Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law Chapter Contents Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

Chapter 4Inide Criminal Law

Chapter Introduction

4-1 The Development of American Criminal Law4-1a The Conception of Law

4-1b English Common Law

4-1c Written Sources of American Criminal Law

4-2 The Purposes of Criminal Law4-2a Protect and Punish: The Legal Function of the Law

4-2b Maintain and Teach: The Social Function of the Law

4-3 The Elements of a Crime4-3a Criminal Act: Actus Reus

4-3b Mental State: Mens Rea

4-3c Concurrence

4-3d Causation

4-3e Attendant Circumstances

4-3f Harm

4-4 Defenses under Criminal Law4-4a Criminal Responsibility and the Law

4-4b Justification Criminal Defenses and the Law

4-5 Procedural Safeguards4-5a The Bill of Rights

4-5b Due Process

4-6 Chapter Review4-6a Chapter Summary

4-6b Questions for Critical Analysis

4-6c Key Terms

1

2

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law Chapter Introduction Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

Chapter Introduction

Wilfred Y. Wong/Gett Image

Learning Ojective

The Development of American Criminal Law

List the four written sources of American criminal law.

Explain precedent and the importance of the doctrine of stare decisis.

The Purpoe of Criminal Law

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Explain the two basic functions of criminal law.

The lement of a Crime

Delineate the elements required to establish mens rea (a guilty mental state).

Explain how the doctrine of strict liability applies to criminal law.

Defene under Criminal Law

List and briefly define the most important excuse defenses for crimes.

Discuss a common misperception concerning the insanity defense in theUnited States.

Describe the four most important justification criminal defenses.

Procedural Safeguard

Distinguish between substantive and procedural criminal law.

Explain the importance of the due process clause in the criminal justicesystem.

To target your study and review, look for these numbered Learning Objective iconsthroughout the chapter.

Murder or a Heart Attack?

According to police investigators, Rickie Lee Fowler was angry about being thrownout of a family member’s house in California’s San Bernardino Mountains. Asretaliation, Fowler started one of the largest wildfires in state history. Known as theOld Fire, the 91,000-acre blaze lasted nine days, destroyed 1,003 homes, and causedthe deaths of five men. Fowler was eventually convicted on two counts of arson andfive counts of murder. In January 2013, a jury sentenced him to be executed.“You’re not going to find a better case than this for the death penalty,” said SanBernardino County deputy district attorney Robert Bullock.

Not everybody in the legal community agreed. “I’ve never heard of a case like this,”said Loyola (Los Angeles) Law School professor Stan Goldman. The legal definitionof murder requires the offender to have some prior intent to harm the victim.Though Fowler intentionally started the Old Fire, there was no indication that heintended to hurt any people. Furthermore, the five victims did not die of smokeinhalation or burn injuries. Rather, they all died of heart attacks brought about bystress experienced due to the fire. One of the victims, who lost his house and hisbusiness to the flames, did not suffer his fatal heart attack until a week after the

event.

Fowler’s attorneys claimed that their client obviously never intended to kill anyone,and that it was ludicrous to blame him for the heart attacks. Professor Goldmanbelieves that the “real question is whether we should be executing people when the[murders] were not an easily foreseeable consequence of the criminal act.” Locallaw enforcement officials, however, insist that criminal law must be flexibleenough to punish behavior that is not marked by obvious intent yet still poses athreat to society. “The fact of the matter is that these lives were directly lost as aresult of Rickie Fowler’s actions,” observed deputy district attorney Bullock.

Rickie Lee Fowler, right, was convicted of two counts of arson and fivecounts of murder for the damage he caused by starting the Old Fire inCalifornia’s San Bernardino Mountains.

AP Photo/The Sun, LaFonzo Carter

1. Do you think it is fair to hold Rickie Lee Fowler accountable for the fivedeaths that occurred during the Old Fire? Why or why not?

2. A few months after the Old Fire was finally extinguished, a huge mudslideoccurred in the burn area, flooding a church camp and killing fourteenpeople. The mudslide would not have taken place without the fire. Using thereasoning of Robert Bullock described above, make the argument that Fowlerwas responsible for those deaths as well. (He was never charged with anycrime in connection with the mudslide.)

3. Why is the issue of intent so crucial to criminal law? That is, why do wesometimes feel uncomfortable charging people with crimes they did not

Social Media & CJ

Criminal Law@CrimLaw provides aconstant stream of tweets concerningcriminal law topics and other crime newsand stories of interest. To access it, searchfor Criminal Law @crimlaw.

intend to commit?

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-1 The Development of American Criminal Law Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

4-1 The Development of American Criminal LawGiven the various functions of law, a single definition of this term is difficult to establish. Tothe Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 B.C.E.), law was a “pledge that citizens of a statewill do justice to one another.” Aristotle’s mentor, Plato (427–347 B.C.E.), saw the law asprimarily a form of social control. The British jurist Sir William Blackstone (1723–1780)described law as “a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state,commanding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong.” In the United States, juristOliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841–1935), contended that law was a set of rules that allowedone to predict how a court would resolve a particular dispute.

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-1a The Conception of Law Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

4-1a The Conception of Law

Although these definitions vary in their particulars, they are all based on the followinggeneral observation: law consists of enforceable rules governing relationships amongindividuals and between individuals and their society. Searching back into history,several sources for modern American law can be found in the rules laid out by ancientsocieties. One of the first known examples of written law was created during the reign ofHammurabi (1792–1750 B.C.E.), the sixth king of the ancient empire of Babylon. The Code ofHammurabi set out crimes and their punishments based on lex Talionis, or “an eye for aneye.” This concept of retribution is still important and will be discussed in Chapter 11.

Another ancient source of law can befound in the Mosaic Code of theIsraelites (1200 B.C.E.). According totradition, Moses—acting as anintermediary for God—presented thecode to the tribes of Israel. The twosides entered into a covenant, orcontract, in which the Israelites agreedto follow the code and God agreed toprotect them as the chosen people.Besides providing the basis for Judeo-Christian teachings, the Mosaic Code is also reflected in modern American law, as evidentin similar prohibitions against murder, theft, adultery, and perjury.

Learning Ojective 1

Modern law also owes a debt to the Code of Justinian, promulgated throughout the RomanEmpire in the sixth century. This code collected many of the laws that Western society hadproduced. It was influential in the development of the legal systems of the Europeancontinent. To some extent, it also influenced the common law of England.

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-1b English Common Law Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

4-1 nglih Common Law

The English system of law as it stands today was solidified during the reign of Henry II(1154–1189). Henry sent judges on a specific route throughout the country, known as acircuit. These circuit judges established a common law (The body of law developed fromcustom or judicial decisions in English and U.S. courts and not attributable to a legislature.)in England. In other words, they solidified a national law in which legal principles appliedto all citizens equally, no matter where they lived or what the local customs had dictated inthe past. When confusion about any particular law arose, the circuit judges could draw onEnglish traditions, or they could borrow from legal decisions made in other Europeancountries. Once a circuit judge made a ruling, other circuit judges faced with similar casesgenerally followed that ruling. Each interpretation became part of the law on the subjectand served as a legal precedent (A court decision that furnishes an example of authorityfor deciding subsequent cases involving similar facts.) —a decision that furnished anexample or authority for deciding subsequent cases involving similar legal principles orfacts. Over time, a body of general rules that prescribed social conduct and that wasapplied throughout the entire English realm was established, and subsequently it waspassed on to British colonies, including those in the New World that would eventuallybecome the thirteen original United States.

What is important about the formation of the common law is that it developed from thecustoms of the populace rather than simply the will of a ruler. As such, the common lawcame to reflect the social, religious, economic, and cultural values of the people. In anysociety that is, like our own, governed by the rule of law (The principle that the rules of alegal system apply equally to all persons, institutions, and entities—public or private—thatmake up a society.) , all persons and institutions, including the government itself, mustabide by the law. Furthermore, the law must be applied equally and enforced fairly, andmust not be altered arbitrarily by any individual or group, no matter how powerful.

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-1c Written Sources of American Criminal Law Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

4-1c Written Source of American Criminal Law

Originally, common law was uncodified.That is, it relied primarily on judgesfollowing precedents, and the body of

List the four written sources of Americancriminal law.

the law was not written down in anysingle place. Uncodified law, however,presents a number of drawbacks. Forone, if the law is not recorded in amanner or a place in which thecitizenry has access to it, then it is difficult, if not impossible, for people to know exactlywhich acts are legal and which acts are illegal. Furthermore, citizens have no way ofdetermining or understanding the procedures that must be followed to establish innocenceor guilt. Consequently, U.S. history has seen the development of several written sources ofAmerican criminal law, also known as “ substantive” criminal law. These sources include:

1. The U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of the various states.

2. Statutes, or laws, passed by Congress and by state legislatures, plus local ordinances.

3. Regulations, created by regulatory agencies, such as the federal Food and DrugAdministration.

4. Case law (court decisions).

We describe each of these important written sources of law. (For a preview, see Figure 4.1.)

Figure 4.1

Source of American Law

Contitutionallaw

Definition: The law a expreedin the U.S. Contitution and thevariou tate contitution.

xample: The Fifth Amendment tothe U.S. Contitution tate thatno peron hall “e compelled inan criminal cae to e a witne”againt himelf or herelf.

Statutor law Definition: Law or ordinancecreated federal, tate, and locallegilature and governing odie.

xample: Texa tate lawconider the theft of cattle,hore, or exotic livetock or fowla felon.

Adminitrativelaw

Definition: The rule, order, anddeciion of federal or tategovernment adminitrativeagencie.

xample: The federalnvironmental ProtectionAgenc’ rule criminalize the ueof lead-aed paint in a mannerthat caue health rik to thecommunit.

Cae law Definition: Judge-made law,including judicial interpretationof the other three ource of law.

xample: A federal judgeoverturn a Neraka tate lawmaking it a crime for exoffender to ue ocial networkingite on the ground that the

tatute violated the contitutionalright of freedom of peech.

Contitutional Law

The federal government and the states have separate written constitutions that set forth thegeneral organization and powers of, and the limits on, their respective governments.Constitutional law (Law based on the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of the variousstates.) is the law as expressed in these constitutions.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. As such, it is the basis of all law in theUnited States. Any law that violates the Constitution, as ultimately determined by theUnited States Supreme Court, will be declared unconstitutional and will not be enforced.The Tenth Amendment, which defines the powers and limitations of the federalgovernment, reserves to the states all powers not granted to the federal government. Underour system of federalism (see Chapter 1), each state also has its own constitution. Unlessthey conflict with the U.S. Constitution or a federal law, state constitutions are supremewithin their respective borders. (You will learn more about how constitutional law appliesto our criminal justice system throughout this textbook.)

George Washington, standing at right, presided over the constitutional conventionof 1787. The convention resulted in the U.S. Constitution, the source of a number oflaws that continue to form the basis of our criminal justice system today.

ettmann/Cori

Statutor Law

Statutes enacted by legislative bodies at any level of government make up another sourceof law, which is generally referred to as statutory law (The body of law enacted bylegislative bodies.) . Federal statutes are laws that are enacted by the U.S. Congress. Statestatutes are laws enacted by state legislatures, and statutory law also includes theordinances passed by cities and counties. A federal statute, of course, applies to all states. Astate statute, in contrast, applies only within that state’s borders. City or county ordinances(statutes) apply only to those jurisdictions where they are enacted.

The Model Penal Code Until the mid-twentieth century, state criminal statutes weredisorganized, inconsistent, and generally inadequate for modern society. In 1952, theAmerican Law Institute began to draft a uniform penal code in the hopes of solving thisproblem. The first Model Penal Code (A statutory text created by the American LawInstitute that sets forth general principles of criminal responsibility and defines specificoffenses.) was released ten years later and has had a broad effect on state statutes.Though not a law itself, the Code defines the general principles of criminal responsibility.The majority of states have adopted parts of the Model Penal Code into their criminalstatutes, and some states, such as New York, have adopted a large portion of the Code.

Legal Supremac It is important to keep in mind that there are essentially fifty-twodifferent criminal codes in this country—one for each state, the District of Columbia, andthe federal government. Originally, the federal criminal code was quite small. The U.S.Constitution mentions only three federal crimes: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. Today,according to a recent study, federal law includes about 4,500 offenses that carry criminalpenalties. Inevitably, these federal criminal statutes are bound to overlap or evencontradict state statutes. In such cases, thanks to the supremacy clause (A clause in theU.S. Constitution establishing that federal law is the “supreme law of the land” and shallprevail when in conflict with state constitutions or statutes.) of the Constitution, federal lawwill almost always prevail. Simply put, the supremacy clause holds that federal law is the“supreme law of the land.”

So, in 2012, U.S. district judge Donald Molloy ruled that federal law enforcement agentswere justified in arresting Montana residents for possessing medical marijuana, eventhough use of the drug for medicinal purposes is legal under the law of that state. As wediscussed in Chapter 2, federal drug law does not allow for medical marijuana use, and, asJudge Molloy stated, “we are all bound by federal law, like it or not.” Along the samelines, any statutory law—federal or state—that violates the Constitution will be overturned.In the late 1980s, for example, the United States Supreme Court ruled that any state lawsbanning the burning of the American flag were unconstitutional because they impinged onthe individual’s right to freedom of expression.

Smoking marijuana in this Denver park no longer carries a high risk of arrest bystate and local police. What method did Colorado voters use to legalize thepossession of small amounts of marijuana in 2012? What are some of the pros andcons of this method of creating new criminal laws?

AP Photo/rennan Linle

allot Initiative On a state and local level, voters can write or rewrite criminal statutesthrough a form of direct democracy known as the ballot initiative (A procedure in whichthe citizens of a state, by collecting enough signatures, can force a public vote on aproposed change to state law.) . In this process, a group of citizens draft a proposed law andthen gather a certain number of signatures to get the proposal on that year’s ballot. If amajority of the voters approve the measure, it is enacted into law. Currently, twenty-fourstates and the District of Columbia accept ballot initiatives, and these special elections haveplayed a crucial role in shaping criminal law in those jurisdictions.

In the mid-1990s, for example, California voters approved a “three-strikes” measure(discussed in Chapter 11) that increased penalties for thirdtime felons, transforming thestate’s criminal justice system in the process. In 2012, when Colorado and Washingtondecided to legalize the sale and possession of small amounts of marijuana, voters in thosestates approved this dramatic legal change through ballot initiatives. As we just noted,however, ballot initiatives do not supplant federal law, and marijuana sellers and users inthese states are still subject to arrest under federal drug laws.

Adminitrative Law

A third source of American criminal law consists of administrative law (The body of lawcreated by administrative agencies (in the form of rules, regulations, orders, and decisions)in order to carry out their duties and responsibilities.) —the rules, orders, and decisions ofregulatory agencies. A regulatory agency is a federal, state, or local government agencyestablished to perform a specific function. The Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration (OSHA), for example, oversees the safety and health of American workers.

Learning Ojective 2

Explain precedent and the importance of thedoctrine of stare decisis.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is concerned with protecting the naturalenvironment, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates food and drugsproduced in the United States.

Disregarding certain laws created byregulatory agencies can be a criminalviolation. Federal statutes, such as theClean Water Act, authorize a specificregulatory agency, such as the EPA, toenforce regulations to which criminalsanctions are attached. So, in 2012,following a criminal investigation ledby the EPA, a North Carolina hog farm was found guilty of discharging waste into theWaccamaw River watershed. As punishment, a federal judge sentenced the company to pay$1.5 million in fines and sent its president to prison for six months.

Cae Law

As is evident from the earlier discussion of the common law tradition, another basic sourceof American law consists of the rules of law announced in court decisions, or precedents.These rules of law include interpretations of constitutional provisions, of statutes enactedby legislatures, and of regulations created by administrative agencies. Today, this body oflaw is referred to variously as the common law, judge-made law, or case law (The rules oflaw announced in court decisions.) .

Case law is the basis for a doctrine called stare decisis ((pronounced steray dih-si-ses). Alegal doctrine under which judges are obligated to follow the precedents established underprior decisions.) (“to stand on decided cases”). Under this doctrine, judges are obligated tofollow the precedents established within their jurisdiction. For example, any decision of aparticular state’s highest court will control the outcome of future cases on that issuebrought before all the lower courts within that same state. Per the supremacy clause,discussed earlier, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving the U.S. Constitution arebinding on all courts, because the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

The doctrine of stare decisis does not require the U.S. Supreme Court always to follow itsown precedent, though the Court often does so. At times, a change in society’s values willmake an older ruling seem obsolete, at least in the eyes of the Supreme Court justices. In1986, for example, the Court upheld a state law that banned certain homosexual acts thatwere lawful when performed by a man and a woman. Seventeen years later, the Courtoverturned that decision, ruling that the government does not have the ability to treat oneclass of citizens differently from the rest of society when it comes to sexual practicesbetween consenting adults. The original case “was not correct when it was decided, and it isnot correct today,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Self Aement

Fill in the blanks and check your answers.

Learning Ojective 3

Explain the two basic functions of criminallaw.

The U.S. is the supreme law of this country. Any law that violates thisdocument will be declared by the United States Supreme Court. Lawsenacted by legislative bodies are known as , while the body of lawcreated by judicial decisions is known as law. The doctrine of reflects the tradition of relying on the of decided cases to settle newones.

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-2 The Purposes of Criminal Law Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

4-2 The Purpoe of Criminal LawWhy do societies need laws? Manycriminologists believe that criminal lawhas two basic functions: one relates tothe legal requirements of a society, andthe other pertains to the society’s needto maintain and promote social values.

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-2a Protect and Punish: The Legal Function of the Law Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

4-2a Protect and Punih: The Legal Function of the Law

The primary legal function of the law is to maintain social order by protecting citizens fromcriminal harm. This term refers to a variety of harms that can be generalized to fit into twocategories:

1. Harms to individual citizens’ physical safety and property, such as the harm causedby murder, theft, or arson.

2. Harms to society’s interests collectively, such as the harm caused by unsafe foods orconsumer products, a polluted environment, or poorly constructed buildings.

Because criminal law has the primary goal of protecting people from harm, new criminallaws are often passed in response to specific acts. So, following the fatal shooting of twentychildren and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14,2012, many states moved to tighten their gun laws.

One of the country’s most important counterterrorism laws was passed in response to the1995 truck bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,

which killed 168 people. The primary goal of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death PenaltyAct (AEDPA) is to hamper terrorist organizations by cutting off their funding. The lawprohibits persons from “knowingly providing material support or resources” to any groupthat the United States has designated a “foreign terrorist organization.” “Materialsupport” is defined very broadly in the legislation, covering funding, financial services,lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, communications equipment, transportation,and other physical assets. For an example of how the AEDPA has been used in the wakeof the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States, see the featureCountering Domestic Terrorism—Homegrown Support.

Countering Dometic Terrorim

Homegrown Support

About a decade ago, Tarek Mehanna traveled to the Middle Eastern country ofYemen wanting to train with the international terrorist group al Qaeda. Failing inthis endeavor, Mehanna, an American citizen born in Pittsburgh, returned homeand began to spread his extremist ideology via the Internet. He posted videos anddocuments that glorified suicide bombings and translated propaganda documentssuch as “39 Ways to Make and Participate in Jihad” into English. He supportedradical Islam on various Web sites and IM chat rooms. In one instance, he referredto the remains of mutilated American soldiers in Iraq as “Texas BBQ.”

After following his online trail for several years, federal agents arrested Mehannaand charged him with conspiracy to provide material support for al Qaeda andother terrorist groups. The government offered no proof that Mehanna planned orattempted to execute a terrorist act. Nor did it provide any evidence that he hadbeen in contact with any terrorist groups, including al Qaeda. Rather, in this case,Mehanna’s material support consisted of his efforts to motivate others to take uparms against the United States and its citizens. Mehanna was eventually convictedand, in April 2012, sentenced to spend 210 months in prison.

Andrew F. March of Yale University calls the Mehanna conviction “a frighteningand unnecessary attempt to expand the kinds of religious and political speech thatthe government can criminalize.” Proponents of this use of the material supportlaw counter that Mehanna clearly intended to cause violence, and that hispunishment would deter others from following his example. According to agovernment statement, “Mehanna’s actions are the kind that most individuals whoare radicalized in the United States are likely to contemplate replicating—travelingoverseas to get terrorism experience, and using the Internet to connect with andsupport other terrorists.”

For Critical Anali

One commentator compared Tarek Mehanna to a mob boss who says, “I think it’s agood idea if Johnny Boots gets whacked,” and then claims, “I was only expressingmy opinion,” after the murder is carried out. Do you agree with this comparison?Why or why not?

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-2b Maintain and Teach: The Social Function of the Law Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

4-2 Maintain and Teach: The Social Function of the Law

If criminal laws against acts that cause harm or injury to others are almost universallyaccepted, the same cannot be said for laws that criminalize “morally” wrongful activitiesthat may do no obvious, physical harm outside the families of those involved. Whycriminalize gambling or prostitution if the participants are consenting?

xpreing Pulic Moralit

The answer lies in the social function of criminal law. Many observers believe that themain purpose of criminal law is to reflect the values and norms of society, or at least ofthose segments of society that hold power. Legal scholar Henry Hart has stated that theonly justification for criminal law and punishment is “the judgment of communitycondemnation.”

Take, for example, the misdemeanor of bigamy, which occurs when someone knowinglymarries a second person without terminating her or his marriage to an original husband orwife. Apart from moral considerations, there would appear to be no victims in a bigamousrelationship, and indeed many societies have allowed and continue to allow bigamy toexist. In the American social tradition, however, as John L. Diamond of the University ofCalifornia’s Hastings College of the Law points out:

Marriage is an institution encouraged and supported by society. The structuralimportance of the integrity of the family and a monogamous marriage requiresunflinching enforcement of the criminal laws against bigamy. The immorality is notin choosing to do wrong, but in transgressing, even innocently, a fundamental socialboundary that lies at the core of social order.

Why does the supremacy clause make it unlikely that residents of states withlenient cockfighting laws will be able to escape the harsher punishments of federalanimal welfare laws that prohibit the practice?

Al ello/Gett Image

Of course, public morals are not uniform across the entire nation, and a state’s criminalcode often reflects the values of its residents. Illinois and the District of Columbia, forexample, are the only parts of the United States where people cannot, under anycircumstances, carry a concealed weapon in public. Sometimes, local values and federallaw will conflict with one another. In South Carolina, operating a cockfighting operation isa misdemeanor, and violators are often let off with a fine. Under federal animal welfarelaws, however, the same activity carries a potential five-year prison term. In 2012, fiveSouth Carolinians arrested by federal agents for cockfighting claimed—unsuccessfully—incourt that their convictions were illegitimate because the federal government has noauthority to regulate the “sport” within state borders.

Teaching Societal oundarie

Some scholars believe that criminal laws not only express the expectations of society, but“teach” them as well. Professor Lawrence M. Friedman of Stanford University thinks thatjust as parents teach children behavioral norms through punishment, criminal justice “‘teaches a lesson’ to the people it punishes, and to society at large.” Making burglary acrime, arresting burglars, putting them in jail—each step in the criminal justice processreinforces the idea that burglary is unacceptable and is deserving of punishment.

This teaching function can also be seen in traffic laws. There is nothing “natural” aboutmost traffic laws: Americans drive on the right side of the street, the British on the left side,with no obvious difference in the results. These laws, such as stopping at intersections,using headlights at night, and following speed limits, do lead to a more orderly flow of

traffic and fewer accidents—certainly socially desirable goals. The laws can also beupdated when needed. Over the past few years, several states have banned the use ofhandheld cell phones while driving because of the safety hazards associated with thatbehavior. Various forms of punishment for breaking traffic laws teach drivers the socialorder of the road.

Self Aement

Fill in the blanks and check your answers.

The function of the law is to protect citizens from harm byassuring their physical safety. The function of the law is to teachcitizens proper behavior and express public by codifying the normsand values of the community.

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-3 The Elements of a Crime Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

4-3 The lement of a CrimeIn fictional accounts of police work, the admission of guilt is often portrayed as the crucialelement of a criminal investigation. Although an admission is certainly useful to police andprosecutors, it alone cannot establish the innocence or guilt of a suspect. Criminal lawnormally requires that the corpus delicti (The body of circumstances that must exist for acriminal act to have occurred.) , a Latin phrase for “the body of the crime,” be provedbefore a person can be convicted of wrongdoing. Corpus delicti can be defined as “proofthat a specific crime has actually been committed by someone.” It consists of the basicelements of any crime, which include

1. actus reus, or a guilty act;

2. mens rea, or a guilty intent;

3. concurrence, or the coming together of the criminal act and the guilty mind;

4. a link between the act and the legal definition of the crime;

5. any attendant circumstances; and

6. the harm done, or result of the criminal act.

(See Mastering Concepts for an example showing some of the various elements of a crime.)

Camilo

Torre/ Shuttertock.com

Matering Concept

The lement of a Crime

Carl Robert Winchell walked into theSunTrust Bank in Volusia County,Florida, and placed a bag containing abox on a counter. Announcing that thebox held a bomb, he demanded to begiven an unspecified amount of cash.After receiving several thousanddollars in cash, Winchell fled, leavingthe box behind. A Volusia CountySheriff’s Office bomb squadsubsequently determined that the boxdid not in fact contain any explosive device. Winchell was eventually arrested andcharged with robbery.

Winchell’s actions were criminal because they satisfy the three elements of a crime:

1. Actus Reus: Winchell physically committed the crime of bank robbery.

2. Mens Rea: Winchell intended to commit the crime of bank robbery.

3. Concurrence: Winchell’s intent to rob the bank and his use of the false bombthreat came together to create a criminal act.

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-3a Criminal Act: Actus Reus Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

4-3a Criminal Act: Actu Reu

Suppose Mr. Smith walks into a police department and announces that he just killed hiswife. In and of itself, the confession is insufficient for conviction unless the police find Mrs.Smith’s corpse, for example, with a bullet in her brain and establish through evidence thatMr. Smith fired the gun. (This does not mean that an actual dead body has to be found inevery homicide case. Rather, it is the fact of the death that must be established in suchcases.)

Most crimes require an act of commission, meaning that a person must do something inorder to be accused of a crime. The prohibited act is referred to as the actus reus((pronounced ak-tus ray-uhs). A guilty (prohibited) act.) , or guilty act. Furthermore, the actof commission must be voluntary. For example, if Mr. Smith had an epileptic seizure whileholding a hunting rifle and accidentally shot his wife, he normally would not be heldcriminally liable for her death. (To better understand this principle, see the feature You Be

the Judge—A Voluntary Act?.)

You e the Judge

A Voluntar Act?

The Fact On a bright, sunny afternoon, Emil was driving on Delaware Avenue inBuffalo, New York. As he was making a turn, Emil suffered an epileptic seizure andlost control of his automobile. The car careened onto the sidewalk and struck agroup of six schoolgirls, killing four of them. Emil knew that he was subject toepileptic attacks that rendered him likely to lose consciousness.

The Law An “act” committed while one is unconscious is in reality not an act at all.It is merely a physical event or occurrence over which the defendant has no control—that is, such an act is involuntary. If the defendant voluntarily causes the loss ofconsciousness by, for example, using drugs or alcohol, however, then he or she willusually be held criminally responsible for any consequences.

Your Deciion Emil was charged in the deaths of the four girls. He asked the courtto dismiss the charges, as he was unconscious at the time of the accident andtherefore had not committed a voluntary act. In your opinion, is there an actus reusin this situation, or should the charges against Emil be dismissed?

To see how the appellate court in New York ruled in this case, go to Example 4.1 in Appendix B.

A Legal Dut

In some cases, an act of omission can be a crime, but only when a person has a legal duty toperform the omitted act. One such legal duty is assumed to exist based on a “specialrelationship” between two parties, such as a parent and child, adult children and their agedparents, and spouses. Those persons involved in contractual relationships with others,such as physicians and lifeguards, must also perform legal duties to avoid criminal penalty.Hawaii, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin have even passed “duty to aid”statutes requiring their citizens to report criminal conduct and help victims of suchconduct if possible. Another example of a criminal act of omission is failure to file afederal income tax return when required by law to do so.

A Plan or Attempt

The guilty act requirement is based on one of the premises of criminal law—that a personis punished for harm done to society. Planning to kill someone or to steal a car may bewrong, but the thoughts do no harm and are therefore not criminal until they aretranslated into action. Of course, a person can be punished for attempting murder orrobbery, but normally only if he or she took substantial steps toward the criminal objectiveand the prosecution can prove that the desire to commit the crime was present.Furthermore, the punishment for an attempt (The act of taking substantial steps towardcommitting a crime while having the ability and the intent to commit the crime, even if the

Learning Ojective 4

Delineate the elements required to establishmens rea (a guilty mental state).

crime never takes place.) normally is less severe than if the act had succeeded.

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-3b Mental State: Mens Rea Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

4-3 Mental State: Men Rea

A wrongful mental state—mens rea ((pronounced mehns rayuh). Mental state, or intent. Awrongful mental state is usually as necessary as a wrongful act to establish criminalliability.) —is usually as necessary as a wrongful act in determining guilt. The mental state,or requisite intent, required to establish guilt of a crime is indicated in the applicablestatute or law. For theft, the wrongful act is the taking of another person’s property, andthe required mental state involves both the awareness that the property belongs to anotherand the desire to deprive the owner of it.

The Categorie of Men Rea

A guilty mental state includes elementsof purpose, knowledge, negligence, andrecklessness. A defendant is said tohave purposefully committed a criminalact when he or she desires to engage incertain criminal conduct or to cause acertain criminal result. For a defendantto have knowingly committed an illegalact, he or she must be aware of the illegality, must believe that the illegality exists, or mustcorrectly suspect that the illegality exists but fail to do anything to dispel (or confirm) his orher belief.

Negligence Criminal negligence (A failure to exercise the standard of care that areasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances.) involves the mental state inwhich the defendant grossly deviates from the standard of care that a reasonable personwould use under the same circumstances. The defendant is accused of taking anunjustified, substantial, and foreseeable risk that resulted in harm. In 2012, for example, aSan Diego County, California, man named Richard Fox killed his girlfriend by accidentallyshooting her with a homemade cannon. The fireworks enthusiast obviously did not intendfor his girlfriend to die. At the same time, there is certainly a foreseeable risk inherent inoperating homemade cannons around other people. Eventually, Fox was arrested fornegligently discharging an explosive instead of murder.

Recklene A defendant who commits an act recklessly is more blameworthy than onewho is criminally negligent. The Model Penal Code defines criminal recklessness (The stateof being aware that a risk does or will exist and nevertheless acting in a way thatconsciously disregards this risk.) as “consciously disregard[ing] a substantial andunjustifiable risk.” So, in 2012, a Waldo County, Maine, jury found Luke Bryant guilty ofcriminal recklessness in the death of his friend Tyler Seaney. Bryant killed Seaney whilethe two were playing a game that involved pointing unloaded shotguns at each other and

pulling the trigger. Even though Bryant was unaware that the gun was actually loaded inthis instance, the risk of harm associated with this game was so great that the jury felt heshould have taken greater safety measures. (As you can see, the difference betweennegligence and recklessness is not always clear. One could certainly argue that RichardFox’s behavior in causing the death of his girlfriend, described above, rose to the level ofrecklessness.)

Degree of Crime

In the previous chapter, you learned that crimes are graded by degree. Generally speaking,the degree of a crime is a reflection of the seriousness of that crime, and is used todetermine the severity of any subsequent punishment.

With many crimes, degree is a function of the criminal act itself, as determined by statute.For example, most criminal codes consider a burglary that involves a nighttime forcedentry into a home to be a burglary in the first degree. If the same act takes place during theday and involves a nonresidential building, then it is burglary in the second degree. As youmight expect, burglary in the first degree carries a harsher penalty than burglary in thesecond degree.

Willful Murder With murder, the degree of the crime is, to a large extent, determined by themental state of the offender. Murder is generally defined as the willful killing of a humanbeing. It is important to emphasize the word willful, as it precludes homicides caused byaccident or negligence. A death that results from negligence or accident generally isconsidered a private wrong and therefore a matter for civil law.

In addition, criminal law punishes those who plan and intend to do harm more harshlythan it does those who act wrongfully because of strong emotions or other extremecircumstances. First degree murder—usually punishable by life in prison or the deathpenalty—occurs under two circumstances:

1. When the crime is premeditated, or contemplated beforehand by the offender,instead of being a spontaneous act of violence.

2. When the crime is deliberate, meaning that it was planned and decided on after aprocess of decision making. Deliberation does not require a lengthy planning process.A person can be found guilty of first degree murder even if she or he made thedecision to kill only seconds before committing the crime.

Second degree murder, usually punishable by a minimum of fifteen to twenty-five years inprison, occurs when no premeditation or deliberation was present, but the offender didhave malice aforethought toward the victim. In other words, the offender acted withwanton disregard for the consequences of his or her actions. (Malice means “wrongfulintention” or “the desire to do evil.”)

The difference between first and second degree murder is illustrated in a case involving aCalifornia man who beat a neighbor to death with a partially full brandy bottle. The crimetook place after Ricky McDonald, the victim, complained to Kazi Cooksey, the offender,about the noise coming from a late-night barbecue Cooksey and his friends were holding.

The jury could not find sufficient evidence that Cooksey’s actions were premeditated, buthe certainly acted with wanton disregard for his victim’s safety. Therefore, the juryconvicted Cooksey of second degree murder rather than first degree murder.

Tpe of Manlaughter A homicide committed without malice toward the victim is knownas manslaughter and is commonly punishable by up to fifteen years in prison. Voluntarymanslaughter (A homicide in which the intent to kill was present in the mind of theoffender, but malice was lacking.) occurs when the intent to kill may be present, but maliceis lacking. Voluntary manslaughter covers crimes of passion, in which the emotion of anargument between two friends may lead to a homicide. Voluntary manslaughter can alsooccur when the victim provoked the offender to act violently.

Involuntary manslaughter (A homicide in which the offender had no intent to kill her orhis victim.) covers incidents in which the offender’s acts may have been careless, but he orshe had no intent to kill. Several years ago, for example, Dr. Conrad Murray was convictedof involuntary manslaughter for his role in the death of pop star Michael Jackson. Murrayhad provided Jackson with a powerful anesthetic to help Jackson sleep, and the dosageproved fatal. Although Murray had certainly not intended for Jackson to die, he was heldcriminally responsible for the singer’s death and sentenced to four years in prison. AsFigure 4.2, the distinction between manslaughter and murder is not always clear, and restson intent.

Figure 4.2

Murder or Manlaughter?

As this case shows, different degrees of murder are determined by the mens rea ofthe offender.

On February 22, 2012, George Huguely V is led to court for jurydeliberations in Charlottesville, Virginia.

AP Photo/Steve Heler

The Crime: University of Virginia senior George Huguely, drunk, decides to pay avisit to his ex-girlfriend Yeardley Love’s off-campus apartment after midnight.When she refuses to answer the door, he kicks it down, grabs Love by the neck, andwrestles her to the floor. Several hours later, Love’s roommate finds her lying facedown on a pillow, in a pool of blood, dead.

The Prosecution: Prosecutors charge Huguely with first degree murder,punishable by life in prison. They argue that Huguely was enraged because Lovewas dating someone else, and the murder was premeditated and deliberate.

The Defense: Huguely’s defense lawyers claim that the crime was manslaughter,punishable by one to ten years in prison. They argue that their drunken client didnot intend to harm Love, much less kill her, and point out that Love died fromsuffocation well after Huguely left her apartment.

