Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Criminal Law - Coggle Diagram

- - - - reasons:
        
        have to put people on notice for what is prohibited and not prohibited
        
        prevents ex post facto laws
      - application varies by states
        
        must be codified in most states (including Arkansas)
        
        other states allow un-codified elements or limited punishments if un-codified
      - examples:
        
        Nuremberg Trials: under legality principle the Nazi's would not have been prosecuted
        
        Marsh Trial: funeral service that was dumping bodies; no law for tossing bodies but instead went to prison for fraud charges with a large sentence
      - rule of lenity: if a law is ambiguous, the ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the defendant since it was not obvious that this behavior was prohibited
        
        general principle that can be abandoned by courts
        
        alternative is rule of fair input which reads the statute in the middle because it is "reasonable"
        
        not the most obvious way to interpret a statute and is not used in other ares of law
        
        uses the "reasonable" standard of interpretation
  - - - has a culpability requirement
        
        can use justifications and excuses
        
        Justification: law no longer applies because the violation is better than what would have happened without breaking the law
        
        Excuses: the law was broken and the behavior was wrong, but there is no punishment
        
        Examples: insanity or youthfulness
      - consent is not a factor in criminal - the state is punishing the behavior so it is not up to the victim to give consent to the crime
      - Sources of Criminal Law
        
        statutes rule
        
        courts interpret the code but do not have authority to create new crimes or change definitions
        
        interpretation rules:
        
        different language implies different meaning
        
        catch all phrase is limited by the common factor of the items in the list
        
        expression of one thing excludes other things
        
        more specific statutes prevail over the general
        
        new law changes the old
        
        can interpret based on intention of the law or the plain meaning of the words
        
        focus on model penal code
      - Two types of criminilization:
        
        malum in se = bad in itself
        
        ex: things in the bible
        
        malum prohibitum = bad because it is prohibited
        
        ex: traffic lights
  - - - federal: jurisdiction over federal land crimes on state land that is granted power by the Consitution
        
        state uses "interstate commerce clause" widely for criminal prosecution grounds
      - state: police powers - meaning broad authority to regulate people's behaviors
        
        can regulate any behavior not prohibited by the Constitution
        
        federal and state can have concurrent jurisdiction and both convict for the same crime - upheld by the Supreme Court
    - - on the territory
        
        effect principle
      - outside the territory but by a citizen
        
        nationality principle
      - by a non-citizen outside of the territory but on a citizen
        
        effect principle
      - conduct that threatens the interest of the territory
        
        protective principle
  - - - Five levels:
        
        Purposely: positive desire or hope to cause the result
        
        Ex: goes into a bank robbery and has the goal to also kill the security officer
        
        Knowing: does not want the result but it is practically certain
        
        requires more than a risk - the defendant must be aware that his actions will create a certain result or are nearly guaranteed to do so
        
        Includes extreme indifference: a person's reckless disregard for the value of human life; such egregious carelessness that it bumps up from reckless
        
        Ex: goes into a bank robbery and thinking "I will shoot anyone in my way"
        
        Recklessly: careless; disregards a substantial risk but was aware of the risk
        
        Ex: goes to a bank robbery and shoots up in the air knowing there is a great chance of injury
        
        Negligently: not aware of the risk
        
        Not common - only in extreme circumstances - because acting slightly unreasonably is not "morally wrong enough for punishment"
        
        Ex: doctor who mislabeled medicines
        
        Strict liability: no culpability requirement
        
        Rare in criminal law - most requirements require culpability level
        
        Ex: statutory rape for the element of age
        
        concurrence requirement: must exist at the time of the conduct of the offense
      - determined by circumstantial evidence in most cases
  - - - have to engage in a voluntary act to be criminally liable
        
        do not generally punish for omissions but possible in some situations
        
        Omission Liability:
        
        liability for failure to act is used "sparingly"
        
        elements:
        
        Person has a duty to act
        
        1 more item...
        
        Person must have been able to preform
        
        must still show circumstances, result (and causation) to be liable
        
        just thinking about an act does not impose liability
    - - ex: the murder was of a human
    - - does not exist for most crimes
      - If the crime has an outcome requirement, there must be a causal relationship between the act and the outcome
        
        Causation Requirements
        
        Factual/ "but for" causation: actors must have been necessary for the result to occur when it did
        
        Test: If you take the defendant's actions out, would there still be the same outcome for the victim?
        
        Tricky situations when there are multiple causes by multiple actors OR two independent concurrent causes -- jurisdictions have special rules to handle these cases
        
        Proximate/ legal cause: close enough in the causal chain to hold the actor responsible for the harm
        
        Test: Should the defendant be blamed for this outcome? Is that fair?
        
        Model Penal Code: "not too remote or accidental to have a just bearing on the actor's liability"
        
        Factors:
        
        time
        
        intervening actions right before the result
        
        Weird Situations for Causation:
        
        Question of proximate cause when a person causes another person to cause a result
        
        humans are agents capable of making independent volitional conduct
        
        1 more item...
        
        Question of but for cause when two people work together to cause the result
        
        policy creates a solution and says that causation is good enough for all persons involved
        
        1 more item...
        
        Classic example is homicide
    - - charge becomes the lowest mens rea across the elements
- - - - Big question: But what is justice really based on? what is moral?
      - empirical results show that a combination of retributive and utilitarian is the best crime control strategy
      - Example: Butterfingers - repeat offender pickpocket who only served small charges each time he was caught
      - Model Penal Code follows the retribution theory
    - - Strategies:
        
        Deterrence
        
        two types:
        
        General deterrence: aims to deter other potential offenders
        
        significant motive in our current justice system
        
        Special deterrence: aims to deter the offender at hand
        
        Incapacitation: keep people from doing the wrongdoing again
        
        Rehabilitation
        
        Reparation: goal is to make the victim whole
      - what produces the most good for the most people
      - Policy Example: Three Strike Statute
        
        states have different levels but most states have a three strike statute
        
        evidence that most states have not adopted the pure form of retributive theory of punishment -- which means states have not adopted the pure penal code
        
        Example: Rummel Case - three strike offender who got life in prison for a fake check for under $100
- - - - Death Related Crimes
        
        Felony-Murder Rule: during a felony, if someone gets killed, everyone involved in the felony is guilty of murder
        
        Components:
        
        murder liability for any death caused, even if accidental, in the course, attempt, or flight from a felony
        
        holds accomplices in the felony to be accomplices of the murder
        
        goes against the culpability requirement theory - strict liability
        
        Model Penal Code rejects the FMR
        
        However, most state have a felony-murder law but states have different limitations
        
        Only 5 states have abolished it
        
        states vary on the level of culpability and violence requires
        
        Merger Rule: cannot use felony murder to up an assault charge to murder
        
        Examples:
        
        Homer Simpson Murder: robbery gone wrong and he tried to help save the victims life - prosecuted under Florida's FMR and sentences to death
        
        Moors Child Murders: person who was involved came forward and was not charged with felony-murder because did not exist in UK
        
        must still prove causation (Ex: death from cancer during a bank robbery)
        
        Theories for felony-murder laws:
        
        Causal theory: defendant should be held responsible for the death as an outgrowth of the felony he tried to commit
        
        Equivalency theory: while no culpability, the culpability of the felony is equivalent to the culpability of a typical murder
        
        Evidentiary theory: defendant probably had the culpability for murder but it may be difficult to prove
        
        Deterrence theory: provides a deterrent for felonies
        
        Homicide
        
        Homicide Provocation: a provoked killing in "heat of passion" or "emotional disturbance" can mitigate murder to a lesser form of homicide, such as manslaughter
        
        Requirements:
        
        Model Penal Code: Murder is reduced to manslaughter if it was committed "under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse"
        
        Reasonableness is an individualized standard -- "determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actors situation under the circumstances believe by them"
        
        allows for a cooling down period - does not have to be instantanious
        
        Common law: required no passing of time between the provocation and the killing - must have been an immediate response
        
        person doing the provocation must have been killed
        
        words were not enough
        
        Most states have murder mitigation
        
        jurisdictions look at different variables or requirements:
        
        time between provocation and killing
        
        was the person killed doing the provocation?
        
        was the provocation witnessed or just communicated through words?
        
