HOW DOES THIS WORK? CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND THE LAW

HOW DOES THIS WORK? CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND THE LAW

CRIMINAL LAW Tells individuals what behavior is criminal Defines punishment Not all behavior is criminal even though it is offensive WHY?????

BECAUSE Expensive and intrusive into privacy and liberty U.S. Constitution Principles of criminal liability elements of a crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt Principles of justification and excuse(defenses)

PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY Elements of a crime Criminal act Actus Reus (guilty act) Criminal intent Mens Rea (guilty mind) Concurrence of the criminal act and criminal intent Some crimes also require causing a particular result

ACTUS REUS THERE MUST BE AN ACT OF COMMISSION OR OMISSION BY THE ACCUSED THERE CANNOT BE A LAW THAT MADE BEING ADDICTED TO DRUGS A CRIME CRIMINAL ACT

MENS REA A GUILTY STATE OF MIND INTENT CAN BE A PROBLEM WHEN DETERMINING A SUSPECT S CAPABILITY OF UNDERSTANDING

CONCURRENCE FOR MOST CRIMES ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA MUST BE PRESENT FOR AN ACT TO BE CONSIDERED ILLEGAL, THE ACTION MUST BE VOLUNTARY

SEVEN PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW LEGALITY ACTUS REUS CAUSATION HARM CONCURRENCE MENS REA PUNISHMENT ALL 7 MUST BE PROVED

CRIMINAL ACT PUNISH FOR WHAT THEY DO Can be attempted Agree to commit a crime (conspiracy) NOT WISHES, HOPES, MIGHT DO OR WHO THEY ARE

Failure to act if there is a legal duty to act Criminal omissions Not filing income tax Child neglect Failure to intervene when someone is in danger Special relationships (Doctor/patient)

CRIMINAL INTENT/MENS REA LEVEL ONE--- PURPOSEFUL (SPECIFIC, ON PURPOSE) LEVEL TWO KNOWING (YOU KNOW YOU ARE COMMITTING AN ACT LEVEL THREE RECKLESS (CONSCIOUSLY CREATE A RISK OF HARM

MENS REA CON T LEVEL FOUR NEGLIGENT (LIKE RECKLESS BUT UNCONSCIOUSLY CREATE A RISK

CONCURRENCE Criminal intent has to trigger a criminal act Plan to kill someone, change your mind, they later die Is it murder?????

CAUSING A HARMFUL RESULT TWO TYPES OF CAUSE CAUSE IN FACT but for actions of the defendant the result would not have happened LEGAL CAUSE---asks Is it fair to blame the defendants for the results of the actions they set in motion? Jury decides this.

CIVIL LAW Set of formal rules that regulate disputes between private parties Mainly concerned with issues of personal injury and compensation Disputes that arise between individuals

TORT NON CRIMINAL LEGAL WRONGS PRIVATE PERSONAL INJURY ACTIONS

CRIMINAL LAW SET OF FORMAL RULES MAINTAINS SOCIAL ORDER AND CONTROL CONSIDERED CRIMES AGAINST SOCIETY BECAUSE THEY BREAK RULES ESTABLISHED FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY

DEFENSES FAILURE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE ALL ELEMENTS OF A CRIME BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT DEFENSE OF AN ALIBI DEFENSE OF JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE OF AN EXCUSE

DEFENSES CON T ALIBI outright innocence. Supported by witnesses and documentation JUSTIFICATIONS less of two evils Kill or be killed JUSTIFIED IF: You didn t provoke attack Reasonably believed you were going to be attacked RIGHT NOW You used only enough force necessary to repel attack

DEFENSES CON T DEFENSE OF HOME AND PROPERTY Under common law (origins in early English hx, body of unwritten legal precedents from everyday English social customs, rules and practices and supported by judicial procedures) killing nighttime home intruders was justifiable. Modern law continues this idea BUT force must be reasonable. Deadly force used for protection of property??? Booby traps????

Justification con t DURESS DEFENDANT COMMITS AN ILLEGAL ACT BECAUSE THEY WERE THREATENED BY ANOTHER WITH DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM NECESSITY MUST BREAK THE LAW TO AVOID A GREATER EVIL THAT IS CAUSED BY NATURAL FORCES

MISTAKE OF FACT If suspect has made a mistake on some crucial fact 2008, college professor attending a baseball game buys his 7 year old son a lemonade. Due to the fact that they did not watch TV, he had no idea he was purchasing alcohol for his underage son.

DEFENSES CON T CONSENT limits on use No serious injury results Injury happens during sporting event Conduct benefits consenting person (Dr. treating patient) Consent is of free will Sometimes used in cases of sexual asphyxia or bondage

DEFENSES CON T EXCUSES act was wrong but defendant wasn t responsible Age age 7 cannot reason logically roots from Christian Church Criminal prosecution can begin as early as 14 or otherwise Juvenile court Old age can also be a defense

DEFENSES CON T DURESS not a murder defense. Any unlawful threat or used by a person to induce another to act (or refrain from acting) in a manner he/she would not (or would). ENTRAPMENT defense to crimes with no complaining witness. Encouragement can be used and is not entrapment. Different is in predisposition.

ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE IS THAT THE DEFENDANT WOULD NOT HAVE COMMITTED IF NOT FOR PERSUASION AND TRICKERY BY THE POLICE. IF OFFICERS PLAN A CRIME, PLANT THE IDEA OF THE CRIME IN A PERSON S MIND AND PRESSURE THE PERSON INTO DOING IT.

DEFENSES CON T INTOXICATION between two conflicting principles ACCOUNTABILITY if you drink you face the consequences of your actions CULPABILITY can t punish someone who is not responsible for their actions. VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION IS NOT A DEFENSE Involuntary intoxication???????

DEFENSES CON T INSANITY legal not a medical term. Attracts public attention but rarely successful. Raised in less than 1% and successful in about 1/4 th of them. THREE TESTS OF INSANITY Right/wrong test Right/wrong supplemented by the irresistible impulse test The substantial capacity or American Law Institute Test

RIGHT/WRONG TEST M Naughten (McNaughten) Rule 1844 Daniel M Naughten tried to kill Sir Robert Peel (British Prime Minister), shot Edward Drummond, his secretary instead. Jury acquitted him of delusional self-defense. On appeal, the House of Lords (highest court) formulated the right/wrong test

RIGHT/WRONG TEST Right/wrong test evaluates: Mental disease/defect caused such damage to defendant s capacity to reason That either they didn t know what they were doing or they didn t know it was wrong Has been supplemented with the IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE TEST

RIGHT/WRONG TEST Defense focuses on will power or ability to control actions Necessary elements Suffered from a mental disease/defect Caused them a loss of power to choose from right and wrong 1994 Lorena Bobbitt used this defense-- successfully

SUBSTANTIAL CAPACITY TEST Focus on both reason and will---blending of previous two Defendants had mental disease/defect that caused them to lack substantial capacity to understand the wrongfulness of their act or to conform their behavior to the requirements of the law Substantial doesn t require total mental incompetence or total will Difficult to define

OTHER DEFENSES BATTERED WOMENS SYNDROME PMS TWINKIE DEFENSE BLACK RAGE CULTURAL DEFENSES

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Tells public officials what power they have. Lays down rules at each step of the criminal process. Due Process and Equal Protection apply to all stages

DUE PROCESS OF LAW Right to fair procedures. Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. 1833 it was determined by Chief Justice John Marshall that the constitution was binding only upon the Federal Government. States had their own Bill of Rights Many debates throughout the years By the end of 1960 s it was determined that the Bill of Rights sets the minimum standard that all states have to follow

EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT STATES NO STATE SHALL DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS