Categories of cases include?
crime, noncriminal wrong (tort), regulation, license, lawful
Define Crime
an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.
Define noncriminal wrong
a legal wrong that justifies suing someone and getting money, usually for some personal injury
Define regulation
government intervention in a market that affects the production of a good
Define license
charges a price for it (ex: a driver's license fee for the privilege to drive)
Define lawful
let individual conscience and/or social disapproval condemn it, but create no legal consequences
social reality of U.S. criminal law
the dual nature of U.S. criminal law divided into two categories: a small number of serious, core offenses and a large number of lesser crimes, or "everything else
criminal law imagination
the contributions of law, history, philosophy, the social sciences, and sometimes biology to explain the moral desires we wish to impose on the world
felonies against persons
the core offenses of murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, and robbery
felonies against property
the core offenses of felonious theft, robbery, arson, and burglary
hard punishment
a sentence of a year or more in prison
punishment imagination
crimes that fit within the criminal law imagination and that the law should punish by locking people up
police power
all federal, state, and local governments' executive, legislative, and judiciary's power, including uniformed police officers, to carry out and enforce the criminal law
torts
private wrongs for which you can sue the party who wronged you and recover money
compensatory damages
damages recovered by tort plaintiffs for their actual injuries
punitive damages
damages recovered by tort plaintiffs to punish the defendant for their "evil behavior
mala in se crimes
offenses that require some level of criminal intent
mala prohibita offenses
offenses that are crimes only because a specific statute or ordinance prohibits them
felonies
crimes punishable by death or confinement in the state's prison for one year to life without parole
misdemeanors
offenses punishable by fine and/or confinement in the local jail for up to one year
state criminal codes
criminal law created by elected representatives in state legislatures
municipal codes
criminal law created by city and town councils elected by city residents
U.S. Criminal Code
criminal law created by the U.S. Congress
administrative agencies
appointed participants in creating criminal law that assist the U.S. Congress
criminal court opinions
create criminal law by interpreting state and municipal criminal codes
criminal law enforcement agencies
create criminal law through informal discretionary law making to decide how the criminal law process works on a day-to-day basis
codified
written definitions of crimes and punishment enacted by legislatures and published
Model Penal Code (MPC)
proposed criminal code drafted by the American Law Institute and used to reform criminal codes
Criminal Liability
conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests
elements of rape
Actus Reus (voluntary act) [1. sexual penetration by 2. force or threat of force] + Mens Rea [intent to sexually penetrate] + Circumstance [victim nonconsent] = Criminal Conduct [Rape]
Elements of first degree murder
Actus Reus (Voluntary Act) [killing another person] + Mens Rea [intent to kill] + Circumstance [premeditated, deliberate, or atrocious] + Causation [factual and legal cause of death] = Criminal Harm [Death]
administrative crimes
violations of federal and state agency rules that make up a controversial but rapidly growing source of criminal law
federal system
52 criminal codes, one for each of the 50 states, one for DC and one for the US criminal code
punishment
intentionally inflicting pain or other unpleasant consequences on another person
criminal punishment
penalties that meet four criteria: (1) inflict pain or other unpleasant consequences; (2) prescribe a punishment in the same law that defines the crime; (3) administered intentionally; (4) administered by the state
theories of criminal punishment
ways of thinking about the purposes of criminal punishment
Retributionists
inflicting on offenders physical and psychological pain ("hard treatment") so that they can pay for their crimes
preventionists
punishment is only a means to a greater good, usually the prevention or at least the reduction of future crime
culpability
only someone who intends to harm her victim deserves punishment; accidents don't qualify
justice
depends on culpability; only those who deserve punishment ought to receive it
deterrence
the use of punishment as a threat to deter people from offending
specific deterrence
aims to reduce crime by inflicting the actual punishment to convince offenders not to commit crimes in the future
general deterrence
aims to reduce crime by the threat of punishment to convince criminal wannabes in the general population to not commit a crime in the future
Incapacitation
prevents convicted criminals from committing future crimes by locking them up, or more rarely, by altering them surgically or executing them
Rehabilitation
aims to prevent future crimes by changing individual offenders so they'll want to play by the rules and won't commit any more crimes in the future
hedonism
the natural law that human beings seek pleasure and avoid pain
rationalism
the natural law that individuals can act to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, permitting human beings to apply natural laws mechanistically (according to rules) instead of having to rely on the discretionary judgement of individual decision makers