        Examples:
        
        Classic example: a man walks in on his wife cheating and kills both of them - purposeful but provoked
        
        Text examples:
        
        Webster: debt collection created a "spasm of anger" because of the threat of public humiliation
        
        White killing Milk: killed political opponents because of "public humiliation"
        
        different than diminished capacity
        
        Diminished Capacity: an actors mental illness negates a culpable state of mind that is required for the offense that is charged
        
        Modern Penal Code: mental disease is admissible whenever it is relevant to prove that the defendant did or did not have state of mind which is an element of the offense
        
        Levels of Homicide: when a person culpably "causes the death of another human being"
        
        Murder: when a person intentionally kills another human being - conscious objective or practically certain of death
        
        can have levels - but the Model Penal Code only has one level
        
        Murder 1: purposeful
        
        Murder 2: knowledgeable or extreme indifference
        
        Manslaughter: reckless killing - actor consciously disregards substantial and unjustifiable risk to causing death
        
        Negligent homicide: actor is not conciously aware of a substantial risk that he would cause another person's death but should have been aware of the risk
        
        requires culpability but also proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct actually caused the death
        
        Causing Suicide
        
        Causing another person to commit suicide: question of causation
        
        Examples in text:
        
        KKK Suicide: Stephenson abducted and raped a minor, who then kills herself in his care -- convicted for second degree murder
        
        Lori Drew: Cyber bullying leads to a high school girl committing suicide. Drew did not have proximate cause and was not convicted.
        
        Is the intervening act of suicide sufficient to break the causal chain placing liability on the defendant?
      - Physical Harms Against a Person
        
        Sexual Assault
        
        sexual act with lack of consent
        
        Model Penal Code elements
        
        actor is reckless in regards to the first two elements
        
        the other person does not consent to the act
        
        actor causes another person to submit or preform a sexual act
        
        Battery/ Assault
        
        At Common Law:
        
        Assault was an attempted battery
        
        Battery was applied where one intentionally or negligently injured
        
        MPC:
        
        Consolidated injury offenses into a single offense, assault and recognizes different degrees
        
        Assault with a deadly weapon: when an actor purposefully or knowingly injures with any weapon known to be capable of producing death or serious injury
        
        Simple Assault: when an actor recklessly or negligently causes bodily injury or puts fear of imminent serious bodily injury
        
        Reckless endangerment: when an actor recklessly engages in conduct that places or may place another person in danger of death or serious injury
        
        most jurisdictions adopt more specific endangerment offenses as well - such as neglect offenses that deal with conduct that endangers vulnerable people
        
        Aggravated assault: when an actor purposefully, knowingly, or recklessly causes serious bodily injury (with substantial risk of death or permanent damage)
        
        most domestic violence statues are assault statutes
        
        Domestic Violence
        
        Historical context
        
        Historically, was seen as a private matter.
        
        Public intolerance led to passing anti-domestic violence laws
        
        States differ on police practices for domestic violence calls
        
        Mandatory arrest policy
        
        1 more item...
        
        Preferred arrest policy
        
        1 more item...
        
        Discretionary arrest policy
        
        1 more item...
        
        Difficulty is prosecuting domestic violence cases
        
        Grand Jury determines if there is probable cause
        
        Prosecutors can bring forward hearsay evidence
        
        2 more items...
        
        Causing Risk of Harm
        
        Endangerment
        
        The crime is the creation of the harm
        
        MPC: putting another person at substantial or unjustifiable risk of death or serious injury as a result of a behavior that is a gross deviation from standard conduct
        
        must be an unreasonable risk - a reasonable risk will not result in liability
        
        1 more item...
        
