• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/56

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

56 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
A crime
A series of elements with associated mental states.
Mental state
The state of mind required with respect to that element to establish liability.
When a person is guilty of a crime
If and only if each element and its associated mental state is satisfied.
Three different kinds of element
Conduct
Attendant Circumstances
Result
(CAR)
Conduct
What the person did.
Every crimes has a conduct element (actus reus).
Attending Circumstances
What was going on when he did it.
Most but not all crimes will have attendant circumstance elements.
Result
What was caused by what the person did.
Only a few crimes will have result elements.
Purposely, MPC Location
2.02(2)(a)
Knowingly, MPC Location
2.02(2)(b)
Recklessly, MPC Location
2.02(2)(c)
Negligently, MPC Location
2.02(2)(d)
Strict Liability, MPC Location
2.05 (called absolute liability)
Willful Blindness, MPC Location
2.02(7)
If a person is willfully blind...
...They have knowledge
Willful Blindness
Awareness "of a high probability" of a fact's existence is enough to establish knowledge, "unless he actually believes that it does not exist."
Reckless
Consciously disregarding substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element exists or will result AND conduct is a gross deviation from the standard conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation.
Requirement for recklessness
Recognition of risk that element exists or will result, and then proceeding anyway despite the understood risk.
The Light Bulb Moment
A person is reckless when they recognize the risk of an element existing but decides to proceed anyway.
Negligence
Failure to perceive risk that is a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.
Should be aware of a "substantial and unjustifiable risk" that the element exists or will result.
No Light Bulb Moment
Negligence is a failure to recognize a risk of an element existing that a person should be aware of.
Key is failure to see the risk of a specific element, not failure to exercise a duty of care.
Rules
Clear ex ante but inflexible; i.e., "you cannot exceed 55 mph."
Standards
Mushy ex ante but flexible; i.e., "you cannot drive at an unreasonable speed."
MPC 2.01(1)
The prohibited "conduct" must include "a voluntary act" or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable.
MPC 2.01(2)
Reflexes, convulsions, hypnotic movements are not themselves acts.
MPC 2.01(3)
Omissions can be acts if there is duty.
MPC 2.01(4)
Possession is an act if knowingly procured or knew of control for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate the possession.
Retribution definition
1. Requital according to merits or deserts, especially for evil.
2. Something given or inflicted in such requital.
Retributive theories of punishment
- Some acts are morally wrongful.
- Punishment restores moral order.
- Punishment of morally culpable behavior therefore brings about a more just society
- Justice demands punishment to restore the moral order
Moore's theory of retribution
The guilty deserve punishment.
Stephen's theory of retribution
It is morally right to hate criminal acts, and punishment expresses that hatred.
Morris' theory of retribution
Punishment restores fairness by restoring an even distribution of benefits and burdens.
Murphy and Hampton's theory of retribution
Punishment reaffirms a victim's equal worth by showing he is not "the lord of the victim."
Expressive theory of retribution
Punishment expresses and upholds society's values of fair play and equal treatment.
Utilitarian reason for punishment
Punishment today can lead to less crime in the future.
Utilitarian purposes
- Deterrence: the incentive to commit a crime.
- Incapacitation: ability to commit crime.
- Rehabilitation: urge to commit crime.
Specific deterrence
Refers to the effect on the person punished.
General deterrence
Refers to the effect on the rest of the people who might consider committing the crime in the future.
Incapacitation
Punishment today will stop future crime because the conditions of punishment make it harder to commit the crime.
Rehabilitation
Punishment today will stop future crime because it can include or mandate therapeutic treatment.
Legislature's role in punishment
Decides what conduct to criminalize, and often how severe the punishment should be.
Executive's role in punishment
Decides what crimes to investigate, what cases to bring (questions of enforcement strategy).
Judicial role in punishment
Where the legislature has given sentencing discretion to the court, what should the sentence be.
Different types of punishments
- Probation
- Treatment programs
- Prison
- Fines
- Death penalty in some states
- Shaming punishments in some states
Void for vagueness doctrine
Rule created by the Supreme Court that empowers courts either to strike down a criminal statute in certain situations or else to adopt a narrow interpretation of the statute.
1st void for vagueness test
If it is "so vague and standardless that it leaves the public uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits."
(Fair notice)
2nd void for vagueness test
If it does not "establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement" and therefore "authorizes or even encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement."
MPC 2.04
Ignorance or Mistake
MPC 2.04(1)
Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense if:
(a) the ignorance or mistake negatives the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense; or
(b) the law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense.
MPC 2.04(2)
Although ignorance or mistake would otherwise afford a defense to the offense charged, the defense is not available if the defendant would be guilty of another offense had the situation been as he supposed. In such case, however, the ignorance or mistake of the defendant shall reduce the grade and degree of the offense of which he may be convicted to those of the offense of which he would be guilty had the situation been as he supposed.
MPC 2.05
When Culpability Requirements are Inapplicable to Violations and to Offenses Defined by Other Statutes; Effect of Absolute Liability in Reducing Grad of Offense to Violation.
MPC 1.13(11)
"purposely" has the meaning specified in Section 2.02 and equivalent terms such as "with purpose," "designed" or "with design" have the same meaning
MPC 1.13(12)
"intentionally" or "with intent" means purposely
MPC 1.13(13)
"knowingly" has the meaning specified in Section 2.02 and equivalent terms such as "knowing" or "with knowledge" have the same meaning
MPC 1.13(14)
"recklessly" has the meaning specified in Section 2.02 and equivalent terms such as "recklessness" or "with recklessness" have the same meaning
MPC 1.13(15)
"negligently" has the meaning specified in Section 2.02 and equivalent terms such as "negligence" or "with negligence" have the same meaning
MPC 1.13(16)
"reasonably believes" or "reasonable belief" designates a belief which the actor is not reckless or negligent in holding