Collaborative Exam Study Guide Section 314
Collaborative Exam Study Guide
How to Study
Review terms, concepts, and main points of articles.
If you see "Brico," study the text and understand both pro and con arguments.
No universal rubric fits all questions; expect overlapping answers.
Emphasize precision over brevity when responding to questions.
For this study guide, note everything you know related to the listed topic/question and imagine answering these during the exam.
Group 1: Alison, James, Emma, Linnea
1. Basics of Criminal Law
Justice
Utilitarian/Consequentialist Approach: values actions that create the greatest good for the greatest number (e.g., 5 people worth more than 1).
Categorical/Value Approach: suggests moral values and rights are absolute (e.g., Kant’s trolley problem).
Characteristics of Criminal Law
Politicality: Only rules established by the government can be considered laws.
Specificity: Laws must provide “fair warning” of what constitutes a crime; no crime, no punishment without a law.
Uniformity: Justice must be uniform and impartial, disregarding social status.
Penal Sanction: Involves consequences for criminal conduct.
Definition of Overcriminalization
Overcriminalization: The excessive application of criminal law to manage social issues, leading to punishment for minor infractions.
Opposite perspective: criminal punishment should be a last resort ("ultima ratio").
Types of Crime
Felonies: crimes with a minimum punishment of more than one year in prison.
Misdemeanors: crimes with a punishment of a fine or imprisonment not exceeding one year.
Infractions (Citation): minor violations of rules or ordinances.
Status Offense: crimes only minors can commit.
Strict Liability Crimes: no mens rea required (e.g., statutory rape).
Page 2 - Packer’s Models of Criminal Justice
Crime Control vs. Due Process
Crime Control Model
Value: prioritizes repression of criminal conduct.
Emphasizes maintaining public order with a “tough on crime” stance.
Operates like an assembly line with a focus on factual guilt.
Seeks finality and operates under a presumption of guilt.
Due Process Model
Value: emphasizes individual rights, freedom, and liberty.
Protects due process and operates formally with emphasis on legal guilt.
Presumption of innocence and does not pursue finality actively.
Functions as an “obstacle course.”
2. Elements of the Crime
Actus Reus: the physical act of committing the crime voluntarily.
Mens Rea: mental state or intent while committing the crime.
Concurrence: both actus reus and mens rea must occur simultaneously to establish a crime.
Causation: connection between the act and the resulting harm leads to a conviction.
Requirements
Human Conduct: includes speech, attempts, and actions; inaction can also be considered action.
Voluntariness: the act must be performed knowingly and willingly; uncontrollable actions or reflexes are not deemed voluntary.
Causation Explained
Causation is divided into:
But-For Standard: establishes that harm would not have occurred but for the actor's conduct.
Proximate Cause: assesses whether the harm was a foreseeable result of the action, limiting liability to consequences closely related to the act.
Courts examine whether third-party actions or natural events broke the causal chain.
Function: it ensures punishment is justified, linking the act to the harm appropriately, protecting defendants from undue blame.
Group 2: Max, KC, Siri, Anna
4. Defenses
Overview of Defenses
Defense: Factor that justifies or excuses an actor's behavior.
Two kinds: Justification (act was right) and Excuse (act was wrong but actor isn’t fully at fault).
Justification Defenses
Self-Defense: permits a person to ward off an imminent threat using reasonable force proportional to the perceived threat (e.g., justified shooting of an armed robber vs. not justified for shooting an unarmed burglar).
Necessity: breaking the law to prevent a greater harm (e.g., speeding to get an injured child to the hospital).
Excuse Defenses
Duress (Coercion): committing a crime under pressure from another person (e.g., being forced to drive a car at gunpoint).
Entrapment: a defense used when government agents induce a crime lacking the actor’s intent.
Infancy: legal doctrine absolving children under seven from criminal responsibility due to lack of mens rea.
Mistake of Fact: arises when a defendant misunderstands a critical fact relevant to the crime (e.g., mistaking a person for a tree).
Intoxication: individuals tricked into consuming substances that cause intoxication are sometimes excused, but voluntary intoxication does not excuse the crime.
Insanity Defense
Insanity: contested defense; various tests exist for criminal responsibility concerning sanity, often resulting in debates over accountability.
Alibi: factual defense asserting that the defendant was elsewhere when the crime occurred.
Affirmative Defenses: acknowledge the act but offer reasons for not being found guilty (e.g., diminished responsibility).
Burden of Proof: it is on the state to disprove defenses beyond a reasonable doubt when a defendant submits an excuse.
5. Incorporation
Incorporation: the legal doctrine applying the 14th Amendment’s due process clause to make certain amendments of the Bill of Rights applicable to state governments.
Notably, rights under the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 8th Amendments are fully incorporated, while the 5th and 6th are partially incorporated.