        Jurisdictions differ on if they have one general endangerment offense or specific endangerment offenses
        
        Classic example: drunk driving
        
        has a result element -- the harm
        
        Causing a Catastrophe
        
        MPC: a person who causes a catastrophe by any means of causing potentially widespread injury or damage
        
        second degree: done purposefully or knowingly
        
        third degree: done recklessly
        
        no liability for negligent catastrophe - unless there is death
        
        Jurisdictions differ on if they have one general catastrophe offense or specific catastrophe offenses
        
        Specific example: reckless burning
        
        Risk of Catastrophe
        
        MPC: a person is guilty of a misdemeanor if he recklessly creates a risk of catastrophe - even if no damage occurs
      - Non-Physical Offenses Against a Person
        
        Threats are only a crime in narrow circumstances
        
        Terroristic threats: threat to commit a crime of violence with the purpose or reckless disregard of the risk of causing "terror to another"
        
        Harassment: behavior designed to bother or alarm another person
        
        stalking is not in the MPC but can be categorized as harassment
        
        Stalking: following or loitering near another to annoy, harass, or with the intent to commit further crimes
        
        States have different requirements regarding duress caussed:
        
        person being stalked must reasonably feel harassed, alarmed, or distressed
        
        enough that there was intended distress
        
        Preventative statute - tries to prevent a larger crime from happening
        
        Requires a identifiable victim
        
        MPC - with the purpose to harass, someone takes the following action:
        
        insults, taunts, or provokes
        
        repeated communication at inconvenient times or with course language
        
        offensive touching
        
        any other course of alarming conduct
      - comes in three forms: causing injury, risking injury, or threatening injury
    - - Attempts demonstrate the blameworthiness and dangerous propensity of the actor by showing the willingness to commit an offense
        
        Two considerations for Liability for Attempt
        
        Objective Requirement for Attempt: How much of a crime does someone have to do in order to call it an attempt?
        
        three tests
        
        Proximity Test: actor must be close enough to be a dangerous proximity of committing the crime
        
        used at common law
        
        Example: Wooldridge - wanted to rape a child but did not get within the proximity to be charged
        
        Substantial Step: focuses on how far from the beginning of the chair the actor has gone - has shown a willingness to act
        
        Model Penal Code follows - says conduct must be "strongly corroborative of criminal purpose"
        
        1 more item...
        
        Example: Lammers - planned a mass shooting, found guilty based on steps he had taken such as buying a gun
        
        Unequivocally/ Res Ipsa Loquitur Test: conduct must show clear evidence of the actor's criminal intent
        
        not used often
        
        Culpability Requirement for Attempt: What mens rea is required to punish someone for an attempt?
        
        Generally attempt requires a higher mens rea because it is an inchoate (incomplete) crime
        
        MPC defines three different types of offenses with different mens rea requirements
        
        A smaller set of states only require purposeful for the act
        
        Types of Attempt in the Model Penal Code §5.01
        
        3 more items...
        
        Must be a real intention, not just a "fantasy" (Example: Cannibal Cop)
    - - Accomplice Liability
        
        Accomplice liability: if someone helps another person commit an offense, they may be liable for the defense as well
        
        Big challenge with accomplice liability is how to punish those with significant moral culpability vs those without it
        
        Two Types:
        
        Assisting the crime
        
        Moral ambiguity in this situation regarding the mens rea of the act
        
        Telling someone else to commit the crime
        
        No moral ambiguity in this case - the person committed the crime
        
        Complicity:
        
        Model Penal Code:
        
        primary offender must be liable
        
        1 more item...
        
        Mens rea for the act (assisting the primary offender) is purposeful
        
        accomplice must purposefully or knowingly aid or encourage the primary offender
        
        2 more items...
        
        Common law:
        
        liability was derived from the liability of the principal
        
        1 more item...
        
        accomplice must have assisted in the offense
        
        accomplice liability disregards the proximate cause issue
        
        Defenses to Complicity
        
        Perpetrator Defense: an accomplice could only be convicted if the principle was convicted
        
        only at common law
        
        Exempted Person Defense: many offenses only apply to a defined class of persons but these are generally disregarded when the exempt actor is charges as an accomplice
        
        Ex: in statutory rape, if both are minors than neither can be charged, but if a minor helps a adult man commit statutory rape he can still be an accomplice
        
        Termination Defense: Available when the accomplice terminates his complicity prior to the commission of the offense
        
        MPC requires that the actor prevents the crime OR gives a timely warning to law enforcement
        
        fairly significant burden to get out of accomplice liability
        
        Examples in the text:
        
