Basics of Criminality Flashcards
Theories of Criminal Liability
Deterrence
Retributivism
Rehabilitation
Incapacitation
Expressivism
Deterrence
A defendant’s punishment is an example to the rest of society not to break the law
Specfic- deter specific criminal because they don’t want to go back to jail
General- deters society to stay away from crimes
Retributivism
Punishment is permitted because wrongdoers should be punished for what they did. Madoff
Rehabilitation
Helping defendants get back on track will help them not commit more crimes
Incapacitation
Keep defendants in prison and away from society
Expressivism
Punishment allows society to express its disapproval to the defendants criminal conduct
Basic Elements of Criminality
Actus Reus (Culpable Act) and;
Mens Rea (Culpable Mind) and;
Causation
Common Law Actus Reus
Wither a voluntary act or an omission to act when there is a legal duty
Common Law Voluntary Act
A willed bodily movement [including insanity]
Not: An act committed while unconscious
Common Law Omission to Act
Can only be punished if there was a legal duty to act
Duty can be established by statute, relationship, contract, voluntary assumption of care, or creation of risk
Common Law Bystander Standard
Mere bystanders cannot be convicted of a crime
MPC Section 2.01 Requirement of Voluntary Act; Omission as Basis of Liability; Possession as an Act
(1) A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable.
(2) The following are not voluntary acts within the meaning of this Section:
(a) a reflex or convulsion;
(b) a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep;
(c) conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion;
(d) a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.
(3) Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless:
(a) the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or
(b) a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law.
(4) Possession is an act, within the meaning of this Section, if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession.
Common Law Mens Rea
The criminal intention to commit the action that is illegal
Several terms for mens rea- maliciously , wantonly, wickedly, etc
MPC Hierarchy of Mens Rea
Purposely
Knowingly
Recklessly
Negligently
Strict Liability
MPC 2.02(2)(a) Purposely
Purposely. A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when:
(i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result; and
(ii) if the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist.
MPC 2.02(2)(b) Knowingly
Knowingly. A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when:
(i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and
(ii) if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.
MPC 2.02(2)(c) Recklessly
Recklessly. 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. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation.
MPC 2.02(2)(d) Nelgigently
Negligently. A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor’s failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.
“But for” Causation
Whether the defendant’s behavior was a “cause in fact” of the prohibited result.
2 tests when there is ambiguity: Substantial Factor or Acceleration Test
Substantial Factor Test for “But for” Causation
Whether the defendant’s actions were a substantial factor in producing the result, regardless of whether the event might have occurred anyway
1. Where there are multiple concurrent causes of a person’s death, a defendant is criminally liable for such death so long as his conduct was a substantial factor in causing the death.
2. This substantial factor rule replaces the but-for test, which provides that the defendant’s conduct is a proximate cause of death if the death would not have occurred but for that conduct.
Acceleration Test for “But for” Causation
Whether the defendant’s actions accelerated the result. Contribution or aggravation without acceleration insufficient to establish causation. Oxendine v State
Proximate Cause Causation
If the result was reasonably foreseeable, the defendant’s actions are a proximate cause
Must not be coincidental or abnormal
Proximate cause is satisfied if the intervening cause was (1) intended or reasonably foreseeable and (2) not too remote or accidental as to fairly hold the defendant responsible.
Intervening Causes Test
- When dealing with intervening causation, start with determination of whether the intervening cause was a mere coincidence or in response to the accused prior conduct
- It is a coincidence when the defendant act merely places the victim at certain place at a certain time
- It is responsive when it involves a reaction to the condition created by the defendant
- However to break the chain of causation it must be both abnormal and unforeseeable
- Preexisting condition does not break the chain of causation
- An accused need not foresee the precise consequences of his conduct to be actionable it only necessary that the result is within the natural and logical scope of the risk created by conduct
MPC SECTION 2.03. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF CULPABILITY
(1) Conduct is the cause of a result when:
(a) it is an antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred; and
(b) the relationship between the conduct and result satisfies any additional causal requirements imposed by the Code or by the law defining the offense.