The Warren Court extended fundamental rights to defendants, emphasizing protection of individual civil liberties over mere crime conviction.
Page 6 - Balancing Rights and Public Order
As more rights were designated for the states, the court favored defendants' rights and consistent accountability with American values of liberty, rights, and limited governmental authority, leading to discrepancies in public safety.
Critics argue these rulings render communities vulnerable by reducing overall security, indicating an ongoing balance dispute between individual rights and public order.
6. Mistake of Fact vs. Mistake of Law
Differences and Examples
Mistake of Law: claiming ignorance of the law; e.g., being pulled over for not knowing the speed limit does not invalidate the charge.
Mistake of Fact: resulting from a misunderstanding about the factual circumstances; e.g., shooting a person in a mistaken belief it was a tree.
Legal outcomes distinguish intent and mens rea in adjudicating culpability.
Group 3: Kaya, Ava, Ellie, Sadie
7. Policing Perspectives on Drug Use
Brico: advocates for treating drug users with compassion rather than punitive measures.
Pros: tackles individual issues, encourages seeking help, reduces stigma, and promotes compassionate responses.
Cons: criticism arises for being perceived as lenient on crime and could increase responsibility void in overdose cases.
8. Rationale for Drug-Induced Homicide Laws
These laws punish those supplying drugs leading to overdose death, aiming to deter drug distribution and emphasize governmental accountability on drug misuse.
Crime Perspectives
Political Perspective: signifies governmental action and promotes a tough-on-crime stance to discourage drug distribution.
Crime Control Perspective: aims to reduce illegal drug spread by holding distributors accountable to control overdose incidents.
Group 4: Parker, Zoey, Elle, Sydney
10. Police Functions
Order Maintenance: involves controlling behaviors that disturb public peace.
Law Enforcement: act when clear legal violations occur.
Community Service: providing assistance (like first aid) to enhance community safety.
Delivery of Functions
Preventative Patrol: aimed at deterring crime but often yields minimal change (e.g., Kansas City patrol experiment).
Directed Patrol: focused on high crime areas with proactive policing.
Aggressive Patrol: entails zero tolerance policies, maximizing police observations and interventions.
11. Crime Rates vs. Police Funding
Research indicates little correlation between crime rates and police funding; social factors often dictate funding needs.
Group 5: Ben, Ainsley, Lexi, Brady
13. Bittner's Argument on Law as Pretext
Police utilize laws as excuses to enforce the law selectively, sometimes leading to racial bias.
Screwdriver Metaphor: laws should serve a specific purpose, but they can be misapplied by law enforcement inappropriately to target other issues.
Legal Paradox: despite being lower-tier law enforcement with minimal training, police wield significant discretion.
14. Driving While Black Study
This examines racial profiling in traffic stops under the Fourth Amendment, revealing bias and highlighting issues of police discretion.
15. Law as Pretext
Police use laws as a means to rationalize stops when ulterior motives exist.
Example: an officer using a traffic violation as an excuse to investigate further suspicions (e.g., drug possession).
16. Legality of Racial Profiling
Racial profiling does not exempt individuals from prosecution if an infraction occurred; legality hinges on actual violations committed irrespective of profiling.
Group 6: Josh, Imani, Owen, Addison, Alaina
17. Whren v. United States Analysis
In Whren, police stopped a truck driver for traffic violations leading to a drug discovery, challenging the legitimacy of the stop based on officer motives.
18. Supreme Court's Central Question
The court examined if the Fourth Amendment prohibits a traffic stop influenced by an officer's ulterior motives.
19. Officer Motivations and Legitimacy
The Supreme Court held that motivations do not affect legitimacy if a legal infraction is established during the stop; thus, the officer's intent is irrelevant if the law was upheld.
This legal principle underlines the focus on the presence of a lawful violation over the potential biases of law enforcement actions.
Collaborative Exam Study Guide
How to Study
To effectively study for the exam, it is crucial to review all terms, concepts, and main points derived from the articles. When encountering "Brico," students should study the text thoroughly, understanding both the pro and con arguments presented. It is important to note that no single rubric fits all questions, and overlapping answers are to be expected. When formulating responses, precision should be prioritized over brevity. This study guide is designed for individuals to document everything they know related to the listed topics and questions, imagining they are answering these questions during the actual exam.
Group 1: Alison, James, Emma, Linnea
1. Basics of Criminal Law
In the realm of criminal justice, two primary approaches to justice are recognized. The Utilitarian/Consequentialist Approach evaluates actions based on their outcome, prioritizing those that generate the greatest good for the largest number of people, such as valuing the well-being of five individuals over one. In contrast, the Categorical/Value Approach posits that moral values and rights are absolute, irrespective of outcomes, as exemplified by Kant’s trolley problem.