Classical Deterrence Theory
rational human beings won't commit crimes if they know that the pain of punishment outweighs the pleasure gained from committing crimes
principle of utility
permits only the minimum amount of pain necessary to prevent the crime
medical model" of criminal law
crime is a "disease" and criminals are "sick" in need of "treatment" and "cure
not guilty" verdict
doesn't mean "innocent"; it means that the government didn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt
guilty" verdict
legally, not necessarily factually, guilty; it means the government proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt
trial courts
where the cases for the state and defense are presented; their witnesses and the physical evidence are introduced and the fact finders (juries in jury trials or judges in nonjury bench trials) decide what the "true" story is and whether the evidence all a
appellate courts
in most states and the federal government, the two levels of appeals courts: an intermediate court of appeals and a supreme court
judgement
the court's judgement (sometimes called the court's decision) is how the court disposes of the case
opinion
the point of the story"; the court backs up its judgement by explaining how and why it applied the law (general principles and the elements of crimes) to the facts of the case
court's holding
the legal rule the court has decided to apply to the facts of the cases
court's reasoning
the reasons the court gives to support its holding
majority opinion
the law of the case; the opinion of the majority of the justices on the court who participated in the case
concurring opinion
agrees with the conclusions of either the majority or the dissenting opinion but provides different reasons for reaching the conclusion
plurality opinion
an opinion that represents the reasoning of the greatest number (but less than a majority) of justices
case citation
the numbers, letters, and punctuation that tell you where to locate the full case report; they follow the title of a case in the excerpts or in the bibliography at the end of the book
constitutional democracy
the majority can't make a crime out of conduct protected by the fundamental rights in the U.S. Constitution
rule of law
the idea that government power should be defined and limited by laws
principle of legality
no one can be convicted of, or punished for, a crime unless the law defined the crime and prescribed the punishment before the person engaged in the behavior that was defined as a crime
ex post facto laws
a retroactive law that does one of three things: (1) criminalizes an act that wasn't a crime when it was committed, (2) increases the punishment for a crime after the crime was committed, or (3) takes away a defense that was available to a defendant when
void for vagueness
the principle that statutes violate due process if they don't define a crime and its punishment clearly enough for ordinary people to know what it lawful
fair notice
in vague laws, isn't whether the defendant knows there's a law against the act but whether an ordinary, reasonable person would know that the act is a crime
rule of lenity
the requirement of courts to resolve every ambiguity in a criminal statute in favor of the defendant
narrow lenity rule
the requirement of courts to interpret ambiguous statutes in favor of defendants only in the core felony cases and other crimes requiring fault
presumption of innocence
the prosecution has the burden of proof when it comes to proving the criminal act and intent
burden of proof
to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt "every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
the highest burden of proof in the US Criminal Justice system reserved for criminal cases; the prosecution must prove every element of the crime charged to this standard
affirmative defenses
defendants have to "start matters off by putting in some evidence in support" of their defenses of justification and excuse
burden of production
to make defendants responsible for presenting evidence in their own justification or excuse defense
Burden of Persuasion
defendants have to prove their justification or excuse defenses by a preponderance of the evidence
preponderance of the evidence
more than 50 percent of the evidence proves justification or excuse
expressive conduct
nonverbal actions that communicate ideas and feelings
five categories of expression not protected by the 1st ammendment
obscenity, profanity, libel and slander, fighting words, and clear and present danger
Clear and present danger doctrine
allows the government to punish words that "produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest
void-for-overbreadth doctrine
protects speech guaranteed by the First Amendment by invalidating laws written so broadly that the fear of prosecution creates a "chilling effect" that discourages people from exercising that freedom
second amendment
the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home
constitutional right to privacy
a right that bans "all governmental invasions of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life
fundamental right to privacy
a right that requires the government to prove that a compelling interest justifies invading it
cruel and unusual punishments
barbaric" punishments and punishments that are disproportionate to the crime committed
barbaric punishments
punishments considered no longer acceptable to civilized society
