Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2006 Capital Punishment I believe capital punishment is the wrong way to go except for the deterring effect. The reason is because

Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2006

Capital PunishmentI believe capital punishment is the wrong way

to go except for the deterring effect. The reason is because for one some people are not afraid to die or may rather die than to rot in jail for consecutive life sentences. A better

and worse punishment would be extreme community service, tie the old ball and chain

and make them work on roads, mines or other places. Another reason is that the

charged person may be one day accidentally mistaken and be actually innocent. You can’t

bring back the dead.


Chapter 3

Basic Requirements of a Criminal Act

This multimedia product and its contents are protected under copyright law. The following are prohibited by law: • Any public performance or display, including transmission of any image over a network; • Preparation of any derivative work, including the extraction, in whole or in part, of any images; • Any rental, lease, or lending of the program.

Copyright (c) Allyn & Bacon 2008


ACTUS REUS

The defendant’s “guilty act.” Not a singular ingredient, but:

1.a voluntary act or failure to perform an act that one has a legal duty to perform

2. that causes

3.social harm



A Criminal Act

• Actus reus = criminal act– Wrongful deed– Society will not punish for a status

• Robinson v. California (1962)

– Involuntary Conduct


A Criminal Act



– Involuntary Conduct • Sleep Walking• DUI

http://www.lakesidepress.com/pulmonary/Sleep/sleep-murder.htm


VOLUNTARY ACTS

The act necessary to constitute a crime must be voluntary. Involuntary movement is generally not enough to

constitute a criminal act. Mere reflex is not enough.

Examples of voluntary acts: intentionally killing someone, knowingly possessing stolen property, and threatening to kill someone.

Examples of involuntary acts: acts committed while sleepwalking, due to reflex, and due to involuntary intoxication. Copyright (c) Allyn & Bacon 2008


A Criminal Act



– Involuntary Conduct – Possession as an Act


The State must establish two elements in order to obtain a conviction for possession: first, the knowledge of the

defendant of the presence of narcotics and second, his immediate and exclusive control thereof. (

People v. Galloway (1963), 28 Ill.2d 355, 192 N.E.2d 370.) Knowledge may be proved by evidence of acts,

declarations or conduct of the accused from which it may be fairly inferred that he knew of the existence of the

narcotics at the place they were found. (28 Ill.2d 355, 192 N.E.2d 370.) Possession may be actual or constructive

possession and it may be jointly with another. (People v. Embry (1960), 20 Ill.2d 331, 169 N.E.2d 767;

People v. Harris (1975), 34 Ill. [107 Ill.App.3d 601] App.3d

906, 340 N.E.2d 327.)

https://www.fastcase.com/Pages/Document.aspx?LTID=%2BDdAQkeIeCZkQpRPzzhTR2V6U%2Fnt5VVZrYk5YY6ZIxQvsTPYqvvqwVrwgWQRjQ7tSYWcDbkQq6iHmVmIgdzTlOpniURfkDRlQXnEE0zvbH4%3D&ECF=People+v.+Galloway+(1963)%2C+28+Ill.2d+355%2C+192+N.E.2d+370

https://www.fastcase.com/Pages/Document.aspx?LTID=%2BDdAQkeIeCZkQpRPzzhTR2V6U%2Fnt5VVZrYk5YY6ZIxQvsTPYqvvqwVrwgWQRjQ7tSYWcDbkQq6iHmVmIgdzTlOpniURfkDRlQXnEE0zvbH4%3D&ECF=People+v.+Embry+(1960)%2C+20+Ill.2d+331%2C+169+N.E.2d+767


MENTAL STATE

• Cannot always be proven, but may be inferred from both the act and surrounding circumstances.

• Circumstantial evidence may be allowed if it sheds light on the defendant’s state of mind.

• Post-crime conduct, such as flight, may be recognized if it demonstrates consciousness of guilt.



OMISSION

The act necessary to constitute a crime may also be the failure to act (an act of omission). There first must be a legal duty to act. A moral duty is

insufficient to establish an act of omission.

The legal duty to act arises primarily from statutory sources establishing legal relationships between parties.