Criminal law possesses distinct characteristics: Politicality dictates that only rules established by the government can be considered laws. Specificity requires laws to provide clear warning of what constitutes a crime; without a specific law, no punishment can be imposed. Uniformity mandates that justice be applied impartially, without regard for an individual's social status. Lastly, Penal Sanction underscores that criminal conduct invariably leads to consequences.
Overcriminalization refers to the excessive use of criminal law to address social issues, often resulting in punishment for minor infractions. An opposing view suggests that criminal punishment should be considered a last resort, or "ultima ratio."
Crimes are categorized by their severity: Felonies are serious offenses carrying a minimum punishment of more than one year in prison. Misdemeanors involve lesser penalties, typically a fine or imprisonment not exceeding one year. Infractions (Citations) are minor violations of rules or ordinances. A Status Offense is a peculiar category of crime that only minors can commit. Finally, Strict Liability Crimes are unique because they do not require mens rea (mental intent), with statutory rape being a primary example.
Page 2 - Packer’s Models of Criminal Justice
Crime Control vs. Due Process
Herbert Packer’s models of criminal justice present two contrasting philosophies. The Crime Control Model primarily values the repression of criminal conduct, emphasizing the maintenance of public order with a "tough on crime" stance. This model operates much like an assembly line, focusing on establishing factual guilt and seeking finality in legal proceedings under a presumption of guilt.
In stark contrast, the Due Process Model prioritizes individual rights, freedom, and liberty. It focuses on protecting due process through formal procedures and emphasizes legal guilt. This model operates under a presumption of innocence and does not actively pursue finality, functioning more like an “obstacle course” designed to protect the accused's rights.
2. Elements of the Crime
For a crime to be established, several elements must be present. Actus Reus refers to the physical, voluntary act of committing the crime. Mens Rea signifies the mental state or intent of the individual while committing the crime. Concurrence mandates that both the actus reus and mens rea must occur simultaneously to constitute a crime. Causation establishes a direct link between the act and the resulting harm, which is essential for a conviction.
Requirements
Criminal conduct typically involves Human Conduct, encompassing speech, attempts, and actions; notably, inaction can also be considered an action under certain circumstances. Crucially, the conduct must be Voluntary, meaning the act was performed knowingly and willingly. Uncontrollable actions or reflexes are generally not deemed voluntary.
Causation Explained
Causation is typically divided into two components. The But-For Standard first establishes that the harm would not have occurred but for the actor's conduct. Following this, Proximate Cause assesses whether the harm was a foreseeable result of the action, thereby limiting liability to consequences closely related to the act. Courts meticulously examine whether third-party actions or natural events may have broken the causal chain. The primary Function of causation is to ensure that punishment is justified, properly linking the act to the harm and protecting defendants from undue blame.
Group 2: Max, KC, Siri, Anna
4. Defenses
An Overview of Defenses reveals that a defense is a factor that either justifies or excuses an actor's behavior. These are broadly categorized into two kinds: Justification defenses argue that the act itself was right (e.g., self-defense), while Excuse defenses acknowledge that the act was wrong but contend the actor is not fully at fault (e.g., duress).
Justification Defenses include Self-Defense, which allows an individual to use reasonable force, proportional to the perceived threat, to ward off an imminent danger; for instance, the justified shooting of an armed robber differs significantly from an unjustified shooting of an unarmed burglar. Necessity permits breaking the law to prevent a greater harm, such as speeding to transport an injured child to the hospital.
Excuse Defenses encompass several scenarios. Duress (Coercion) applies when a crime is committed under pressure from another person, for example, being forced to drive a car at gunpoint. Entrapment is a defense used when government agents induce an individual to commit a crime that they initially lacked the intent to commit. Infancy is a legal doctrine that absolves children under the age of seven from criminal responsibility, citing their presumed lack of mens rea. Mistake of Fact arises when a defendant misunderstands a critical fact relevant to the crime, such as mistaking a person for a tree. Intoxication, if individuals are tricked into consuming substances that cause it, can sometimes serve as an excuse, but voluntary intoxication typically does not excuse a crime.
The Insanity Defense remains a highly contested defense. Various tests exist for determining criminal responsibility concerning sanity, frequently leading to debates over accountability. An Alibi is a factual defense where the defendant asserts they were in another location when the crime occurred. Affirmative Defenses acknowledge the act but offer compelling reasons for why the defendant should not be found guilty, such as diminished responsibility. Finally, the Burden of Proof in disproving defenses beyond a reasonable doubt rests on the state once an excuse is submitted by a defendant.
5. Incorporation
Incorporation is a pivotal legal doctrine that applies the 14th Amendment’s due process clause to make certain amendments of the Bill of Rights applicable to state governments. Notably, rights enshrined in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 8th Amendments are fully incorporated, while the 5th and 6th Amendments are partially incorporated. The Warren Court, in particular, played a significant role in extending fundamental rights to defendants, emphasizing the protection of individual civil liberties over mere crime conviction.
