Principles of Punishment: Modern Role of Criminal Statutes Essay

Conduct which, if duly shown to have taken place, will incur a formal and solemn pronouncement of the condemnation of the community’ ; “Any social harm defined and made punishable by law’ 2) Burden of Proof: “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt = proof of such a convincing character that OTF would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of their own affairs. ” * Burden of Production: Prosecution has the burden of providing sufficient evidence upon which Jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, each element of the charge.

Burden of Persuasion: Duty to convince the Trier of fact that the evidence produced demonstrates that the D is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 3) Jury Nullification: Jury has the power to disobey the law/Jury instructions and acquit, even if guilty, for whatever reason it wants. Principle of Legality: “No crime without law; no punishment without law’ a) Criminal laws should be clear/understandable to a reasonable person. ) Laws should not be made to delegate policy matters to Judges, police, Juries on a case-by- case basis. ) Lentil Doctrine: Judicial interpretation of ambiguous statutes should be biased in favor of the accused. (Places the burden on legislature to draft statutes with clear language) 2) Constitutional Limits d) “Void for Vagueness” – Statute is unconstitutionally vague if: I) It fails to give fair notice as to what conduct it prohibits. T) It allows for arbitrary discretion or enforcement. Iii) It is overboard and includes innocent conduct. E) Presumption of Constitutionality: Where two reasonable interpretations of a statute are possible, one constitutional and one unconstitutional, courts will generally whose the constitutional interpretation. ‘v) Plain Meaning: When statutory language is unclear, courts will look to statute itself to try to determine the plain meaning of the terms.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

If can’t determine plain meaning, look to: (1)Legislative history; (2) Statutory scheme; (3) Title of statute; (4) Common law meaning (at time law was drafted); (5) Precedent CACTUS REUSE Conduct: the act – must be voluntary Result: the outcome Attendant circumstance: something beyond the actor’s control Failure to act is not punishable unless the law imposes a duty. Omission liability nearly limited to (1) Statute imposes a duty; (2) Status relationship requires it (I. E. Parent-child 3) Contractual duty (I. E. Litigated); (4) Seclusion to a helpless person to prevent others from rendering aid (I. . Kidnapping); (5) Individual creates risk of harm to another (I. E. Person crashes into another-duty to make sure they receive med care) *There must be a legal duty, must know of the duty, and be able to perform that duty. * MENUS REAR Transferred Intent: “One who intends a particular harm to one person and instead causes precisely the same harm to a different individual is as culpable as if they had accomplished what they originally intended. Conduct Crime: Offense prohibits specific dangerous behaviors or actions I. E. DUD. Result Crime: Offense punishes a harmful result or outcome I. . Murder. 1) MODEL PENAL CODE 2. 02 a) Purposely: Actor has conscious object to bring about the result. B) Knowingly: Actor has awareness of a high probability that a particular result is likely c) Recklessly: Actor is aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a to occur. Particular result will occur, and disregards that risk. Disregard is a gross deviation from conduct a law-abiding person would observe. ) Negligently: Actor should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur, and fails to perceive that risk.

Failure to perceive the risk is a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would observe. 2) MAC, Sec. 2. 02(3): If no menus rear element is stated, the default is recklessness. Defendant must at least have acted “recklessly’. 3) MAC, Sec. 2. 02(4): When there is one menus rear element stated and it is not clear which act element it attaches to, that menus rear attaches to each and every element of the offense, unless a contrary intent is stated. 1) WISCONSIN S 939. 3 a) Intentionally: Actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result, or is aware their conduct is practically certain to cause that result.

Actor must have knowledge of those facts necessary to make conduct criminal & which are set forth after “intentionally’. B) Recklessly: Actor creates unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm to another and is aware of that risk. C) Negligently: Conduct the actor should realize creates a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to another of which the actor should be aware. 2) Wise. Stats. S 939. 3(3): When the requisite menus rear is “Intentionally,” intent attaches to the first act element, and “knowingly’ attaches to each act element AFTER the word intentionally.