        August Spies: wrote an add to start riots, gave a speech, a bomb went off after that killed 7 officers
        
        guilty of complicity of murder
        
        Cardinal Bernard Law: priest who knew someone in the church was a predator
        
        State law said an accomplice had to have the same intent as the person vomiting the crime so Law was not brought up on criminal charges
        
        Difference between conspiracy and accomplice liability: accomplice liability does not require an agreement (but does often have one), while conspiracy requires an agreement
      - Conspiracy
        
        With conspiracy, an agreement to commit a crime is the crime itself
        
        Purpose:
        
        Goal is to punish for the danger of a group criminal activity
        
        Goal was to be able to convict offenders more easily - combination of attempt and accomplice liability
        
        What one member says can be used as evidence against all other members, so if one confesses, it counts as a confession for all conspirators
        
        Dual conviction for crime and conspiracy:
        
        Common law: can charge and punish for both
        
        MPC: does not allow for punishment for both - can charge for both but cannot convict for both
        
        Follows the Lesser Included Crime Rule: cannot be charged for a smaller crime and a larger crime when the larger crime encompasses it
        
        elements:
        
        made an agreement
        
        Common law required a bilateral agreement
        
        means that if there was an agreement with an undercover cop with no real intent to follow through with the agreement, the other conspirator had a defense
        
        Modern criminal codes require only a unilateral agreement
        
        MPC follows this
        
        1 more item...
        
        someone did act in efforts of the agreement (even if it was not the full crime)
        
        means conspiracy can be an inchoate crime - the full agreement does not have to be carried out
        
        if only the planning has taken place, it is usually only half the punishment
        
        MPC does not require an act in a conspiracy to commit a first or second degree felony
        
        Mens rea requirement is met
        
        Common law: required purpose for all elements of the offense
        
        MPC: requires purpose for the act and the result
        
        requires a high mens rea to counteract the minimum involvement
        
        Pinkerton Rule: some jurisdictions treat conspirators automatically as accomplices
        
        conspirators would be held liable to all offenses committed by co-conspirators (before withdrawl) even if there was not any action to assist
        
        MPC rejects this rule
        
        often conspirators will naturally be accomplices based on their actions
        
        Duration:
        
        starts when there is an agreement to commit the offense
        
        ends when:
        1) object of conspiracy is completed
        2) conspiracy is abandoned
        3) actor withdraws from the conspiracy
        
        To withdraw, the actor must:
        
        have an affirmative act of disassociation
        
        communicate it to all co-conspirators
        
        must abandon in time for all conspirators to also abandon
    - - Statutory Rape: sexual intercourse with a person who has not yet reached the age of consent, even if it is consensual
        
        If you are below a certain age, you cannot consent
        
        Age cutoff is designed to protect youths that cannot fully appreciate the implications of their actions
        
        States differ on the cutoff age (range of 16-18)
        
        Some states include a close in age exception
        
        Per se issue (violations that are illegal without having to prove intent or harm)
        
        Mens Rea: Strict liability!
      - Adultery: common law offense that criminalizes sexual relationships between a married person and someone other than their spouse
        
        Historically relevant, but no longer modernly relevant
        
        Majority of jurisdictions have repealed and decriminalized completely
        
        Some states still have it, but do not often convict
      - Blackmail and Extortion
        
        Extortion: theft (getting something of value) by threat
        
        MPC merges extortion and blackmail into a single offense called criminal coercion
        
        Guilty of criminal coercion if a person threatens to:
        
        cause bodily harm
        
        accuse someone of a criminal offense
        
        expose a secret to impair credit or business reputation
        
        Exemption: if someone commits the offense is a victim attempting to get restitution outside of the court system
        
        Diversity of implementation in the states:
        
        Demand Requirement: some states require a demand for property, other require a demand of an act
        
        Result Requirement: some states require that the offender actual obtain the property or act, other states only require the intent to follow through if the demand is not met
        
        blackmail is a subset of extortion
        
        Blackmail: theft (getting something of value) by threat of revealing something embarrassing
        
        prohibits conditional threats to engage in lawful acts
- - - - Consent as a Defense
        
        Consent of the victim has little relevance for criminal charges
        
        Implementation of the Defense:
        
