Criminal Law & Procedure

Front 1

What are the 5 theories of punishment?

Back 1

1. incapacitation/restraint (prison,execution..)
2. Specific Deterrence (society's power to punish teaches a lesson.)
3. General Deterrence ("that's wrong" group mentality.)
4. Rehabilitation
5. Retribution (get what they deserve, prevent vigilantism

Front 2

Common Law:

Back 2

Judge Made Law defining crimes and establishing the rules of of criminal responsibility according to custom and tradition

Front 3

stare decisis:

Back 3

courts should follow estabished precedents and not disturb settled principals.

Front 4

Model Penal Code:

Back 4

a suggested guide for enactment and interpretation of criminal law (not law)

Front 5

vagueness doctrine:

Back 5

holds any statute unconstitutional

Front 6

bills of attainder

Back 6

legislative acts convicting an individual of a crime (so says the king)

Front 7

ex post facto laws

Back 7

laws that retroactively make innocent conduct illegal, increase the punishment of a criminal act, or decrease the standard of proof for a conviction.

Front 8

bench trial

Back 8

the judge determines both disputed facts and the applicable law.

Front 9

burden of proof

Back 9

the task of presenting evidence to a fact finder normally a jury who then weighs the cumulative evidence and decides whether it constitutes the crime charged.

Front 10

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt

Back 10

often defined as proof that excludes every reasonable hypothesis except guilt. proof that excludes every possibility of innocence, or proof to moral certainty

Front 11

directed verdict of acquittal

Back 11

a device used to remove the case from the jury's consideration. The trial judge may enter an acquittal whenever a rational jury MUST conclude that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

Front 12

ultimate issue

Back 12

the question of wether the defendent is guilty or not guilty of the charge

Front 13

affirmative defenses

Back 13

the defendant admits to committing the acts charged but seeks to justify or excuse the defendants conduct by establishing additional facts

Front 14

preponderance of the evidence

Back 14

the standard of proof often required to establish an affirmative defense. asks the jury to determine whether an accused has established the reasonable likelihood of the defense

Front 15

prima facie evidence

Back 15

requires that the defendant offer some plausible evidence of the defendants claim.

Front 16

clear and convincing evidence

Back 16

is a higher standard tha preponderance of evidence but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Front 17

presumption

Back 17

a fact that MUST be inferred on the basis of certain predicate facts that have been proved

Front 18

permissive inference

Back 18

a possible conclusion that may be drawn but is not exclusively required if certain predicate facts are proved.

Front 19

actus reus

Back 19

an act by the defendant that results in a prohibited harm to society.

Front 20

Working Def. of Crime

Back 20

1. Mental State
2. physical act
3. Social Harm

Front 21

overt act for conspiracy

Back 21

an act committed in furtherance of a conspiracy

Front 22

overt act for an attempted crime

Back 22

a substantial step toward commission of the intended offense

Front 23

mere preparation

Back 23

attempted crime requires that the defendant move beyond perperation and begins consummation of the offense

Front 24

wanton state of mind

Back 24

extremely reckless disregard of the safety of others or other prohibited consequences.

Front 25

simple or civil negligence

Back 25

occurs when a person fails to act as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.