If no menus rear element stated: usually strict liability. D) conduct: purpose to engage in prohibited conduct e) circumstance: actor must have knowledge of circumstances that are set forth after the word “intentionally’ f) result: purpose to cause the result OR aware that result is practically certain to occur 3) MISTAKE S 939. 43: An honest error of fact is a defense if it negatives the existence of a state of mind essential to the crime. CAUSATION 1) MAC Causation = “but tort” test: Ad’s conduct is cause-in-tact it the result would not have occurred but-for Ad’s conduct. Proximate cause” = cause-in-fact + not too remote, unforeseeable, or accidental. 2) WISE Causation = “substantial factor” test: But-for test fails; multiple causes-in-fact, but Ad’s conduct is cause-in-fact if it was a substantial factor in bringing about harm. 3) Proximate Cause: Issue arises when there is intervening act/force. Types: (1) natural “act of god”; (2) act of independent 3rd party; OR (3) act/omission by victim that assists in bringing about outcome. Liability cut off (intervening becomes superseding cause) if intervening act was unforeseeable.

CRIMINAL HOMICIDE * Prosecution has the burden of proving each and every element of the offense (cactus reuse, menus rear) beyond a reasonable doubt. * Defense has the burden to “place in issue” evidence of one of the statutory mitigating circumstances. * Prosecution has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the facts constituting the defense do not exist. If prosecution cannot meet this burden, the charge is a OLIO. 1) COMMON LAW: a) 1st Degree Murder = intent to kill + deliberate + premeditated b) 2nd

Degree Murder = intent to kill c) Voluntary (Reckless) Manslaughter = D aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm but acted anyway; I) Circumstances that mitigate murder to manslaughter = “sudden heat of passion” (1) acted in heat of passion; (2) resulting from adequate provocation (reasonable person stud. ); (3) no reasonable cooling off period; AND (4) causal link between provocation, passion, and homicide. “Adequate provocation” (1) OTF determines what provocation is adequate; (2) provocation would cause reasonable person to act as D did. ) Involuntary (Negligent) Manslaughter D should have been aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk. 1) WISCONSIN: a) 1st Degree Intentional Homicide 1st Degree Reckless Homicide Felony Murder (death caused in commission of certain felony) b) 2nd Degree Intentional Homicide 2nd Degree Reckless Homicide c) Adequate Provocation Defense (1 SST Degree Intentional 2nd Degree Intentional) = (1) adequate to cause complete lack of self-control in a reasonable person; (2) provocation itself must be something defendant reasonably believes (honest belief; doesn’t have to be factually correct) V has done which causes D to completely lose self-control.

D must “place in issue” evidence that defense circumstances existed which P must disprove 1) MAC: a) Murder (purposely or knowingly; OR recklessly – extreme indifference to human life) “depraved heart murder”) Manslaughter (Reckless Homicide) (recklessly kills; OR acting under extreme mental or emotional distress that is reasonable under circumstances) Negligent Homicide b) Provocation Defense (Murder Manslaughter) = (1) subjective extreme mental or emotional disturbance; A reasonable explanation or excuse determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in Ad’s situation under the circumstances as D believes them to be.

Olio’s as a matter of law? Legislature mandates certain crimes have Olio’s. Warranted given the facts and circumstances of the case? (1) Reasonable Jury must be able to find that proof of one or more elements of greater charge does not exist beyond reasonable doubt; AND (2) reasonable Jury must be able to find proof of each and every element of the OLIO beyond a reasonable doubt. L. DEFENSES 1) Element Defenses – Failure of Proof Defenses: Prosecution fails to prove every element of the crime. Burden of Proof: Prosecution must present sufficient evidence to prove every element; also bears burden of persuasion. D must only raise reasonable doubt as to one of the elements. 2) Affirmative Defenses – Justification: Prosecution proves that criminal act occurred but D argues that his actions were Justified. A) Self Defense/Defense of Others: I) Imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. T) Necessity (Honest and/or reasonable belief) MAC = Honest belief WISE = Honest and reasonable belief iii) Proportionality b) Necessity: natural non-human forces ‘v) Clear and imminent danger (or imminent v) Action must be effective in avoiding the danger lawful alternative vii)