principle of proportionality
the punishment has to fit the crime
evolving standards" test
standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society
three-strikes laws
intended to make sure that offenders who are convicted of a third felony get locked up for a very long time (sometimes for life)
Apprendi rule
other than the fact of prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt
elements of a crime
to convict, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) a criminal act (in all crimes), (2) criminal intent (in some crimes), (3) concurrence (in all crimes), (4) attendant circumstances (in some crimes), and (5) that criminal conduct caused
Actus Reus
the requirement that all crimes have to include a voluntary criminal act, which is the physical element of a crime and the first principle of criminal liability
conduct crimes
requiring a criminal act triggered by criminal intent
criminal acts
voluntary bodily movements
criminal conduct
a criminal act triggered by criminal intent (mens rea)
concurrence
the principle of criminal liability that requires that a criminal intent has to trigger the criminal act
attendant circumstances element
a "circumstance" connected to an act, an intent, and/or a bad result
bad result crimes (result crimes)
crimes that include all five elements: (1) a voluntary act, (2) the mental element, (3) circumstantial elements, (4) causation, and (5) a criminal harm
Criminal Homicide
conduct that causes another person's death
corpus delicti
Latin for "body of the crime"; it refers to the body of victims in homicides and to the elements of the crime in other crimes
manifest criminality
the requirement that mental attitudes have to turn into actions for a "crime" to be committed
one-voluntary-act-is-enough rule
conduct that includes a voluntary act satisfies the voluntary act requirement
automatism
unconscious bodily movements
fault-based defenses
defenses based on creating a reasonable doubt about the prosecution's proof of a voluntary act
status
character or condition of a person or thing
criminal omission
the failure to act when there's a legal duty to act
failure to report
not providing information when you're legally required to
failure to intervene
not actively preventing or interrupting injuries and death to persons or damage and destruction of property
legal duty
an obligation created by a statute, contract, or special relationship, and enforceable by law
moral duties
an obligation or norm created and enforced by society, conscience, and religion that's not enforceable by law
good Samaritan" doctrine
imposes a legal duty to help or call for help for imperiled strangers
american bystander rule
there's no legal duty to rescue or summon help for someone who's in danger, even if the bystander risks nothing by helping
legal fiction
pretending something is a fact when it's not, if there's a "good" reason for the pretense
actual possession
physical control of banned items on my person, for example, marijuana in my pocket
constructive possession
banned items not on my person but in places I control, for example, in my car or apartment
knowing possesssion
items possessors are aware is either on their person or in places they control
mere possession
items you possess but you don't know what they are
culpability or blameworthiness
the idea that it's fair and just to punish only people we can blame
mens rea
Latin for "guilty mind"; the mental state accompanying a wrongful behavior
motive
something that causes a person to act
subjective fault
fault that requires a "bad mind" in the actor
objective fault
requires no purposeful or conscious bad mind in the actor
Strict Liability
liability without either subjective or objective fault
general intent
the intent to commit the criminal act forbidden by statute
specific intent
the general intent to commit the actus reus of a crime plus the intent to cause a criminally harmful result
MPC's four mental states
purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently
purposely
the most blameworthy mental state requiring the actor's "conscious object" to be to commit crimes or cause criminal results
knowingly
the mental state of awareness in conduct crimes and, in result crimes, awareness that it's "practically certain" that the conduct will cause the bad result
recklessly
conscious creation of a "substantial and unjustifiable" risk of criminal harm
negligently
the mental attitude that 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
principle of concurrence
some mental fault has to trigger the criminal act in conduct crimes and the cause in result crimes
causation
holding an actor criminally accountable for the results of her conduct
factual cause
also called "but for" cause or "cause in fact"; if it weren't for an actor's conduct, the result wouldn't have occurred
legal ("proximate") cause
a subjective question that asks, "Is it fair to blame the defendant for the harm triggered by a chain of events her action(s) set in motion?
intervening cause
an event that comes between the initial act in a sequence and the end result
ignorance maxim
the presumption that defendants knew the law they were breaking
mistake of fact
a defense to criminal liability whenever the mistake prevents the formation of any fault-based mental attitude - namely, purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently
failure-of-proof defenses
mistake defenses in which defendants usually present enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved the mens rea required for criminal liability