Examples of a legal duty to act and an act of omission: the party who causes an accident or puts someone in harm’s way has a duty to provide assistance, a parent always has a duty to protect their children, and duties established by contractual relationships between parties.



A Criminal Act



– Involuntary Conduct – Proof of an Act– Possession as an Act– Criminal Failure to Act


The Elements of the Crime

• A Criminal Act

• A Criminal State of Mind


MENS REA

The “guilty mind,” or culpability, which accompanys the actus reus. Different crimes require different degrees of

intent.

Has been difficult for courts and legislatures to define.

4 mental states qualify as mens rea: general intent, specific intent, transferred intent, and constructive intent.




• A Criminal Act

• A Criminal State of Mind– mens rea = a guilty mind


GENERAL INTENT The state of mind required for the

commission of a crime where specific intent to commit the crime is not present. Refers to the intent to commit the act required for a crime.

General intent usually applies to situations where a crime is committed, but the defendant does not intend to bring about a particular social harm (crime). General intent may be presumed form the act itself.

Examples: Fishing without a license (not knowing a license is required), nude sunbathing (not knowing the beach is public), trespassing (not knowing you are on private property), and murder (shooting into a house not knowing it was occupied). Copyright (c) Allyn & Bacon 2008


SPECIFIC INTENT

The state of mind required for the commission of a crime where the intent to commit a specific crime is present. Refers to the intent to accomplish the precise criminal act

with which the defendant is charged. Specific intent of the crime cannot be presumed, it must be proven.

Requires scienter: the degree of knowledge making a person criminally liable for his or her physical acts.

Examples: Traditional Crimes: murder, robbery, assault, larceny, burglary, forgery, theft, attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy.




• A Criminal Act

• A Criminal State of Mind– General Intent = the willful commission of an

act– Specific Intent = something additional


Criminal Intent

• Purposely

• Knowingly

• Recklessly• Negligently


(a) Purposely.A person acts purposely with respect to a

material element of an offense when:(i) if the element involves the nature of his

conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result; and(ii) if the element involves the attendant

circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or

hopes that they exist.


Attendant CircumstancesAttendant circumstance (sometimes external

circumstances) is a legal concept which Black's Law Dictionary defines as the "facts surrounding an

event."

• Criminal Trespass to Vehicle

• Perjury

• Bigamy

http://www.answers.com/topic/law

http://www.answers.com/topic/black-s-law-dictionary

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt.+21&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720 ILCS 5/&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=60736&SeqStart=47900000&SeqEnd=49500000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050K32-2.htm

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050K11-12.htm


(b) Knowingly.A person acts knowingly with respect to a

material element of an offense when:(i) if the element involves the nature of his

conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or

that such circumstances exist; and(ii) if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a

result.


CRIMINAL OFFENSES(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961.

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 19 heading) ARTICLE 19. BURGLARY

(720 ILCS 5/19‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 19‑1) Sec. 19‑1. Burglary.

(a) A person commits burglary when without authority he knowingly enters or without authority remains within a

building, housetrailer, watercraft, aircraft, motor vehicle as defined in the Illinois Vehicle Code, railroad car, or any part

thereof, with intent to commit therein a felony or theft.


(c) Recklessly.A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree

that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances

known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a

law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation.


(d) Negligently.A person acts negligently with respect to a

material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and

unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree

that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the

standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.


How does motive differ from intent in criminal law?


• A Criminal Act

• A Criminal State of Mind– General Intent = the willful commission of an

act– Specific Intent = something additional– Proving Criminal Intent

• Circumstantial Evidence



• A Criminal Act


• Concurrence of a Criminal Act and a Criminal State of Mind



• A Criminal Act



• Causation = A relationship between two phenomena in which the occurrence of the former brings about change in the latter. In the legal sense, causation is the element of a crime that requires the existence of a causal relationship between the offender’s conduct and the particular harmful consequences.


• A Criminal Act



• Causation = A relationship between two phenomena in which the occurrence of the former brings about change in the latter. In the legal sense, causation is the element of a crime that requires the existence of a causal relationship between the offender’s conduct and the particular harmful consequences.