The Jury: The jurors found Huguely guilty of second degree murder, punishableby twenty-six years in prison. They found that although Huguely did not intend tokill Love, he did act with malice aforethought and caused her death.

Strict Liailit

For certain crimes, criminal law holds the defendant to be guilty even if intent to committhe offense is lacking. These acts are known as strict liability crimes (Certain crimes, such

Learning Ojective 5

Explain how the doctrine of strict liabilityapplies to criminal law.

as traffic violations, in which the defendant is guilty regardless of her or his state of mindat the time of the act.) and generally involve endangering the public welfare in some way.

Drug-control statutes, health and safety regulations, and traffic laws are all strictliability laws.

Protecting the Pulic To a certainextent, the concept of strict liability isinconsistent with the traditionalprinciples of criminal law, which holdthat mens rea is required for an act tobe criminal. The goal of strict liabilitylaws is to protect the public byeliminating the possibility thatwrongdoers could claim ignorance or mistake to absolve themselves of criminalresponsibility. Thus, a person caught dumping waste in a protected pond or driving 70miles per hour in a 55 miles-per-hour zone cannot plead a lack of intent in his or herdefense.

The principle is often applied in more serious situations as well. In December 2012, CodyTrailes was charged with first degree murder in connection with the heroin overdose deathof John Simmons, Jr. There was no evidence that Trailes intended for Simmons to die, oreven knew him. He did, however, supply Simmons with the heroin that led to the overdose.In most jurisdictions, Trailes would only be charged with a drug offense under thesecircumstances. Under New Jersey law, however, strict liability murder is imposed onanybody who helps another person obtain drugs that lead to a fatal overdose. As aresult, Trailes’s mens rea concerning Simmons’s death was irrelevant.

Protecting Minor One of the most controversial strict liability crimes is statutory rape (Astrict liability crime in which an adult engages in a sexual act with a minor.) , in which anadult engages in a sexual relationship with a minor. In most states, even if the minorconsents to the sexual act, the crime still exists because, being underage, he or she isconsidered incapable of making a rational decision on the matter. Therefore, statutoryrape has been committed even if the adult was unaware of the minor’s age or was misled tobelieve that the minor was older.

Accomplice Liailit

Under certain circumstances, a person can be charged with and convicted of a crime thathe or she did not actually commit. This occurs when the suspect has acted as an accomplice,helping another person commit the crime. Generally, to be found guilty as an accomplice, aperson must have the “dual intent”

1. to aid the person who committed the crime and

2. that such aid would lead to the commission of the crime.

As for the actus reus, the accomplice must have helped the primary actor in either aphysical sense ( for example, by providing the getaway car) or a psychological sense ( forexample, by encouraging her or him to commit the crime).

Photo

Courte of Diana Taor

Vozk/Stockphoto

In some states, a person can be convicted as an accomplice even without intent if the crimewas a “natural and probable consequence” of his or her actions. This principle has ledto a proliferation of felony-murder (An unlawful homicide that occurs during theattempted commission of a felony.) legislation. Felony-murder is a form of first degreemurder that applies when a person participates in any of a list of serious felonies thatresults in the death of a human being. Under felony-murder law, if two men rob a bank,and the first man intentionally kills a security guard, the second man can be convicted offirst degree murder as an accomplice to the bank robbery, even if he had no intent to hurtanyone. Along these same lines, if a security guard accidentally shoots and kills a customerduring a bank robbery, the bank robbers can be charged with first degree murder becausethey committed the underlying felony.

Career in CJ

Diana Taor: Crime Scene Photographer

A crime scene photographer’s job is invaluable tothose who are not present at the scene, yet need tobe able to observe the scene as accurately aspossible. I like the variety of my work. No twoscenes are exactly alike, and the conditions posedifferent challenges. I have photographed scenes incramped mobile homes, spacious homes, and out inthe woods where we had to hike because there wereno roads leading directly to the scene. I’ve beenreally hot and sweaty, fogging up the viewfinder.Then I have been so cold that I had to go sit in thevan to let my hands and the camera warm up because they had stopped working.

I do wonder what the people at the gas stationsthink when we come in there after we’re doneto clean up and get something to drink.Fingerprint powder gets everywhere—I havefound that nothing less than a shower reallygets rid of it completely. It is sometimes difficultto accept that there is nothing to prevent thecrime that has already happened, but I takepride in representing the victim when he or shecannot speak.

Social Media Career Tip Don’t forget about yourphone! Every week, call at least three peoplefrom your social media networks and talk withthem about your career interests. This kind ofpersonal contact can be far more useful than an exchange of posts.

Fat Fact

Crime Scene Photographer, Jo Decription:

Photograph physical evidence and crime scenes related to criminalinvestigations.

Also must be able to compose reports, testify in court, and understandbasic computer software and terminology.

What kind of Training i Required?

One year in law enforcement or commercial photography OR a degree orcertificate in photography and darkroom techniques OR somecombination of the above training or experience totaling one year.

Annual Salar Range?

$45,780 – $53,290

In the case that opened this chapter, authorities were able to charge Rickie Lee Fowlerunder California’s felony-murder law. Even though Fowler, at worst, intended to commitarson, that particular crime is a felony and the wildfire was found to have caused the fivefatal heart attacks. These kinds of laws have come under criticism because they punishindividuals for unintended act or acts committed by others. Nevertheless, the criminalcodes of more than thirty states include some form of the felony-murder rule.

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-3c Concurrence Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

4-3c Concurrence

According to criminal law, there must be concurrence between the guilty act and the guiltyintent. In other words, the guilty act and the guilty intent must occur together. Suppose,for example, that a woman intends to murder her husband with poison in order to collecthis life insurance. Every evening, this woman drives her husband home from work. On thenight she plans to poison him, however, she swerves to avoid a cat crossing the road andruns into a tree. She survives the accident, but her husband is killed. Even though herintent was realized, the incident would be considered an accidental death because she hadnot planned to kill him by driving the car into a tree.

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-3d Causation Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

4-3d Cauation

Criminal law also requires that the criminal act cause the harm suffered. In 1989, forexample, nineteen-year-old Mike Wells shook his two-year-old daughter, Christina, soviolently that she suffered brain damage. Soon after the incident, Wells served prison timefor aggravated child abuse. Seventeen years later, in 2006, Christina died. When a coronerruled that the cause of death was the earlier brain injury, Pasco County (Florida)authorities decided that, despite the passage of time, Wells was criminally responsible forhis daughter’s death. In 2010, Wells pleaded guilty to second degree murder and received afifteen-year prison sentence.

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-3e Attendant Circumstances Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

4-3e Attendant Circumtance

In certain crimes, attendant circumstances (The facts surrounding a criminal event thatmust be proved to convict the defendant of the underlying crime.) —also known asaccompanying circumstances— are relevant to the corpus delicti. Most states, for example,differentiate between simple assault and the more serious offense of aggravated assaultdepending on the attendant circumstance of whether the defendant used a weapon such asa gun or a knife while committing the crime. Criminal law also classifies degrees ofproperty crimes based on the attendant circumstance of the amount stolen. According tofederal statutes, the theft of less than $1,000 from a bank is a misdemeanor, while the theftof any amount over $1,000 is a felony. (To get a better understanding of the role ofattendant circumstances in criminal statutes, see Figure 4.3.)

Figure 4.3

Attendant Circumtance in Criminal Law

Most criminal statutes incorporate three of the elements we have discussed in thissection: the act (actus reus), the intent (mens rea), and attendant circumstances.This diagram of the federal false imprisonment statute should give you an idea ofhow these elements combine to create the totality of a crime.

Requirement of Proof and Intent

Attendant circumstances must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, just like any otherelement of a crime. Furthermore, the mens rea of the defendant regarding eachattendant circumstance must be proved as well. Consider the case of Christopher Jones,who was recently convicted of third degree rape in a South Dakota criminal court. Understate law, third degree rape occurs when the victim is incapable of giving consent to the sex

act due to severe intoxication.

A South Dakota appeals court overturned Jones’s conviction, ruling that prosecutors did notprove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of his victim’s drunken stateand, thus, her inability to give consent. The court added that if the state legislature wantedto remove such knowledge from the definition of the crime, it must say so in the statute,thus making awareness of the victim’s intoxication a strict liability (see the previousdiscussion) attendant circumstance.

Hate Crime Law

In most cases, a person’s motive for committing a crime is irrelevant—a court will not try toread the accused’s mind. Over the past few decades, however, nearly every state and thefederal government have passed hate crime laws that make the suspect’s motive animportant attendant circumstance to his or her criminal act. In general, hate crime laws (Astatute that provides for greater sanctions against those who commit crimes motivated bybias against an individual or a group based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexualorientation, disability, or age.) provide for greater sanctions against those who commitcrimes motivated by bias against a person based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexualorientation, disability, or age. The concept of a hate crime as measurable, definablecriminal behavior is a relatively new one and, as we will see in the Criminal Justice inAction feature of this chapter, has its detractors.

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-3f Harm Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

4-3f Harm

For most crimes to occur, some harm must have been done to a person or to property. Acertain number of crimes are actually categorized depending on the harm done to thevictim, regardless of the intent behind the criminal act. Take two offenses, both of whichinvolve one person hitting another in the back of the head with a tire iron. In the firstinstance, the victim dies, and the offender is charged with murder. In the second, the victimis only knocked unconscious, and the offender is charged with battery. Because the harm inthe second instance was less severe, so was the crime with which the offender was charged,even though the act was exactly the same. Furthermore, most states have different degreesof battery depending on the extent of the injuries suffered by the victim.

Many acts are deemed criminal if they could do harm that the laws try to prevent. Suchacts are called inchoate offenses (Conduct deemed criminal without actual harm beingdone, provided that the harm that would have occurred is one the law tries to prevent.) .They exist when only an attempt at a criminal act was made. If Jenkins solicits Peterson tomurder Jenkins’s business partner, this is an inchoate offense on the part of Jenkins, eventhough Peterson fails to carry out the act. Threats and conspiracies also fall into thecategory of inchoate offenses. In 2012, a Cedar Lake, Indiana, man was arrested on chargesof felony intimidation for threatening to set his wife on fire and “kill as many people aspossible” at the school where she worked. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a

person could be convicted of criminal conspiracy (A plot by two or more people to carryout an illegal or harmful act.) even though police intervention made the completion of theillegal plan impossible.

Self Aement

Fill in the blanks and check your answers.

Proof that a crime has been committed is established through the elements ofthe crime, which include the , or the physical act of the crime; the

, or the intent to commit the crime; and the of the guilty act andthe guilty intent. With crimes, the law determines that a defendant isguilty even if he or she lacked the to perform a criminal act. circumstances are those circumstances that accompany the main criminal actin a criminal code, and they must be proved , just like any otherelements of a crime.

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-4 Defenses under Criminal Law Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

4-4 Defene under Criminal LawAccording to prosecutors, Derrick Francois fatally shot Chandrick Harris in the head as partof a family feud that had gotten out of control in Gretna, Louisiana. On January 7, 2013,however, the day before Francois’s murder trial was to begin, his defense attorneyspresented pay stubs backing Francois’s claim that he was working in Pascagoula,Mississippi, at the time of Harris’s killing in Gretna. That is, they raised an alibi (A defenseoffered by a person accused of a crime showing that she or he was elsewhere at the timethe crime took place.) defense, saying that their client could not possibly have committedthis murder because he was somewhere else when it occurred. Along with presenting analibi, defendants can raise a number of other defenses for wrongdoing in our criminalcourts. These defenses generally rely on one of two arguments:

1. the defendant is not responsible for the crime, or

2. the defendant was justified in committing the crime.

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-4a Criminal Responsibility and the Law Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

Learning Ojective 6

List and briefly define the most importantexcuse defenses for crimes.

4-4a Criminal Reponiilit and the Law

The idea of responsibility plays asignificant role in criminal law. Incertain circumstances, the lawrecognizes that even though an act isinherently criminal, society will notpunish the actor because he or she doesnot have the requisite mental condition.In other words, the law “excuses” theperson for his or her behavior. Insanity, intoxication, and mistake are the most importantexcuse defenses today, but we start our discussion of the subject with one of the first suchdefenses recognized by American law: infancy.

Infanc

Under the earliest state criminal codes of the United States, children younger than sevenyears of age could never be held legally accountable for crimes. Those between seven andfourteen years old were presumed to lack the capacity for criminal behavior, while anyoneover the age of fourteen was tried as an adult. Thus, early American criminal lawrecognized infancy (A condition that, under early American law, excused youngwrongdoers of criminal behavior because presumably they could not understand theconsequences of their actions.) as a defense in which the accused’s wrongdoing is excusedbecause he or she is too young to fully understand the consequences of his or her actions.

With the creation of the juvenile justice system in the early 1900s, the infancy defensebecame redundant, as youthful delinquents were automatically treated differently fromadult offenders. Today, most states either designate an age (eighteen or under) underwhich wrongdoers are sent to juvenile court or allow prosecutors to decide whether aminor will be charged as an adult on a case-by-case basis. We will explore the concept ofinfancy as it applies to the modern American juvenile justice system in much greater detailin Chapter 15.

Inanit

After Leo Kwaska killed and decapitated Shirley Meeks, his downstairs neighbor, he toldpsychiatrists that Meeks was a demon and that he needed to kill her to avert the end of theworld. In 2012, a Jackson County, Mississippi, judge found that Kwaska’s severe mentalillness kept him from knowing that his actions were wrong. As a result, Kwaska was sent toa psychiatric hospital rather than prison. Thus, insanity (A defense for criminal liabilitythat asserts a lack of criminal responsibility due to mental instability) may be a defense to acriminal charge when the defendant’s state of mind is such that she or he cannot claimlegal responsibility for her or his actions.

Meauring Sanity The general principle of the insanity defense is that a person is excusedfor his or her criminal wrongdoing if, as a result of a mental disease or defect, he or she

Does not perceive the physical nature or consequences of his or her conduct;

Does not know that his or her conduct is wrong or criminal; or

Is not sufficiently able to control his or her conduct so as to be held accountable for it.

Although criminal law has traditionally accepted the idea that an insane person cannot beheld responsible for criminal acts, society has long debated what standards should be usedto measure sanity for the purposes of a criminal trial. This lack of consensus is reflected inthe diverse tests employed by different American jurisdictions to determine insanity. Thetests include the following:

1. The M’Naghten rule. Derived from an 1843 British murder case, the M’Naghten rule(A common law test of criminal responsibility, derived from M’Naghten’s Case in1843, that relies on the defendant’s inability to distinguish right from wrong.) statesthat a person is legally insane and therefore not criminally responsible if, at the timeof the offense, he or she was not able to distinguish between right and wrong. AsFigure 4.4, half of the states still use a version of the M’Naghten rule. One state, NewHampshire, uses a slightly different version of this rule called the “product test.”Under this standard, a defendant is not guilty if the unlawful act was the product of amental disease or defect.

Figure 4.4

Inanit Defene

2. The ALI/MPC test. In the early 1960s, the American Law Institute (ALI) included aninsanity standard in its Model Penal Code (MPC), discussed earlier in the chapter.Also known as the substantial-capacity test (A test for the insanity defense thatstates that a person is not responsible for criminal behavior when he or she “lackssubstantial capacity” to understand that the behavior is wrong or to know how tobehave properly.) , the ALI/MPC test requires that the defendant lack “substantialcapacity” to either “appreciate the wrongfulness” of his or her conduct or to conformthat conduct “to the requirements of the law.”

3. The irresistible-impulse test. Under the irresistible-impulse test (A test for theinsanity defense under which a defendant who knew his or her action was wrongmay still be found insane if he or she was unable, as a result of a mental deficiency, tocontrol the urge to complete the act.) , a person may be found insane even if he or shewas aware that a criminal act was “wrong,” provided that some “irresistible impulse”resulting from a mental deficiency drove him or her to commit the crime.

The ALI/MPC test is considered the easiest standard of the three for a defendant to meet

Learning Ojective 7

Discuss a common misperceptionconcerning the insaniy defense in the UnitedStates.

because the defendant needs only to show a lack of “substantial capacity” to be releasedfrom criminal responsibility. Defense attorneys generally consider it more difficult to provethat the defendant could not distinguish “right” from “wrong” or that he or she was drivenby an irresistible impulse.

Determining Competenc Whatever the standard, the insanity defense is rarely enteredand is even less likely to result in an acquittal, as it is difficult to prove. (See the featureMyth versus Reality—Are Too Many Criminals Found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity?.)Psychiatry is far more commonly used in the courtroom to determine the “competency” ofa defendant to stand trial. If a judge believes that the defendant is unable to understand thenature of the proceedings or to assist in his or her own defense, the trial will not take place.

Mth v Realit

Are Too Man Criminal Found Not Guilt Reaon of Inanit?

To many Americans, it seemslikely that any person whocommits a gruesome murder orany other sort of violent crimehas psychological problems. Thequestion, then, is, how do webalance the need to punish such aperson with the possibility that heor she may be seriously ill?

The Mth

The American system of criminal justice answers this question by stating that aperson may not be tried for an offense if that person cannot be held legallyresponsible for her or his actions. Because of the publicity surrounding the insanitydefense, many people are under the impression that it is a major loophole in oursystem, allowing criminals to be “let off” no matter how heinous their crimes.

The Realit

In fact, the insanity defense is raised in only about 1 percent of felony trials, and itis successful only one out of every four times it is raised. The reason: it is extremelydifficult to prove insanity under the law. For example, Andre Thomas cut out thehearts of his wife, their young son, and her thirteen-month-old daughter. Before hismurder trial, Thomas pulled his right eye out of its socket. (Several years later,while on death row, he ripped out the other eye and apparently ate it.) Nonetheless,prosecutors were able to convince a Texas jury that Brown understood thedifference between right and wrong at the time of the murders, and an appealscourt upheld the conviction. Thomas is “clearly ‘crazy,’” said one of the appellatejudges who heard his case, “but he is also ‘sane’ under Texas law.”

Even if Thomas had succeeded with the insanity defense, he would not have been“let off” in the sense that he would have been set free. Many defendants found not

guilty by reason of insanity spend more time in mental hospitals than criminalswho are convicted of similar acts spend in prison.

For Critical Anali

What do the relatively limited use and success rate of the insanity defense indicateabout the impact of public opinion on criminal law?

When competency hearings (A court proceeding to determine whether the defendant ismentally well enough to understand the charges filed against him or her and cooperatewith a lawyer in presenting a defense.) (which may also take place after the initial arrestand before sentencing) reveal that the defendant is in fact incompetent, criminalproceedings come to a halt. For example, in January 2013, an Alameda County (California)judge ruled that because One L. Goh suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, he was not fitto stand trial. Goh had been charged with seven counts of murder resulting from a shootingrampage on the campus of Oikos University in Oakland. As a result of the judge’s decision,Goh would receive psychiatric treatment to restore his competency. When this goal wasachieved, the criminal proceedings would continue.

Guilt ut Mentall III Public backlash against the insanity defense caused six statelegislatures to pass “guilty but mentally ill” statutes. Under these laws, a defendant is guiltybut mentally ill if

at the time of the commission of the act constituting the offense, he [or she] had thecapacity to distinguish right from wrong … but because of mental disease or defect he[or she] lacked sufficient capacity to conform his [or her] conduct to therequirements of the law.

In other words, the laws allow a jury to determine that a defendant is “mentally ill,” thoughnot insane, and therefore criminally responsible for her or his actions. Defendants foundguilty but mentally ill generally spend the early years of their sentences in a psychiatrichospital and the rest of the time in prison, or they receive treatment while in prison.

Intoxication

The law recognizes two types of intoxication (A defense for criminal liability in which thedefendant claims that the taking of intoxicants rendered him or her unable to form therequisite intent to commit a criminal act.) , whether from drugs or from alcohol: voluntaryand involuntary. Involuntary intoxication occurs when a person is physically forced toingest or is injected with an intoxicating substance, or is unaware that a substance containsdrugs or alcohol. Involuntary intoxication is a viable defense to a crime if the substanceleaves the person unable to form the mental state necessary to understand that the actcommitted while under the influence was wrong. In Colorado, for example, the murderconviction of a man who shot a neighbor was overturned on the basis that the jury in theinitial trial was not informed of the possibility of involuntary intoxication. At the time ofthe crime, the man had been taking a prescription decongestant that contained

phenylpropanolamine, which has been known to cause psychotic episodes.

Voluntary drug or alcohol intoxication is also used to excuse a defendant’s actions, thoughit is not a defense in itself. Rather, it is used when the defense attorney wants to show thatthe defendant was so intoxicated that mens rea was negated. In other words, the defendantcould not possibly have had the state of mind that a crime requires. Many courts arereluctant to allow voluntary intoxication arguments to be presented to juries, however.After all, the defendant, by definition, voluntarily chose to enter an intoxicated state.

According to prosecutors, seventeen-year-old Tyler Hadley beat his parents todeath with a hammer in Port St. Lucie, Florida. Hadley claims that he took threepills of the psychoactive drug ecstasy before the homicides. How could Hadley’sdefense attorneys use this information in defending their client against first degreemurder charges?

(AP Photo/St. Lucie Count Sheriff’ office

Twelve states have eliminated voluntary intoxication as a possible defense, a step that hasbeen criticized by many legal scholars but was upheld by the United States Supreme Courtin Montana v. Egelhoff (1996). The case concerned a double murder committed byJames Allen Egelhoff, who was extremely drunk at the time of the crime. Egelhoff wasconvicted on two counts of deliberate homicide, which is defined by Montana law as“knowingly” or “purposefully” causing the death of another human being. Egelhoffappealed his conviction, arguing that the state statute prohibiting evidence of voluntaryintoxication kept his attorneys from showing the jury that he was too inebriated to“knowingly” or “purposefully” commit the murders. The Court allowed Egelhoff ’s

Learning Ojective 8

Describe the four most importantjustification criminal defenses.

conviction, ruling that states were constitutionally within their rights to abolish thevoluntary intoxication defense.

Mitake

Everyone has heard the saying, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Ordinarily, ignoranceof the law or a mistaken idea about what the law requires is not a valid defense. Forexample, several years ago retired science teacher Eddie Leroy Anderson and his son dugfor arrowheads near their favorite campground site in Idaho, unaware that the land was afederally protected archaeological site. Facing two years in prison for this mistake, theypleaded guilty and were given a year’s probation and a $1,500 fine each. “Folks need to payattention to where they are,” said U.S. attorney Wendy Olson.

Mitake of Law As the above example suggests, strict liability crimes specifically precludethe mistake of law defense, because the offender’s intent is irrelevant. For practical reasons,the mistake of law defense is rarely allowed under any circumstances. If “I didn’t know”was a valid defense, the courts would be clogged with defendants claiming ignorance of allaspects of criminal law. In some rare instances, however, people who claim that theyhonestly did not know that they were breaking a law may have a valid defense if

1. the law was not published or reasonably known to the public or

2. the person relied on an official statement of the law that was erroneous.

Mitake of Fact A mistake of fact, as opposed to a mistake of law, operates as a defense if itnegates the mental state necessary to commit a crime. If, for example, Oliver mistakenlywalks off with Julie’s briefcase because he thinks it is his, there is no theft. Theft requiresknowledge that the property belongs to another. The mistake- of-fact defense has provedvery controversial in rape and sexual assault cases, in which the accused claims a mistakenbelief that the sex was consensual, while the victim insists that he or she was coerced.

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-4b Justification Criminal Defenses and the Law Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

4-4 Jutification Criminal Defene and the Law

In certain instances, a defendant willaccept responsibility for committing anillegal act, but contend that—given thecircumstances—the act was justified. Inother words, even though the guilty actand the guilty intent are present, theparticulars of the case relieve thedefendant of criminal liability. In 2011,for example, there were 653 “justified” killings of those who were in the process ofcommitting a felony: 393 were killed by law enforcement officers and 260 by privatecitizens. Four of the most important justification defenses are duress, self-defense,

necessity, and entrapment.

Dure

Duress (Unlawful pressure brought to bear on a person, causing the person to perform anact that he or she would not otherwise perform.) exists when the wrongful threat of oneperson induces another person to perform an act that she or he would otherwise notperform. In such a situation, duress is said to negate the mens rea necessary to commit acrime. For duress to qualify as a defense, the following requirements must be met:

1. The threat must be of serious bodily harm or death.

2. The harm threatened must be greater than the harm caused by the crime.

3. The threat must be immediate and inescapable.

4. The defendant must have become involved in the situation through no fault of his orher own.

Note that some scholars consider duress to be an excuse defense, because the threat ofbodily harm negates any guilty intent on the part of the defendant.

When ruling on the duress defense, courts often examine whether the defendant had theopportunity to avoid the threat in question. Two narcotics cases illustrate this point. In thefirst, the defendant claimed that an associate threatened to kill him and his wife unless heparticipated in a marijuana deal. Although this contention was proved true during thecourse of the trial, the court rejected the duress defense because the defendant made noapparent effort to escape, nor did he report his dilemma to the police. In sum, the drug dealwas avoidable—the defendant could have made an effort to extricate himself, but he didnot, thereby surrendering the protection of the duress defense.

In the second case, a taxi driver in Bogotá, Colombia, was ordered by a passenger toswallow cocaine-filled balloons and take them to the United States. The taxi driver waswarned that if he refused, his wife and three-year-old daughter would be killed. After aseries of similar threats, the taxi driver agreed to transport the drugs. On arriving atcustoms at the Los Angeles airport, the defendant consented to have his stomach X-rayed,which led to discovery of the contraband and his arrest. During his trial, the defendant toldthe court that he was afraid to notify the police in Colombia because he believed them to becorrupt. The court accepted his duress defense, on the grounds that it met the fourrequirements listed above and the defendant had notified American authorities whengiven the opportunity to do so.

Jutifiale Ue of Force—Self-Defene

A person who believes he or she is in danger of being harmed by another is justified indefending himself or herself with the use of force, and any criminal act committed in suchcircumstances can be justified as self-defense (The legally recognized privilege to protectone’s self or property from injury by another.) . Other situations that also justify the use offorce include the defense of another person, the defense of one’s dwelling or other

property, and the prevention of a crime. In all these situations, it is important to distinguishbetween deadly and non-deadly force. Deadly force is likely to result in death or seriousbodily harm.

The Amount of Force Generally speaking, people can use the amount of nondeadly forcethat seems necessary to protect themselves, their dwellings, or other property or to preventthe commission of a crime. Deadly force can be used in self-defense if there is a reasonablebelief that imminent death or bodily harm will otherwise result, if the attacker is usingunlawful force (an example of lawful force is that exerted by a police officer), if thedefender has not initiated or provoked the attack, and if there is no other possible responseor alternative way out of the life-threatening situation.

Deadly force normally can be used to defend a dwelling only if the unlawful entry is violentand the person believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or greatbodily harm. In some jurisdictions, it is also a viable defense if the person believes deadlyforce is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony (such as arson) in the dwelling.Authorities will often take an expansive view of lawful deadly force when it is used toprotect another person, particularly a loved one. So, in 2012, a Shiner, Texas, man was notcharged with any crime after he beat to death a man who was in the process of sexuallymolesting the assailant’s five-year-old daughter.

The Dut to Retreat When a person is outside the home or in a public space, the rules forself-defense change somewhat. Until relatively recently, almost all jurisdictions requiredsomeone who is attacked under these circumstances to “retreat to the wall” before fightingback. In other words, under this duty to retreat (The requirement that a person claimingself-defense prove that she or he first took reasonable steps to avoid the conflict thatresulted in the use of deadly force.) one who is being assaulted may not resort to deadlyforce if she or he has a reasonable opportunity to “run away” and thus avoid the conflict.Only when this person has run into a “wall,” literally or otherwise, may deadly force beused in self-defense.

Recently, however, several states have changed their laws to eliminate this duty to retreat.For example, a Florida law did away with the duty to retreat outside the home, stating thatcitizens have “the right to stand [their] ground and meet force with force, including deadlyforce,” if they “reasonably” fear for their safety. The Florida law also allows a person touse deadly force against someone who unlawfully intrudes into her or his house (orvehicle), even if that person does not fear for her or his safety.

The George Zimmerman Cae At least twentyfive states have broadened their self-defenselaws to include a version of Florida’s “stand your ground” statute. These laws became atopic of much debate when George Zimmerman shot and killed unarmed seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, on February 26, 2012. Zimmerman told police thathe had encountered Martin during his rounds as a neighborhood watchman, and that hehad pulled the trigger only after being attacked by the younger man. Initially, Floridaauthorities accepted this version of events and did not arrest Zimmerman, who appeared tohave acted within the limits of the state’s “stand your ground” law.

George Zimmerman, shown here in a Seminole County (Florida) courthouse,

insisted that his voice could be heard screaming for help on a 911 recording of hisdeadly encounter with Trayvon Martin. How might this piece of evidence havehelped Zimmerman’s self-defense claims?

Stephen M. Dowell-Pool/Gett Image

This decision was met with a national outcry. Much of the anger focused on aspects of theincident that seemed to indicate racial bias. (Zimmerman is Hispanic, while Martin wasAfrican American.) Furthermore, critics worry that the proliferation of “stand yourground” laws has created a “nation where disputes are settled by guns instead of gavels,and where suspects are shot by civilians instead of arrested by police.” A specialprosecutor eventually charged Zimmerman with second degree murder. In July 2013, a juryacquitted Zimmerman. The jurors, apparently influenced by photos of the defendant’sbloodied head taken by police after the incident, agreed that he could have actedreasonably in defending himself against great bodily harm or death.

Neceit

The necessity (A defense against criminal liability in which the defendant asserts thatcircumstances required her or him to commit an illegal act.) defense requires courts toweigh the harm caused by the crime actually committed against the harm that would havebeen caused by the criminal act avoided. If the avoided harm is greater than the committedharm, then the defense has a chance of succeeding. Several years ago, for example, a SanFrancisco jury acquitted a defendant of illegally carrying a concealed weapon because hewas avoiding the “greater evil” of getting shot himself. The defendant had testified that heneeded the gun for protection while entering a high-crime neighborhood to buy baby foodand diapers for his crying niece. Murder is the one crime for which the necessity

defense is not applicable under any circumstances.

ntrapment

Entrapment (A defense in which the defendant claims that he or she was induced by apublic official—usually an undercover agent or police officer— to commit a crime that heor she would otherwise not have committed.) is a justification defense that criminal lawallows when a police officer or government agent deceives a defendant into wrongdoing.Although law enforcement agents can legitimately use various forms of subterfuge—suchas informants or undercover agents—to gain information or apprehend a suspect in acriminal act, the law places limits on these strategies. Police cannot persuade an innocentperson to commit a crime, nor can they coerce a suspect into doing so, even if they arecertain she or he is a criminal.

The guidelines for determining entrapment were established in the 1932 case of Sorrells v.United States. The case, which took place during Prohibition, when the sale of alcoholicbeverages was illegal, involved a federal law enforcement agent who repeatedly urged thedefendant to sell him bootleg whiskey. The defendant initially rejected the agent’sovertures, stating that he “did not fool with whiskey.” Eventually, however, he sold theagent a half-gallon of the substance and was summarily convicted of violating the law. TheUnited States Supreme Court held that the agent had improperly induced the defendant tobreak the law and reversed his conviction.

This case set the precedent for focusing on the defendant’s outlook in entrapment cases. Inother words, the Court decided that entrapment occurs if a defendant who is notpredisposed to commit the crime is convinced to do so by an agent of the government.(For an overview of justification and excuse defenses, see Figure 4.5.)

Figure 4.5

Jutification and xcue Defene

Justification Defenses: Based on a defendant admitting that he or she committedthe particular criminal act, but asserting that, under the circumstances, thecriminal act was justified.

The defendant mut prove that: xample

DURSS She or he performed thecriminal act under the ue orthreat of ue of unlawful forceagaint her or hi peron that areaonale peron would haveeen unale to reit.

A mother ait her ofriend incommitting a urglar after hethreaten to kill her children ifhe refue to do o.

SLF-DFNS He or he acted in a manner todefend himelf or herelf,other, or propert, or to

A huand awake to find hiwife tanding over him, pointinga hotgun at hi chet. In the

prevent the commiion of acrime.

enuing truggle, the firearmgoe off, killing the wife.

NCSSITY The criminal act he or hecommitted wa necear inorder to avoid a harm to himelfor herelf or another that wagreater than the harm caued the act itelf.

Four people phicall remove afriend from her reidence on thepropert of a religiou cult,arguing that the crime ofkidnapping wa jutified in orderto remove the victim from thedamaging influence of cultleader.

NTRAPMNT She or he wa encouraged agent of the tate to engage ina criminal act he or he wouldnot have engaged in otherwie.

The owner of a oat marinaagree to allow three federaldrug enforcement agent,poing a drug dealer, to ue hidock to unload hipment ofmarijuana from Colomia.

Excuse Defenses: Based on a defendant admitting that she or he committed thecriminal act, but asserting that she or he cannot be held criminally responsible forthe act due to lack of criminal intent.

The defendant mut prove that: xample

INFANCY ecaue he or he wa under atatutoril determined age, heor he did not have the maturitto make the deciion necearto commit a criminal act.

A thirteen-ear-old take ahandgun from hi ackpack atchool and egin hooting atfellow tudent, killing three. (Inuch cae, the offender i oftenproceed the juvenile juticetem rather than the criminaljutice tem.)

INSANITY At the time of the criminal act,he or he did not have thenecear mental capacit to eheld reponile for hi or heraction.

A man with a hitor of mentalillne puhe a woman in frontof an oncoming uwa train,which kill her intantl.

INTOXICATION She or he had diminihed controlover her or hi action due tothe influence of alcohol ordrug.

A woman who had een drinkingmalt liquor and vodka ta herofriend to death after adometic argument. She claimto have een o drunk a to notrememer the incident.

Learning Ojective 9

Distinguish between substantive andprocedural criminal law.

MISTAK He or he did not know that hior her action violated a law(thi defene i ver rarel evenattempted), or that he or heviolated the law elieving arelevant fact to e true when, infact, it wa not.

A woman, thinking that herdivorce in another tate haeen finalized when it ha not,marrie for a econd time,there committing igam.

Self Aement

Fill in the blanks and check your answers.

Criminal law recognizes that a defendant may not be for a criminalact if her or his mental state was impaired, by either —thepsychological inability to separate right from wrong—or due to drugsor alcohol. Defendants may also claim that they were in committingan act either because they were under to perform an act that theywould not otherwise have performed or because they were acting in to protect themselves from serious bodily harm. occurs when agovernment agent deceives a defendant into committing a crime.

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-5 Procedural Safeguards Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

4-5 Procedural SafeguardTo this point, we have focused onsubstantive criminal law (Law thatdefines the rights and duties ofindividuals with respect to oneanother.) , which defines the acts thatthe government will punish. We willnow turn our attention to proceduralcriminal law (Rules that define themanner in which the rights and duties of individuals may be enforced.) . (The section thatfollows will provide only a short overview of criminal procedure. In later chapters, manyother constitutional issues will be examined in more detail.) Criminal law brings the forceof the state, with all its resources, to bear against the individual.

Criminal procedures, drawn from the ideals stated in the Bill of Rights, are designed toprotect the constitutional rights of individuals and to prevent the arbitrary use of power bythe government.

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-5a The Bill of Rights Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

4-5a The ill of Right

For various reasons, proposals related to the rights of individuals were rejected during theframing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. In fact, the original constitution contained onlythree provisions that referred to criminal procedure. Article I, Section 9, Clause 2, statesthat the “Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended.” As will bediscussed in Chapter 10, a writ of habeas corpus is an order that requires jailers to bring aperson before a court or judge and explain why the person is being held in prison. Article I,Section 9, Clause 3, holds that no “Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Abill of attainder is a legislative act that targets a particular person or group for punishmentwithout a trial, while an ex post facto law operates retroactively, making an event or actionillegal though it took place before the law was passed. Finally, Article III, Section 2, Clause3, maintains that the “Trial of all Crimes” will be by jury and “such Trial shall be held in theState where the said crimes shall have been committed.”

Amending the Contitution

The need for a written declaration of rights of individuals eventually caused the firstCongress to draft twelve amendments to the Constitution and submit them for approval bythe states. Ten of these amendments, commonly known as the Bill of Rights (The first tenamendments to the U.S. Constitution.) , were adopted in 1791. Since then, seventeen moreamendments have been added.

The Bill of Rights, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, has served as thebasis for procedural safeguards of the accused in this country. These safeguards include thefollowing:

1. The Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

2. The Fourth Amendment requirement that no warrants for a search or an arrest canbe issued without probable cause.

3. The Fifth Amendment requirement that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, orproperty without “due process” of law.

4. The Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy (trying someone twice forthe same criminal offense).

5. The Fifth Amendment guarantee that no person can be required to be a witness

against (incriminate) himself or herself.

6. The Sixth Amendment guarantees of a speedy trial, a trial by jury, a public trial, theright to confront witnesses, and the right to a lawyer at various stages of criminalproceedings.

7. The Eighth Amendment prohibitions against excessive bails and fines and cruel andunusual punishments. (For the full text of the Bill of Rights, see Appendix A.)

Why do most Americans accept certain precautions taken by the federalgovernment—such as full body scans at airports—that restrict our individualfreedom or compromise our privacy?

John Moore/Gett Image

xpanding the Contitution

The Bill of Rights initially offered citizens protection only against the federal government.

Learning Ojective 10

Explain the importance of the due processclause in the criminal justice system.

Over the years, however, the procedural safeguards of most of the provisions of the Bill ofRights have been applied to the actions of state governments through the FourteenthAmendment. Furthermore, the states, under certain circumstances, have the option togrant even more protections than are required by the federal Constitution. As theseprotections are crucial to criminal justice procedures in the United States, they will beafforded much more attention in Chapter 7, with regard to police action, and in Chapter 10,with regard to the criminal trial.

In 2012, several members of Congress introduced a proposed Victims’ Rights Amendment tothe U.S. Constitution. This proposed amendment would contain many of the samerights that are present in state victims’ rights laws and the federal Victims’ Rights Act, asdiscussed in Chapter 3. The difference, claim its supporters, is that such an amendmentwould give some “teeth” to protections that are now, as you also learned in Chapter 3,mostly discretionary. Victims’ rights supporters have been trying, without success, toamend the Constitution in favor of victims since 1996, showing just how importantconstitutional protections are in the criminal justice system.

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-5b Due Process Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

4-5 Due Proce

Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments provide that no person should be deprived of“life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” This due process clause (Theprovisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution that guarantee thatno person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.)basically requires that the government not act unfairly or arbitrarily. In other words, thegovernment cannot rely on individual judgment and impulse when making decisions, butmust stay within the boundaries of reason and the law. Of course, disagreements as to themeaning of these provisions have plagued courts, politicians, and citizens since this nationwas founded, and will undoubtedly continue to do so.

To understand due process, it is important to consider its two types: procedural due processand substantive due process.

Procedural Due Proce

According to procedural due process(A provision in the Constitution thatstates that the law must be carried outin a fair and orderly manner.) , the lawmust be carried out by a method that isfair and orderly. It requires that certainprocedures be followed inadministering and executing a law sothat an individual’s basic freedoms are not violated.

The American criminal justice system’s adherence to due process principles is evident in itstreatment of the death penalty. To ensure that the process is fair, as we will see in Chapter11, a number of procedural safeguards have been built into capital punishment. Much tothe dismay of many victims’ groups, these procedures make the process expensive andlengthy. In California, for example, the average time between conviction for a capital crimeand execution is twenty-five years.

Sutantive Due Proce

Fair procedures would obviously be of little use if they were used to administer unfairlaws. For example, suppose a law requires everyone to wear a red shirt on Mondays. Youwear a blue shirt on Monday, and you are arrested, convicted, and sentenced to one year inprison. The fact that all proper procedures were followed and your rights were given theirproper protections would mean very little because the law that you broke was unfair andarbitrary.

Thus, substantive due process (The constitutional requirement that laws used in accusingand convicting persons of crimes must be fair.) requires that the laws themselves bereasonable. The idea is that if a law is unfair or arbitrary, even if properly passed by alegislature, it must be declared unconstitutional. In the 1930s, for example, Oklahomainstituted the Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act. Under this statute, a person who hadbeen convicted of three felonies could be “rendered sexually sterile” by the state (that is,the person would no longer be able to produce children). The United States Supreme Courtheld that the law was unconstitutional, as there are “limits to the extent which alegislatively represented majority may conduct biological experiments at the expense of thedignity and personality and natural powers of a minority.”

The Judicial Stem’ Role in Due Proce

As the last example suggests, the United States Supreme Court often plays the importantrole of ultimately deciding when due process has been violated and when it has not. (SeeFigure 4.6 for a list of important Supreme Court due process cases.)

Figure 4.6

Important United State Supreme Court Due Proce Deciion

Year Iue AmendmentInvolved

Court Cae

1948 Right to a pulic trial VI In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257

1952 Police earche cannot e oinvaive a to “hock theconcience”

IV Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165

1961 xcluionar rule IV Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643

1963 Right to a lawer in all criminalfelon cae

VI Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.335

1964 No compulor elf-incrimination

V Mallo v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1

1964 Right to have counel whentaken into police cutod andujected to quetioning

VI coedo v. Illinoi, 378 U.S. 478

1965 Right to confront and cro-examine witnee

VI Pointer v. Texa, 380 U.S. 400

1966 Right to an impartial jur VI Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363

1966 Confeion of upect notnotified of due proce rightruled invalid

V Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436

1967 Right to a peed trial VI Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S.21

1967 Juvenile have due proceright, too

V In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1

1968 Right to a jur trial ruled afundamental right

VI Duncan v. Louiiana, 391 U.S. 145

1969 No doule jeopard V enton v. Marland, 395 U.S. 784

The Court is also called on from time to time to determine whether a due process rightexists in the first place. For example, in Figure 4.4, you will notice that four states—Idaho,Kansas, Montana, and Utah—do not provide defendants with access to the insanity defense.In 2007, John Delling killed two men in Idaho whom he believed had conspired to steal hissoul. Because Idaho does not allow the insanity defense, Delling pleaded guilty to themurders and was sentenced to life in prison. In 2012, his lawyers asked the Supreme Courtto rule that the insanity defense was a constitutional right that should be available to alldefendants in the United States. The Court refused to so, allowing individual states toprohibit the insanity defense if they so wish.

Societ’ et Interet

The due process clause does not automatically doom laws that may infringe on proceduralor substantive rights. In certain circumstances, the lawmaking body may be able to provethat its interests are greater than the due process rights of the individual, and in those casesthe statute may be upheld. Several years ago, for example, a U.S. appellate court upheld theimmediate suspension of a kindergarten student who said “I’m going to shoot you” toclassmates during recess. Although a school generally must follow certain steps beforesuspending a student, the court felt that in this instance the kindergarten’s interest inlimiting this kind of violent speech was more important than the student’s due processrights.

Spectators line up to enter the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C.The Court recently upheld a federal law broadening the government’s power toeavesdrop on international e-mails and phone calls. Why might the Court tend todefer to the federal government where questions of national security areconcerned?

Mark Wilon/Gett Image

Due Proce and National Securit

The U.S. court system, including the Supreme Court, is put under particular pressure whennational security is threatened. Certainly, as was clear in the earlier CJ and Technologyfeature concerning Predator drones, many of the controversies concerning antiterrorismstrategies that we will discuss in this textbook have their basis in due process concerns.Despite several important rulings to the contrary, which will be covered in Chapter 16,some observers feel that the judiciary has favored the government over terrorism suspectswhen it comes to due process rights.

CJ & Technolog

Due Proce and Predator Drone

Oleg Yarko/Shuttertock

Between 2008 and 2013, American Predator drones—remote controlled, unmannedaircraft armed with missiles—killed upwards of 3,000 suspected terrorists inAfghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. Although that tally includes an unknownnumber of innocent civilians, the most controversial target has been Islamist clericAnwar al-Awlaki, who failed to survive a drone strike in Yemen on September 30,2011.

Through his online sermons in English, Awlaki had been linked to more than adozen terrorist operations, including a plot to blow up cargo airplanes bound forthe United States. He was also a United States citizen. Because of Awlaki’scitizenship, critics argued that his death by drone attack was illegal, given that theU.S. Constitution forbids the execution of American citizens without due process oflaw. Legal expert Glenn Greenwald noted that there had been no effort to chargeAwlaki with committing any crime, and he had not been afforded a trial to provehis innocence. “[Awlaki] was simply ordered killed by the president: his judge, juryand executioner,” Greenwald said.

Thinking aout Due Proce and Predator Drone

In 2013, President Barack Obama’s administration justified targeted assassinationsof suspected terrorists—including U.S. citizens—as “lawful acts of self-defense.”After reviewing our discussion of self-defense earlier in the chapter, what is youropinion of this argument?

In 2003, for example, U.S. citizen Abdullah al-Kidd was arrested and spent two weeks infederal prison without being charged of having committed a crime. Usually, the dueprocess clause does not allow persons to be locked up in this manner. Under the federalmaterial witness law, however, the government can detain individuals who have witnessedcrimes so that they can testify at trial.

Al-Kidd was never called to testify at any time before being released. In retrospect, itseemed obvious that al-Kidd was held as a material witness because, though they suspectedhim of terrorism-related activities, federal law enforcement officers had no evidence of anyactual wrongdoing. In 2011, the Supreme Court upheld al-Kidd’s detention, essentiallysaying that that the federal officials had followed the correct procedure in holding him as a

material witness, and thus the fact that he had not committed any crime was irrelevant.

Self Aement

Fill in the blanks and check your answers.

The basis for procedural safeguards for the accused is found in the ofthe U.S. Constitution. According to these safeguards, no person shall bedeprived of life or liberty without of law. This means that the by which the law is carried out must be fair and orderly and the lawsthemselves must be . The ultimately decides whether theserights have been violated.

CJ in Action

Hate Crime Law

It was every commuter’s worst nightmare. On December 29, 2012, Erika Mendezpushed Sunando Sen onto the tracks of an elevated subway station in Queens, NewYork. Sen, born in India, was immediately killed by an oncoming train. Mendez toldthe police that she chose Sen, whom she believed to be a Muslim, “because I hateHindus and Muslims ever since 2001 when they put down the twin towers I’ve beenbeating them up [sic].” New York officials charged Mendez with second degreemurder as a hate crime, meaning that, if convicted, she faces a minimum prisonsentence of twenty years instead of fifteen years. The philosophy behind hate crimelegislation, which punishes the defendant not only for acts but also for motives, isthe subject of this chapter’s CJ in Action feature.

Punihing ia

Nearly every state and the federal government have hate crime laws that, as notedearlier in the text, apply when the underlying crime is committed because of thevictim’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, gender,sexual orientation, age, or disability. These laws are based on a model created bythe Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in 1981. The ADL model was centered on theconcept of “penalty enhancement”: just as someone who robs a convenience storeusing a gun will face a greater penalty than if he or she had been unarmed, so willsomeone who commits a crime because of prejudice against her or his victim orvictims.

Critics of hate crime laws feel that such “penalty enhancements” rest on shaky legalgrounds. It is one thing to prove that a robber used a gun, but it is another thing toprove what was in a defendant’s mind. Even when an offender’s bias is obvious, asis the case with Erika Mendez, should it affect how many years she spends behind

bars? Despite these misgivings, the United States Supreme Court has upheld theconstitutionality of hate crime laws as long as the prohibited motive

1. is specifically listed as an attendant circumstance (see Causation) in thelegislation and

2. is proved beyond a reasonable doubt during the trial.

The Cae for Hate Crime Law

1. Hate crimes target groups, not just an individual—if one Muslim or Hindu inNew York is attacked, for example, then all Muslims or Hindus in New Yorksuffer intimidation and fear. Thus, such acts need to be punished moreharshly.

2. Historically, the groups listed in hate crime legislation have receivedinadequate protection from the American criminal justice system. Hate crimelaws redress these shortcomings.

3. Hate crime laws do not punish a defendant’s speech or beliefs, which areprotected by the U.S. Constitution. Rather, they allow jurors to learn whetherthe defendant’s speech or beliefs were the reason for the choice of victim.

The Cae againt Hate Crime Law

1. Hate crime laws punish political views that, though unpopular and evenappalling, are protected by the First Amendment, which states that thegovernment shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech.”

2. For the most part, motive is irrelevant in criminal law. Defendants arepunished for what they did, not for why they did it.

3. Hate crime laws indicate that some victims are worthy of more protectionthan others. It is unjust that Erika Mendez would receive a lesser sentence ifher victim were not a member of a minority group.

Your Opinion—Writing Aignment

Harold, who is white, is at a party, and he is drunk. He sees Mary, his ex-girlfriend,talking with James, who is African American. Harold knows that Mary and Jameshave been dating for several weeks. Harold shouts racial epithets at James and isthrown out of the party. Later that night, Harold stalks James and attacks him witha baseball bat.

Did Harold commit a hate crime deserving of a harsher penalty? How does this caseinfluence your opinion of hate crime laws in general? Before responding, you canreview our discussion in this chapter concerning:

Learning Objective 1

Learning Objective 2

Learning Objective 3

Learning Objective 4

1. The purposes of criminal law.

2. Mens rea and criminal acts.

3. Attendant circumstances.

Your answer should include at least three full paragraphs.

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-6 Chapter Review Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

4-6 Chapter Review

4-6a Chapter Summar

For more information on these concepts, look back to the Learning Objectives throughoutthe chapter.

List the four written sources of American criminal law.

a. The U.S. Constitution and state constitutions;

b. statutes passed by Congress and state legislatures (plus local ordinances);

c. administrative agency regulations; and

d. case law.

Explain precedent and the importance of the doctrine ofstare decisis.

Precedent is a common law concept in which one decision becomes the exampleor authority for deciding future cases with similar facts. Under the doctrine ofstare decisis, judges in a particular jurisdiction are bound to follow precedents ofthat same jurisdiction. The doctrine of stare decisis leads to efficiency in thejudicial system.

Explain the two basic functions of criminal law.

The primary function is to protect citizens from harms to their safety andproperty and from harms to society’s interest collectively. The second function isto maintain and teach social values as well as social boundaries— for example,speed limits and laws against bigamy.

Delineate the elements required to establish mens rea (a

Learning Objective 5

Learning Objective 6

Learning Objective 7

Learning Objective 8

guilty mental state).

a. Purpose,

b. knowledge,

c. negligence, or

d. recklessness.

Explain how the doctrine of strict liability applies tocriminal law.

Strict liability crimes do not allow the alleged wrongdoer to claim ignorance ormistake to avoid criminal responsibility—for example, exceeding the speed limitand statutory rape.

List and briefly define the most important excuse defensesfor crimes.

Insanity—different tests of insanity can be used, including

a. the M’Naghten rule (right-wrong test);

b. the ALI/MPC test, also known as the substantial-capacity test; and

c. the irresistible-impulse test.

Intoxication—voluntary and involuntary, the latter being a possible criminaldefense. Mistake—sometimes valid if the law was not published or reasonablyknown or if the alleged offender relied on an official statement of the law thatwas erroneous. Also, a mistake of fact may negate the mental state necessary tocommit a crime.

Discuss a common misperception concerning the use ofthe insanity defense in the United States.

Contrary to popular opinion, the insanity defense is not an oft-used loophole thatallows criminals to avoid responsibility for committing heinous crimes. Insanitydefenses are difficult to mount and very rarely succeed. Even when a defendantis found not guilty by reason of insanity, she or he does not “go free.” Instead,such defendants are sent to mental health care institutions.

Describe the four most important justification criminaldefenses.

Duress—requires that

a. the threat is of serious bodily harm or death,

Learning Objective 9

Learning Objective 10

b. the harm is greater than that caused by the crime;

c. the threat is immediate and inescapable; and

d. the defendant became involved in the situation through no fault of his orher own.

Justifiable use of force—the defense of one’s person, dwelling, or property, orthe prevention of a crime. Necessity—justifiable if the harm sought to beavoided is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining theoffense charged. Entrapment—that the criminal action was induced by certaingovernmental persuasion or trickery.

Distinguish between substantive and procedural criminallaw.

The former concerns questions about what acts are actually criminal. The latterconcerns procedures designed to protect the constitutional rights of individualsand to prevent the arbitrary use of power by the government.

Explain the importance of the due process clause in thecriminal justice system.

The due process clause acts to limit the power of government. In the criminaljustice system, the due process clause requires that certain procedures befollowed to ensure the fairness of criminal proceedings and that all criminallaws be reasonable and in the interest of the public good.

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-6b Questions for Critical Analysis Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

Chapter Review

4-6 Quetion for Critical Anali

1. Give an example of a criminal law whose main purpose seems to be teachingsocietal boundaries rather than protecting citizens from harm. By searchingthe Internet, can you find examples of other countries where this behavior isnot considered criminal? How is the behavior perceived in those countries?

2. Nine-year-old Savannah lies to her grandmother Jessica about eating candybars. As punishment, Jessica forces Savannah to run for three hours without

a rest. Severely dehydrated, the girl has a seizure and dies. What should bethe criminal charge against Jessica, and why?

3. Keith lends his car to Jermaine, who drives with two other friends to thehome of a marijuana dealer. The three men break into the home, intending tosteal a safe full of cash. The drug dealer is unexpectedly at home, however,and in a struggle Jermaine winds up murdering him. What rule allows localprosecutors to charge Keith with first degree murder? Why?

4. Critics have derogatorily labeled the “stand your ground laws” passed byFlorida and many other states (see The George Zimmerman Case) “license tokill” laws. Why would they do so? What is your opinion of these laws?

5. Suppose that Louisiana’s legislature passes a law allowing law enforcementofficers to forcibly remove residents from their homes in the face of animminent hurricane. Why might a court uphold this law even though, in mostcircumstances, such forcible removal would violate the residents’ due processrights? If you were a judge, would you uphold Louisiana’s new law?

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-6c Key Terms Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

Chapter Review

4-6c Ke Term

actus reus ((pronounced ak-tus ray-uhs). A guilty (prohibited) act.)

administrative law (The body of law created by administrative agencies (in the form ofrules, regulations, orders, and decisions) in order to carry out their duties andresponsibilities.)

alibi (A defense offered by a person accused of a crime showing that she or he waselsewhere at the time the crime took place.)

attempt (The act of taking substantial steps toward committing a crime while having theability and the intent to commit the crime, even if the crime never takes place.)

attendant circumstances (The facts surrounding a criminal event that must be provedto convict the defendant of the underlying crime.)

ballot initiative (A procedure in which the citizens of a state, by collecting enoughsignatures, can force a public vote on a proposed change to state law.)

Bill of Rights (The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution.)

case law (The rules of law announced in court decisions.)

common law (The body of law developed from custom or judicial decisions in Englishand U.S. courts and not attributable to a legislature.)

competency hearing (A court proceeding to determine whether the defendant ismentally well enough to understand the charges filed against him or her and cooperatewith a lawyer in presenting a defense.)

conspiracy (A plot by two or more people to carry out an illegal or harmful act.)

constitutional law (Law based on the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of thevarious states.)

corpus delicti (The body of circumstances that must exist for a criminal act to haveoccurred.)

due process clause (The provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to theConstitution that guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or propertywithout due process of law.)

duress (Unlawful pressure brought to bear on a person, causing the person to performan act that he or she would not otherwise perform.)

duty to retreat (The requirement that a person claiming self-defense prove that she orhe first took reasonable steps to avoid the conflict that resulted in the use of deadlyforce.)

entrapment (A defense in which the defendant claims that he or she was induced by apublic official—usually an undercover agent or police officer— to commit a crime thathe or she would otherwise not have committed.)

felony-murder (An unlawful homicide that occurs during the attempted commission ofa felony.)

hate crime law (A statute that provides for greater sanctions against those who commitcrimes motivated by bias against an individual or a group based on race, ethnicity,religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or age.)

inchoate offenses (Conduct deemed criminal without actual harm being done, providedthat the harm that would have occurred is one the law tries to prevent.)

infancy (A condition that, under early American law, excused young wrongdoers ofcriminal behavior because presumably they could not understand the consequences oftheir actions.)

insanity (A defense for criminal liability that asserts a lack of criminal responsibility

due to mental instability)

intoxication (A defense for criminal liability in which the defendant claims that thetaking of intoxicants rendered him or her unable to form the requisite intent to commita criminal act.)

involuntary manslaughter (A homicide in which the offender had no intent to kill heror his victim.)

irresistible-impulse test (A test for the insanity defense under which a defendant whoknew his or her action was wrong may still be found insane if he or she was unable, as aresult of a mental deficiency, to control the urge to complete the act.)

mens rea ((pronounced mehns rayuh). Mental state, or intent. A wrongful mental stateis usually as necessary as a wrongful act to establish criminal liability.)

M’Naghten rule (A common law test of criminal responsibility, derived fromM’Naghten’s Case in 1843, that relies on the defendant’s inability to distinguish rightfrom wrong.)

Model Penal Code (A statutory text created by the American Law Institute that setsforth general principles of criminal responsibility and defines specific offenses.)

necessity (A defense against criminal liability in which the defendant asserts thatcircumstances required her or him to commit an illegal act.)

negligence (A failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person wouldexercise in similar circumstances.)

precedent (A court decision that furnishes an example of authority for decidingsubsequent cases involving similar facts.)

procedural criminal law (Rules that define the manner in which the rights and dutiesof individuals may be enforced.)

procedural due process (A provision in the Constitution that states that the law must becarried out in a fair and orderly manner.)

recklessness (The state of being aware that a risk does or will exist and neverthelessacting in a way that consciously disregards this risk.)

rule of law (The principle that the rules of a legal system apply equally to all persons,institutions, and entities—public or private—that make up a society.)

self-defense (The legally recognized privilege to protect one’s self or property frominjury by another.)

stare decisis ((pronounced steray dih-si-ses). A legal doctrine under which judges areobligated to follow the precedents established under prior decisions.)

statutory law (The body of law enacted by legislative bodies.)

statutory rape (A strict liability crime in which an adult engages in a sexual act with aminor.)

strict liability crimes (Certain crimes, such as traffic violations, in which the defendantis guilty regardless of her or his state of mind at the time of the act.)

substantial-capacity test (ALI/MPC test) (A test for the insanity defense that states thata person is not responsible for criminal behavior when he or she “lacks substantialcapacity” to understand that the behavior is wrong or to know how to behave properly.)

substantive criminal law (Law that defines the rights and duties of individuals withrespect to one another.)

substantive due process (The constitutional requirement that laws used in accusingand convicting persons of crimes must be fair.)

supremacy clause (A clause in the U.S. Constitution establishing that federal law is the“supreme law of the land” and shall prevail when in conflict with state constitutions orstatutes.)

voluntary manslaughter (A homicide in which the intent to kill was present in themind of the offender, but malice was lacking.)

Chapter 4: Inside Criminal Law: 4-6c Key Terms Book Title: Criminal Justice in Action Printed By: Ronald Suchy (rsuchy@mayfieldschools.org) © 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

© 2015 Cengage Learning Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this work may by reproduced or used in any form or by anymeans - graphic, electronic, or mechanical, or in any other manner - without the written permission of the copyright holder.