Lecture Notes: Crime, Law, and Inchoate Crimes

Exam Prep: Crime, Law, and Conceptual Frameworks

  • Exam mindset and data sources

    • The instructor emphasizes being prepared, not freaked out about tricks on questions.
    • Example exam question: where does the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) get its crime data? Options may include victimization surveys, self-report studies, arrest rates, or none of the above.
    • If you’ve done the readings and attended class, you should be familiar with the material.
    • The instructor will post reminders when remembered.

  • Course scope: crime and how to think about crime

    • Focus for today and next class: one deep dive into criminal law.
    • Distinction among foundational law courses (typical 2L schedule in law school):
    • Criminal Law ( crim or criminal law )
    • Criminal Procedure
    • Criminal Evidence
    • You can look these up online; the instructor notes this is a common structure across schools.

  • Legal systems and codes: 51 jurisdictions in the U.S.

    • The first 50 are the states; 51st is the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a federal code for the military.
    • The criminal code vs. common law
    • Common law: American law is a common law system.
    • In common law, judges interpret and apply the law; they do not create the law (in the same sense as statute-making, which is legislative) but interpretation shapes application.
    • Famous example: Roe v. Wade did not “make” abortion law; it held that the Constitution allows for the right to abortion. Judges interpret the Constitution; they don’t create the right ex nihilo.

  • Role of judges and sources of law

    • Common law: a body of cases that interpret and apply the law; many criminal decisions come from case law (e.g., Miranda v. Arizona, Tennessee v. Garner).
    • The lecture emphasizes that, going forward, many discussions will center on case law as a source of law, with the courts interpreting and applying the law.

  • Core legal structure: actus reus and mens rea

    • To commit a crime, you generally must do something (an act) and have a mental state (a culpable mindset).
    • Conceptual formula: extActusReus∧Mens Rea⇒Crimeext{Actus Reus} \land \text{Mens Rea} \Rightarrow \text{Crime}
    • Actus reus: the physical act or unlawful omission that constitutes the criminal conduct.
    • Mens rea: the mental state at the time of the act (e.g., intent, knowledge, recklessness, negligence depending on the crime).
    • If statute is well-drafted, you should be able to identify both the required act and the required mental state.

  • Murder in California as an exemplar definition

    • California statute: the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
    • Break down: the actus reus is the killing of a human being; the mens rea is malice aforethought.
    • Malice aforethought can take multiple forms, including intentional murder and depraved heart (reckless indifference).
    • Variability across states: other states may define murder differently (e.g., willful and deliberated killing; intentional killing; etc.).
    • General point: to convict for murder, you must demonstrate both the act and the appropriate mental state.
    • Notation: extMurderCA=extunlawfulkillinglandextmaliceaforethoughtext{Murder}_{CA} = ext{unlawful killing} \\land ext{malice aforethought}

  • Conspiracy, solicitation, and attempts: inchoate crimes

    • Inchoate crimes are incomplete crimes, where the intent is to commit a crime but the harm has not yet occurred.
    • Key goal: allow police to intervene before the actual harm occurs.
    • Solicitation: asking another person to commit a crime.
    • Conspiracy: an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime (and often some act toward it).
    • Attempt: taking a substantial step toward committing the crime.
    • The legal line: even when the underlying criminal act has not occurred, prosecutors can charge these inchoate offenses if there is evidence of intent or agreement and steps toward the crime.

  • Illustrative discussions and cases (illustrative, not exhaustive)

    • Mechanical Cock / Cannibal Cop (creepy online fantasies case): discussion of whether online fantasies constitute a crime.
    • The point: merely thinking or fantasizing about violent acts is not a crime; you need to be moving toward committing the act.
    • The “Cannibal Cop” case is discussed to illustrate that intent and future actions matter; in this narrative, the speaker notes the person eventually was set free, highlighting limits of criminal liability for fantasy alone.
    • Old Newcastle Route 13 example (solicitation): a man sees a woman in scanty clothes and asks, “what can I get for $50?”
    • Court can arrest for solicitation if it is believed he is asking someone to commit a crime (i.e., he is soliciting a crime to be committed).
    • Distinction: solicitation is asking someone to commit a crime, regardless of whether the crime will actually occur.
    • Undercover scenarios: even if the potential victim is an undercover officer, solicitation can still be a crime.
    • The “drownings/omissions” discussion (Dover party example): failure to act is generally not a crime, unless there is a duty to act.
    • Omissions are usually not crimes unless an exception applies (e.g., duty arising from special relationships or statutory obligations).
    • Example discussion about a lifeguard or teacher who has a duty to report or intervene.
    • Duty to act and reporting obligations: a failure to report may create liability in certain roles or under specific statutes.

  • Important nuances and ethical considerations

    • The line between thoughts and actions is a central tension in criminal law; mere thoughts or fantasies are generally protected, but planning, intent, or actions toward facilitating harm can trigger liability.
    • Inchoate crimes demonstrate preventative justice: law enforcement can intervene before harm occurs when there is credible evidence of intent or steps toward crime.
    • The gray areas in stalking, solicitation, and attempting crimes illustrate that legal boundaries are not always crisp; context matters (e.g., timing, relationship, actions taken, and explicit intent).
    • The law balances free speech, thoughts, and public safety; there is no blanket prohibition on thoughts, but there are cartographers of liability for actions or strong indicators of imminent harm.

  • Real-world relevance and connections

    • How criminal law interacts with policing and public safety: inchoate offenses empower proactive intervention.
    • The role of statutory vs. case law in shaping everyday understanding of crime definitions and enforcement.
    • The importance of distinguishing actus reus (the act) from mens rea (the mental state) in criminal liability determinations.

  • Quick takeaways for the exam

    • Be able to identify the actus reus and mens rea in given criminal statutes (e.g., murder in CA).
    • Understand what constitutes an inchoate crime: solicitation, conspiracy, and attempt, and how they differ from completed crimes.
    • Recognize the role of courts in interpreting laws within a common law system and how that differs from statutory law.
    • Remember key real-world exemplars used in lectures (Roe v. Wade role in constitutional interpretation; UCR data sources; procedural vs. substantive law distinctions).

  • Quick Q&A prompts to study

    • What is the actus reus of murder in a given jurisdiction and what is the required mens rea?
    • How does solicitation differ from conspiracy and from attempt?
    • Why do courts use inchoate offenses, and what boundaries do they draw for proactive intervention?
    • How does the common law system operate differently from a strictly codified statutory system?
    • What are common examples of omissions that could become criminal under duty-to-act theories (e.g., lifeguards, parents, or professionals)?

  • Key terms to memorize (short list)

    • Actus Reus, Mens Rea, Malice Aforethought, Murder (CA definition), Inchoate Crimes, Solicitation, Conspiracy, Attempt, Duty to Act, Omission, UCMJ, UCR, Common Law, Statutory Law

  • Formulas and definitions (LaTeX)

    • Actus Reus ∧ Mens Rea → Crime
    • MurderCA: extMurder</em>CA=extUnlawfulKillingofaHumanBeing∧Malice Aforethoughtext{Murder}</em>{CA} = ext{Unlawful Killing of a Human Being} \land \text{Malice Aforethought}
    • Malice Aforethought includes: extMaliceAforethought∈extintentionalkilling,reckless indifferenceext{Malice Aforethought} \in { ext{intentional killing}, \text{reckless indifference} }
    • Inchoate Crimes: extSolicitation,Attempt,Conspiracytext(InchoateCrimes)ext{Solicitation}, \text{Attempt}, \text{Conspiracy} \\text{(Inchoate Crimes)}

End of notes