– Intervening Act


At the State's request--and over defendant's objection--the trial court instructed the jury

as follows: "The expression 'proximate cause,'

means any cause which, in [266 Ill.App.3d 377] the natural or probable sequence,

produced the death or great bodily harm complained of. It need not be the only

cause, nor the last or nearest cause. It is sufficient if it concurs with some other cause

acting at the same time, which in combination with it, causes the death or

great bodily harm."


Liability without Fault

• Strict Liability– Selling Liquor to Minors– Statutory Rape– Teachers having Sex with Minors

• Vicarious Liability

• Enterprise Liability


Liability without Fault

• Strict Liability– Selling Liquor to Minors– Statutory Rape– Teachers having Sex with Minors

• Vicarious Liability

• Enterprise Liability


SPECIAL INTENT• Constructive Intent: actor does not intend to cause harm but

should have known their behavior created a high risk of harm (recklessness).

• Criminal Negligence: gross deviation from the standard of care required of an individual. Creates a substantial unjustified risk of harm to others.

• Transferred Intent: Refers to situations where a person intends to commit a specific crime, or commit a crime against another person, and then either commits another crime or commits a crime against the wrong person.

• Strict Liability Crimes: No proof of intent is required. Mere proof the defendant committed the act is sufficient for conviction.



JOINDER OF ACT & INTENT

The act (actus reus) and the intent (mens rea) must be joined in time and exist concurrently. Additionally, the intent must lead to the actual act.



CAUSATION

• The joinder of the act and the intent must combine to result in the legal (proximate) cause of the crime.

• Usually only an issue when the harm caused an unwanted result (unintended death of a victim).

• Comprised of proximate cause and factual cause.



CAUSE

• Proximate cause: was the victim’s injury a “direct and natural” result of the defendant’s act?

• Factual cause: “but for” the defendant’s act, would the result have occurred?



PRESUMPTIONS

Presumptions operate to ease the burden of the government proving intent. Generally, a person is presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequences of their act. Permissible/Rebuttable Presumption: Upon proof of fact A

(the act), the fact finder may presume fact B (the intent) .

Mandatory/Conclusive Presumption: Upon proof of fact A (the act), the fact finder must presume fact B (the intent).



VERTICAL GROWTH OF CODES

Occurs in three ways: 1. Declaring a crime to be a felony rather than a gross

misdemeanor.

2. Declaring a misdemeanor crime becomes a felony upon second or third violation.

3. Increasing the penalty when the victim is a member of a particular interest group.

More lives are now impacted by the criminal justice system because of the broad criminalization of conduct in the 1970s.



Chapter 5

Defenses

This multimedia product and its contents are protected under copyright law. The following are prohibited by law: • Any public performance or display, including transmission of any image over a network; • Preparation of any derivative work, including the extraction, in whole or in part, of any images; • Any rental, lease, or lending of the program.



CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

For criminal responsibility, the actor must have the mental ability to form the necessary intent to commit the crime. Criminal responsibility defenses go to the actor’s lack of capacity (for whatever reason) to form the intent required for the crime.



CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY—Infancy

The age at which children become criminally responsible for their action varies. While all jurisdictions recognize 18 as the universal age of criminal responsibility, as a defense age differs according to jurisdiction. There are, however, a few general rules that guide the courts: Children under the age of 7 are not held criminally responsible for their

acts.

Children between 7 and 14 are presumed to lack the mental capacity to be held criminally responsible for their acts (but, this is a rebutable presumption).

Children 14 and older are presumed to have the mental capacity to be held criminally responsible for their acts (again, this is a rebutable presumption).



(720 ILCS 5/6‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 6‑1)

Sec. 6‑1. Infancy. No person shall be convicted

of any offense unless he had attained his 13th birthday at the time the offense was committed.


CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY—Insanity

The insanity defense negates the ability of the actor to formulate the required intent to commit the criminal act

Insanity at the time of the offense is a defense that negates criminal responsibility.

Insanity at the time of trial (known as incompetency to stand trial) is not a defense to the crime, but will delay the trial until the defendant is sane (competent) enough to assist in their own defense.



