Second Degree Murder in Delaware: Defined as causing the death of another person with criminal negligence while committing or attempting to commit a felony. Criminal negligence involves failing to be aware of a substantial risk that a reasonable person would recognize.
Example: Speeding down Main Street, which poses a substantial risk of causing death.
Recklessness vs. Negligence: Recklessness involves active and conscious disregard of a known risk. Both recklessness and negligence can potentially be charged, but media reports may not always reflect the full charging details.
Charging Documents: These provide more complete information about the charges, which may include multiple counts.
Example Case: A driver involved in an incident was charged with negligent homicide, and reports later indicated prior offenses in multiple states, including reckless driving.
Pennsylvania: The driver was charged with driving 109 mph against traffic while fleeing the police and failed to appear for the hearing, losing 40,000 bail.
Maryland: The driver was released from prison early after serving one year of a five-year sentence for firearms charges.
Ethical Implication: raises questions about judicial oversight and the connection between different state judicial systems.
Model Penal Code's Indecent Exposure Provision: Specifies circumstances under which the actor knows their conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm (page 155).
Hypothetical Scenario: A person wearing very short shorts in public raises questions about whether the conduct causes affront or alarm.
Question: Is being offended built into the notion of alarm, or does alarm imply potential psychological damage?
Real-World Examples: Nudity in shared living spaces raises questions about intent and context. Societal norms around nudity vary, with different rules applying in different locations.
Ethical Implications: Vague language in laws, such as "alarmed" or "offended," can lead to discriminatory enforcement, such as laws targeting trans individuals.
Concluding Hypothetical: A person masturbating on a boat in front of a family raises questions about intent and exposure.
Common Excuses: Infancy, intoxication, insanity, and duress.
Page reference 166
Infancy: Lacking the mental development of a typical adult due to age or mental impairment.
Legal precedent: The Supreme Court has ruled that states should not execute mentally impaired people or those who are too young.
Insanity:addresses whether the defendant possess the capacity to differentiate right from wrong
Case Examples: Police shootings of individuals with mental illness raise questions about culpability and the level of care required when dealing with such individuals.
Specific Case: A mentally ill man with a knife was shot by police, raising questions about the use of less lethal force.
Related Case: A mentally ill woman was shot by officers during a wellness check, with the court ruling that the officers should have waited for backup and used de-escalation tactics.
Proportionality of Force: Force used by law enforcement must be proportional to the threat.
Debate: Whether a gun is a disproportionate response to a knife depends on the circumstances and whether the individual understands the consequences of their actions.
Consideration: Officers must consider the mental state of the individual and use non-lethal force when possible.
Connection between Infancy and Insanity: Both may involve a lack of understanding of the consequences of actions.
Case Example: A man with mental illness killed a business executive he believed was trying to kill him. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity because he knew the act was wrong, but his mental illness distorted his perception of reality.
Difference between Infancy and Insanity: Insanity is evaluated at the time of the conduct, allowing for consideration of temporary insanity.
Summary: Patty Hearst, granddaughter of William Randolph Hearst, was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) in the 1970s.
Details:After disappearing for six months, she reappeared participating in a bank robbery with the SLA.
Defense: Hearst claimed she had been brainwashed by the SLA.
Outcome: She was convicted, served seven years in prison (only two actually served), and later received a full pardon from Jimmy Carter.
Brainwashing: The SLA allegedly kept her in a dark cupboard for six months, exposing her to propaganda and fake news to accomplish brainwashing.
Legal Question: Does brainwashing fit under existing criminal law excuses, and if so, where?
Alternative: Necessity defense could be argued if she believed she would be killed if she didn't participate.
Another Perspective: Hearst might have convinced herself she was brainwashed to absolve herself from the moral implications of her actions.
Neuroscientific View: Prolonged exposure to certain messages can alter a person's psyche, leading to a disproportionate view of reality.
Philosophical Debate: The extent to which individuals are responsible for their actions due to free will.
Incompatibilism: The claim that free will and causal determinism are incompatible.
Causal determinism: causal determinism refers to the philosophical view that every event, including human actions, is causally determined by prior events and the laws of nature
Illustration: A coin toss can be predicted with certainty if all prior conditions and laws of nature are known.
Determinism: The idea that the state of the world at any given time necessitates the future.
Hard Determinism: Determinism is true, so there is no free will, and therefore no moral responsibility.
Libertarianism: There is free will, so determinism is false.
Compatibilism: Free will is compatible with causal determinism.
Daniel Dennett's "Elbow Room": It is sufficient to think you can do otherwise, even if determinism is true.
Compatibilist View: Causal determinism is no threat to freedom of the will.
Implications for Criminal Law: If free will is an illusion, is it unjust to punish individuals for their actions?
Strict Liability: Holding individuals responsible for causing harm, regardless of their mental state or free will.
Case-by-Case Analysis: Considering extenuating circumstances like infancy and insanity.
Compatibilist Approach: Acknowledging the importance of free will and capacity when determining guilt and responsibility.