Law & Society Oral Midterm – Core Vocabulary

Vocabulary flashcards covering key terms, doctrines, and case takeaways from Chapters 1–3 of the Law & Society oral midterm study guide.

Essential elements of a criminal violation

A voluntary act (actus reus), a culpable mental state (mens rea), concurrence of the two, causation, and a resulting harm prohibited by law.

Culpable states of mind

The mental attitudes—intent, knowledge, recklessness, negligence— that establish criminal liability.

Mens rea

Latin for “guilty mind”; the mental element required for a crime, ranging from purposeful intent to negligence.

Intent (purpose)

Acting with a conscious objective to bring about a particular result.

Knowledge

Awareness that one’s conduct is practically certain to cause a prohibited result.

Recklessness

Consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk.

Criminal negligence

Failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that constitutes a gross deviation from reasonable care.

Jones v. United States

Case establishing liability for failure to act when a legal duty of care exists (e.g., parent-child, contract, rescue begun).

Legal duty of care

An obligation imposed by law to act (or refrain from acting) in certain situations; breach can create criminal liability.

Failure-to-act liability

Criminal responsibility arising from omission when a legal duty exists.

R v. Cunningham

English case clarifying that “maliciously” requires subjective foresight of harm; showed transfer of mens rea possibility.

"Malicious" (Cunningham)

Acting either intentionally or recklessly as to causing the relevant harm.

Transfer of mens rea

Doctrine allowing intent aimed at one victim/result to transfer to the harm actually caused.

R v. Faulkner

Case holding that mens rea must match the harm charged; questioned automatic transfer when result not foreseeable.

Foreseeability (criminal)

Whether a reasonable person could predict the result; key to establishing recklessness or transferred intent.

People v. Stamp

California case applying felony-murder rule when a victim dies of fright/heart attack during an armed robbery.

Felony-murder doctrine

Rule making killers strictly liable for deaths occurring during commission of specified felonies, regardless of intent.

United States v. Balint

Supreme Court case upholding strict-liability drug offense without proof of mens rea.

Strict liability (criminal)

Offense requiring no proof of mens rea; liability is imposed simply for committing the act.

United States v. Dotterweich

Case extending strict liability to corporate officers for misbranded drugs shipped by their company.

Corporate criminal liability

Holding corporations and their agents criminally responsible for offenses committed in corporate operations.

Morissette v. United States

Supreme Court case restoring mens rea requirement for “conversion” of federal property, limiting strict liability.

Voluntary act requirement

Criminal law demands a willed bodily movement; reflexes or convulsions are not punishable acts.

Mens rea–act divergence

Situations where an involuntary act coincides with culpable intent, demonstrating the two requirements can separate.

Murder

Unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.

Malice aforethought

Intent to kill, intent to inflict grievous harm, extreme recklessness, or felony-murder intent.

First-degree murder

Premeditated, deliberate, and willful killing or killings committed in specified aggravated ways.

Second-degree murder

Unpremeditated killing with malice; intent to kill or extreme recklessness without deliberation.

Voluntary manslaughter

Intentional killing mitigated by adequate provocation and lack of cooling-off time.

Involuntary manslaughter

Unintentional killing resulting from recklessness or criminal negligence.

2nd-degree murder vs. involuntary manslaughter

Distinction hinges on degree of risk awareness: extreme indifference (murder) versus gross negligence (manslaughter).

Excuse (defense)

Acknowledges act is wrong but claims actor is not blameworthy (e.g., insanity, duress).

Mitigation

Factors that reduce the severity of the charge or sentence (e.g., provocation).

Justification

Defense that the act was right under the circumstances (e.g., self-defense).

Formal mitigation

Mitigation recognized by law that changes the charge (e.g., murder reduced to manslaughter).

Informal mitigation

Mitigating factors considered only at sentencing (e.g., youth, remorse).

Punitive sanctions

Traditional punishments such as imprisonment or fines aimed at retribution and deterrence.

Restorative sanctions

Measures focusing on repairing harm to victims and community (e.g., restitution, mediation).

Regulatory sanctions

Penalties designed to control risky activities (e.g., licensing suspension, fines).

Preventative sanctions

Actions taken to avert future harm, like restraining orders or civil commitment.

Commonwealth v. Malone

Case affirming 2nd-degree murder for reckless “Russian roulette” killing; established implied malice.

Maher v. People

Case recognizing provocation defense; explores cooling-off period in manslaughter.

Cooling-off time

Interval allowing passion to subside; if adequate, provocation defense fails.

State v. Barnett

Case discussing “dangerous instrumentality” and whether negligence was gross enough for manslaughter.

Dangerous instrumentality

Any object or condition likely to cause death or serious bodily harm if misused.

M’Naghten Rule

Insanity standard: defendant not responsible if, due to mental disease, did not know nature/wrongfulness of act.

Film Recovery Systems case

Corporate homicide prosecution for worker deaths from cyanide gas; highlighted reckless corporate conduct.

Compensatory damages

Monetary award in torts to reimburse actual losses.

Punitive damages

Money awarded in torts to punish and deter especially egregious conduct.

Nominal damages

Token sum awarded when legal wrong occurred without substantial loss.

Standard of proof – torts

Preponderance of the evidence (>50% likelihood).

Standard of proof – criminal

Beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest evidentiary burden.

Strict liability (tort)

Liability without fault for abnormally dangerous activities or defective products.

Negligence (tort)

Failure to exercise reasonable care, causing foreseeable harm.

Early tort law

Originally strict, focusing on direct physical harm and writ system; fault gradually became central.

Essential elements of a tort

Duty, breach, causation, and damages.

Insanity & torts

Generally not a complete defense; insane persons may still be held civilly liable.

Hays v. Hays (I & II)

Cases debating whether storm-induced insanity excused liability for husband’s injury to wife (ultimately no).

Sforza v. Green Bus Lines

Case addressing employer liability for driver’s assault; distinguished misfeasance vs. nonfeasance.

Misfeasance vs. nonfeasance

Wrongful active conduct versus failure to act when a duty exists.

Tyler v. Weed

Massachusetts case setting flexible standard for children’s contributory negligence based on age and capacity.

Contributory negligence

Plaintiff’s own negligence that completely bars recovery in traditional common law.

Massachusetts child-negligence model

Uses age-related capacity to assess children’s contributory negligence instead of fixed presumptions.

Johnson v. Kolbas

Case refining age-based negligence standards; younger children less likely to be contributorily negligent.