        Model Penal Code provides consent as a defense when the harm or threatened harm is not serious of if there is an assumption of the risk
        
        only when consent "precludes the infliction of the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense"
        
        Jurisdictions have different requirements for consent as a defense:
        
        defense even against serious harm
        
        defense if harm is not serious
        
        no defense to bodily harm
        
        no defense but permits assisting suicide by a physician
        
        Examples in the textbook:
        
        Marquis de Sade
        
        Marvin Samuels - BDSM film maker was charged with assault even though films were with consent
    - - Provides a defense because the person has done the right thing
        
        elements:
        
        enabling or triggering condition authorizes an otherwise illegal action
        
        Examples:
        
        Lesser Evils/ Necessities Defense
        
        Allows illegal conduct if it prevents a greater harm to the actor or another -- but only if there is no other specific defense available
        
        4 more items...
        
        Self-Defense
        
        Allows use of force when necessary to protect persons or property from unjustified aggression
        
        4 more items...
        
        Public Authority Justification
        
        Public authorities who hav a position or training have special authorities to protect interests at stake (such as public interest)
        
        2 more items...
        
        action is necessary to protect an interest at stake
        
        only caused proportional or reasonable harm in relation to the harm threatened
        
        outcome is good, so we wont punish
    - - Person did something wrong, but offender is not criminally liable because they are not blameworthy
        
        outcome is bad, but we wont punish the actor because of a characteristic that undercuts the blameworthiness
        
        Examples:
        
        Insanity
        
        offender's conduct must be the result of a serious mental illness that undermines the blameworthiness
        
        Jury decides if there is a serious mental illness present based on the jurisdictions test
        
        Tests for insanity - from strict to forgiving:
        
        4 more items...
        
        mental illness could be cognitive (lacks ability to understand surroundings) or control (lacks ability to control conduct) depending on jurisdiction
        
        If defense is granted, the person is "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI)
        
        leads to evaluations, supervision, and treatments
        
        Duress
        
        actor must have committed the act while under coercion from a treat of force that a person of reasonable firmness would have been unable to resist"
        
        MPC allows for the reasonable person standard to consider the actor's individual circumstance and characteristics
        
        usually cannot negate a murder charge
        
        Involuntary Intoxication
        
        can be a defense if the intoxication causes the person to rise to the jurisdictions insanity level
        
        Immaturity
        
        Defense based only on age - if the defendant qualifies for the defense, the jurisdiction is transfered to the juvenile court system
        
        Modern Implementation:
        
        Age cutoffs:
        
        3 more items...
        
        most states have a special rule for murder charges
        
        MPC - a person shall not be convicted of an offense if:
        
        less than 16
        
        16 or 17 unless the juvenile court has waived jurisdiction
        
        is not based on the individual's maturity level - is just presumed based on the actor's age
        
        If another defense is available (like insanity) that is usually a better choice because it is more substantial of a defense
        
        every jurisdiction has an immaturity defense
    - - defendant has caused harm and is fully blameworthy but the societal benefit arises from an interest that weighs against punishing the actor
        
        Examples:
        
        Statute of Limitations
        
        Defense that bards prosecution for an offense after a specific period of time has passed since the commission of the offense
        
        Reasons:
        
        offender could have changed with time
        
        retributive time period has passed
        
        evidence would deteriorate with time
        
        all jurisdictions have statute of limitation defenses, but each jurisdiction sets different times:
        
        times usually increase with the seriousness of the offense
        
        1 more item...
        
        Exceptions: some crimes are always exempt from the statute of limitations
        
        murder is often exempt
        
        time starts when the offense is committed and ends when prosecution commences
        
        time can be stopped (tolled) if the defendant is out of the state continuously or if the defendant is subject to prosecution of a different crime in the same jurisdiction
        
        Entrapment
        
        General principle: "government may set decoys to entrap criminals, but must not provoke or create a crime and then punish the criminal for its creation"
        
        tries to balance what is appropriate when it is believed someone will commit a crime and we want to stop it in a way to where the police do not just have to wait for the person to act
        
        two forms:
        
        2 more items...
        
        can cops create an attractive nuisance?
        
        unique to the United States
        
        promotes or protects some other societal interest