
A. Purpose means causing a result is the actor’s conscious object.
B. Knowledge means the actor is aware a result is practically certain to occur.
C. Recklessness means the actor fails to perceive a substantial risk.
D. Negligence means the actor should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
E. Recklessness requires the actor to consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
Answer: A, B, D, E.
A is correct: Purpose means the result is the actor’s conscious object.
B is correct: Knowledge means the actor is aware the result is practically certain.
C is incorrect: Failure to perceive a risk that the actor should perceive describes negligence, not recklessness. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. Section 2.02(2)(c).
D is correct: Negligence requires that the actor should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
E is correct: Recklessness requires actual awareness and conscious disregard of the risk.
Government failed to prove negligence beyond a reasonable doubt
The conviction in Robertson was reversed because the government failed to meet its burden of persuasion. To prove involuntary manslaughter, prosecutors had to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Robertson's failure to act amounted to culpable negligence. The court found insufficient evidence that he knew or reasonably should have known his son's anorexia and bulimia posed a fatal risk, especially because the son concealed his condition and a doctor had not identified a life-threatening problem while the son was in Robertson's care. Therefore, the government did not prove negligence beyond a reasonable doubt
Why is recognizing a previously undefined crime a problem under the principle of legality?
It gives officials too much discretion and denies fair notice
The principle of legality requires crimes to be defined before the conduct occurs. If judges or prosecutors can create crimes after the fact, people lack fair notice of what is prohibited, officials gain excessive discretion, and the separation of powers is threatened. In Rex v. Manley, the court upheld a common-law public mischief conviction, but this approach would raise legality concerns under modern American principles
Under the MPC, which of the following are generally considered material elements of an offense?
A. The defendant’s conduct
B. The result required by the statute
C. The circumstance that makes the conduct criminal
D. The county where the defendant is tried
E. Whether the prosecution is brought in state or federal court
F. Whether the offense occurred within the court’s geographic jurisdiction
Answer: A, B, C
Under the MPC, material elements generally include the required conduct, attendant circumstances, and results. Jurisdiction and venue are generally not material elements because they do not relate to the harm or evil the offense seeks to prevent.