Page 6 - Balancing Rights and Public Order
As more rights were designated for states, the court increasingly favored defendants' rights and consistent accountability with American values of liberty, rights, and limited governmental authority. This emphasis on individual liberties, however, frequently led to discrepancies in public safety. Critics contend that these rulings render communities vulnerable by reducing overall security, highlighting an ongoing dispute in balancing individual rights with the maintenance of public order.
6. Mistake of Fact vs. Mistake of Law
Critical Differences and Examples exist between these two types of mistakes. A Mistake of Law involves claiming ignorance of the law; for instance, being pulled over for not knowing the speed limit does not invalidate the charge. Conversely, a Mistake of Fact results from a misunderstanding about the factual circumstances, such as shooting a person in the mistaken belief that it was a tree. Legal outcomes carefully distinguish intent and mens rea when adjudicating culpability in such cases.
Group 3: Kaya, Ava, Ellie, Sadie
7. Policing Perspectives on Drug Use - Brico
From a policing perspective on drug use, Brico advocates for treating drug users with compassion rather than through punitive measures. The Pros of this approach include tackling individual issues, encouraging individuals to seek help, reducing the stigma associated with drug use, and promoting more compassionate responses. However, Cons arise from criticism that this perspective is perceived as lenient on crime and could potentially increase a responsibility void in overdose cases.
8. Rationale for Drug-Induced Homicide Laws
Rationale for Drug-Induced Homicide Laws centers on punishing those who supply drugs that subsequently lead to an overdose death. These laws aim to deter drug distribution and emphasize governmental accountability in addressing drug misuse.
Crime Perspectives
From a Political Perspective, drug-induced homicide laws signify governmental action and promote a tough-on-crime stance specifically designed to discourage drug distribution. The Crime Control Perspective aligns with this by aiming to reduce the spread of illegal drugs through holding distributors accountable, thereby controlling overdose incidents more effectively.
Group 4: Parker, Zoey, Elle, Sydney
10. Police Functions
Police perform several crucial Police Functions. Order Maintenance involves controlling behaviors that disturb public peace. Law Enforcement is activated when clear legal violations occur. Community Service entails providing assistance, such as first aid, to enhance overall community safety.
Delivery of Functions
These functions are delivered through various methods. Preventative Patrol aims to deter crime, though research, such as the Kansas City patrol experiment, often indicates minimal change in crime rates. Directed Patrol focuses on specific high-crime areas through proactive policing. Aggressive Patrol implements zero-tolerance policies, maximizing police observations and interventions to address crime.
11. Crime Rates vs. Police Funding
Research indicates little correlation between crime rates and police funding; instead, social factors frequently dictate the actual funding needs of police departments.
Group 5: Ben, Ainsley, Lexi, Brady
13. Bittner's Argument on Law as Pretext
Egon Bittner argues that Police utilize laws as excuses to enforce the law selectively, which can sometimes lead to racial bias. His Screwdriver Metaphor illustrates that while laws should serve a specific purpose, they can be misapplied inappropriately by law enforcement to target other issues. This creates a Legal Paradox: despite often being lower-tier law enforcement with minimal training, police wield significant discretion in their daily duties.
14. Driving While Black Study
The Driving While Black Study specifically examines racial profiling in traffic stops under the Fourth Amendment, revealing inherent biases and highlighting persistent issues of police discretion.
15. Law as Pretext
Law as Pretext refers to police using laws as a means to rationalize stops when ulterior motives genuinely exist. An Example of this would be an officer using a minor traffic violation as an excuse to investigate further suspicions, such as potential drug possession.
16. Legality of Racial Profiling
Regarding the Legality of Racial Profiling, it is important to note that racial profiling does not exempt individuals from prosecution if an actual infraction occurred. The legality of the stop ultimately hinges on whether actual violations were committed, irrespective of any profiling.
Group 6: Josh, Imani, Owen, Addison, Alaina
17. Whren v. United States Analysis
In the landmark case of Whren v. United States, police stopped a truck driver for traffic violations, which subsequently led to the discovery of drugs. This case challenged the legitimacy of the traffic stop based on the officers' underlying motives.
18. Supreme Court's Central Question
The Supreme Court's Central Question in Whren v. United States was to examine whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits a traffic stop that was influenced by an officer's ulterior motives.
19. Officer Motivations and Legitimacy
On the matter of Officer Motivations and Legitimacy, the Supreme Court held that the motivations of police officers do not affect the legitimacy of a traffic stop if a legal infraction is established during the stop. Thus, the officer's intent is considered irrelevant so long as a lawful violation occurred and