Criminal Law and Procedure - Chapters 1, 3, + 4

concurrent sentence

punishments run at the same time

consecutive time

punishments run back-to-back

tort

private wrong, harms individuals mainly, non governmental body brings action, compensatory or punitive damages rewarded

crime

harms the community and individual, government brings action, asking court for punishment (usually fines)

mala in se

inherently evil crimes, immoral

mala prohibitum

a wrong prohibited by the government, bad because we generally agreed they are

MPC

general code of laws for state to use

principles that limit the damages of imprisonment

proportionality, parsimony, social justice, citizenship

citizenship

imprisonment is sufficient enough to allow the person to become a part of society

Retribution Theory

punishes individuals for committing a crime; only someone who intends to harm the victim deserves punishment

Prevention Theory

inflicts pain to prevent future crime

Prevention theory

deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation

General deterrence

the threat of punishment should be enough to prevent people from committing crime

Special deterrence

punishing already convicted offenders to prevent them from committing crimes in the future

Incapacitation

prevents convicted criminals from comitting future crimes by lcoking them up, or by surgically altering or executing them

Rehabilitation

aims to prevent future crimes by changing individual offenders so they’ll want to follow the rules

determinism

forces beyond offenders’ control causes them to commit crimes

Not guilty verdict

doesn’t mean innocent, the government didn’t prove the case beyond reasonable doubt

Guilty verdict

doesn’t mean not innocent, government proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt

reasonable doubt

evidence must leave the judge and jury completely convinced of the defendant’s guilt; beyond is a guilty verdict

Actus Reus

voluntary and delibaerate illegal act, depends on status or condition

Omission

failure to do something, like report or intervene, when there is a legal duty to act

automatism

bodily actions by the unconcious

fault-based defense

defense for an involuntary act, creating a reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s proof of a voluntary act

affirmative defenses of excuse

defense for an involuntary act relating to insanity or diminished capacity, takes place after the prosecution has established that the defendant caused the harm to the victim

Status

prior voluntary acts and characteristics we’re born with

Good Samaritan Doctrine

imposes a legal duty to help or call for help

American Bystander Rule

no legal duty to rescue or summon help for someone who is in danger

Possession

two aspects; control and awareness

Control possessions

actual and constructive (in my car or apartment)

Awareness possessions

knowing or mere (you didn’t know it was there)

criminal liability

conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests

mens rea

mental intent; purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently

factual causation

If it weren’t for the actor’s conduct, the result wouldn’t have occurred; objective and empirical question of fact

legal causation

“Is it fair to blame the defendant for the harm triggered by the chain of events their actions set in motion?”

confession

evidence of the mental attitude

subjective fault

requires a “bad mind”, linked with immorality, i.e. you know you’re buying stolen property

objective fault

you should know buying stolen property is wrong (a reasonable person would)

strict liability

minor crimes with fines, prosecution has to prove the voluntary act that caused harm; do not need mens rea

general intent

necessary to commit the crime, has to include actus reus, omission or possession; proof the defendant meant to commit the act

specific intent

applies only to bad result crimes; proof te defendant acted with purposed or desired an outcome

criminal intent - purposely

having the concious intent to committ crimes

criminal intent - knowingly

the state of awareness, practical certaintly that the conduct will cause the bad result

criminal intent - recklessly

knows the risk involved, but not intending or expecting to cause harm

criminal intent - negligently

unconciously creating risks; someone who should know what a reasonable person would know, but doesn’t

principle of concurrence

some mental fault triggers the criminal act; harm can’t be a coincidence

causation

holding an actor criminally accountable for the results of their conduct, only applies to result crimes

ignorance maxim

the presumtion that the defendant knew the law they were breaking

mistake of fact

when the mistakes prevents the formation of the mens rea

failure of proof defenses

defendants present enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved that they formed the mens rea required for the criminal liability