Insanity

• Domestic Authority

• Battered Person Syndrome

• Extreme Emotional Disturbance

• Posttramatic Disorder

• Premental Syndrome



Tests for Insanity

Within the United States, there are five major tests used to determine a defendant’s sanity. M’Naghten Test: Due to a disease of the mind, did the defendant know

what he was doing or did he know it was wrong?

Irresistible Impulse Test: Due to a disease of the mind, was the defendant unable to control his conduct?

Durham Test: Was the criminal act the product of a mental disease or defect?

ALI/MPC: Does the defendant lack the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to control it?

Federal Position: Does the defendant lack the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct?




Diminished Responsibility

Mental diseases, defects, or stresses that do not completely impair the defendant’s ability to reason and/or appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct may still diminish the defendant’s criminal responsibility. Diminished responsibility is only a partial defense and does not negate

the crime. At best, the diminished responsibility defense lowers the penalty for the crime.

Diminished responsibility is not a universally recognized defense. Many states reject this partial defense.



CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY—Intoxication

Intoxication to the point where the actor, at the time of his conduct, lacks the substantial capacity either to appreciate its criminality or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law is a complete defense. But, the intoxication must be involuntary.

Involuntary Intoxication I: Actor is tricked into consuming intoxicating substances.

Involuntary Intoxication II: Actor is forced, against his will, to consume intoxicating substances.



(720 ILCS 5/6‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 6‑3) Sec. 6‑3. Intoxicated or drugged

condition. A person who is in an intoxicated or drugged condition is criminally

responsible for conduct unless such condition is involuntarily produced and

deprives him of substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of

law.

(Source: P.A. 92‑466, eff. 1‑1‑02.)



Syndromes/Disorders

Certain syndromes (PMS and BSS) and disorders (PTSD and Nutrition) have been used to argue they cause a biochemical change in the brain and thus diminish/remove the defendant’s capacity to form the necessary intent to commit a criminal act. Where the syndrome/disorder can be shown to negate the element of

intent, or cause the actor to meet the requirements of the insanity defense, courts have in very limited circumstances negated the defendant’s criminal responsibility.

Of all syndrome/disorders, the battered woman syndrome has been the most successful.



JUSTIFICATION & EXCUSE

Justification & Excuse defenses are independent of the actor’s mental state. Justification defenses arise when the actor has

engaged in conduct not considered a criminal act.

Excuse defenses arise when the actor commits what would ordinarily be considered a criminal act, but is excused from criminal responsibility.



SELF-DEFENSE

A person may use force to protect himself or others. The force used, however, must be proportional to the original threat and it must be necessary to prevent imminent harm. The belief in the imminent harm must be reasonable.

Deadly Force: May only be used to combat imminent and unlawful deadly force.

Non-deadly Force: May be used to prevent imminent and unlawful force.



DEFENSE OF OTHERS & DEFENSE OF PROPERTY

The rules regarding defending people and defending property are very different.

Defense of Others: In defending other people, an actor may use whatever proportional force is necessary to combat imminent and unlawful force. If the proportional and necessary force is deadly force, so be it.

Defense of Property: Deadly force may never be used to defend property, alone. If the defense is of both property and person, deadly force may be used where it is proportional and necessary.



CASTLE DOCTRINE

A person has no duty to retreat before using deadly force against an intruder.

Person must be in a place where he or she has a legal right to be.

Building or vehicle must be occupied.

Person using force cannot be provoking the attacker or involved in criminal activity at the time.

16 states have some form of castle doctrine in 2008.



DURESS & NECESSITY

Sometimes people commit acts because they are forced to do so based upon the evils they face.

Duress: Where there exists the immediate threat to injure or kill, and the threat is reasonable, a person will generally be excused from otherwise criminal conduct brought on by the threat. BUT, duress is not a defense to homicide or crimes involving serious physical injury. If the choice is between killing an innocent person and oneself, one ought to die rather than escape by the murder of an innocent.

Necessity: If a person faces a “choice of evils” he does not cause or contribute to, and he is forced to commit a criminal act based upon this evil, he may be excused for the necessity of his otherwise criminal conduct.



(720 ILCS 5/7‑13) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑13) Sec. 7‑13. Necessity.

Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justifiable by reason of necessity if

the accused was without blame in occasioning or developing the situation and

reasonably believed such conduct was necessary to avoid a public or private injury

greater than the injury which might reasonably result from his own conduct.

(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑11) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑11) Sec. 7‑11. Compulsion.

(a) A person is not guilty of an offense, other than an offense punishable with death, by reason

of conduct which he performs under the compulsion of threat or menace of the imminent

infliction of death or great bodily harm, if he reasonably believes death or great bodily harm will be inflicted upon him if he does not perform such

conduct. (b) A married woman is not entitled, by reason

of the presence of her husband, to any presumption of compulsion, or to any defense of compulsion except that stated in Subsection (a).


MISTAKE

Our legal system very much disfavors defenses based upon mistake. In certain limited circumstances, however, reasonable mistakes that act to negate the required mental state (intent) may be allowed as a defense .

Mistake of Fact or Law? Where the mistake acts to negate the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness, or negligence required to establish the necessary intent on the part of the defendant, there may be a complete defense. Example: If a defendant reasonably believes the victim has consented to sex, the intent required for the crime of rape (the intent to have intercourse where there is no consent) is lacking, and there is a defense of mistake to the criminal act.



(720 ILCS 5/4‑8) (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑8) Sec. 4‑8. Ignorance or mistake. (a) A person's ignorance

or mistake as to a matter of either fact or law, except as provided in Section 4‑3(c) above, is a defense if it

negatives the existence of the mental state which the statute prescribes with respect to an element of the

offense. (b) A person's reasonable belief that his conduct does

not constitute an offense is a defense if: (1) The offense is defined by an administrative regulation

or order which is not known to him and has not been published or otherwise made reasonably available to him, and he could not have acquired such knowledge by the

exercise of due diligence pursuant to facts known to him; or


(2) He acts in reliance upon a statute which later is determined to be invalid; or

(3) He acts in reliance upon an order or opinion of an Illinois Appellate or Supreme Court, or a United States appellate court later

overruled or reversed; (4) He acts in reliance upon an official interpretation of the statute, regulation or order defining the offense, made by a public officer or

agency legally authorized to interpret such statute. (c) Although a person's ignorance or mistake of fact or law, or

reasonable belief, described in this Section 4‑‑8 is a defense to the offense charged, he may be convicted of an included offense of which

he would be guilty if the fact or law were as he believed it to be. (d) A defense based upon this Section 4‑‑8 is an affirmative defense.

(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)


CONSENT

As criminal acts operate to harm both individuals and society. Accordingly, the general rule is that consent of the victim does not operate as a defense to otherwise criminal activity. Example: A person who assists a terminally ill person commit suicide by pulling the trigger of a gun or giving them poison may be found guilty of manslaughter or even murder.



ENTRAPMENT

When the government induces a person to engage in criminal activity they would not ordinarily be predisposed to commit, the entrapment defense is available. The entrapment defense does not operate to justify criminal behavior. Instead, it exists to discourage government misconduct. Entrapment as a defense is not available for crimes of serious bodily harm or injury, or sexual assault. Look for entrapment issues where the government encourages or promotes the criminal behavior in issue.



(720 ILCS 5/7‑12) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑12) Sec. 7‑12. Entrapment.

A person is not guilty of an offense if his or her conduct is incited or induced by a

public officer or employee, or agent of either, for the purpose of obtaining evidence for the

prosecution of that person. However, this Section is inapplicable if the person was

pre‑disposed to commit the offense and the public officer or employee, or agent of either, merely affords to that person the opportunity

or facility for committing an offense.

(Source: P.A. 89‑332, eff. 1‑1‑96.)


PROCEDURAL DEFENSES

These defenses are based on constitutional maxims of justice and fairness within the legal system.

Double Jeopardy: Prevents the government from prosecuting the same person for the same crime after either an acquittal or a conviction. BUT, does not prevent the government from retrying the case due to either a hung jury or in some cases, a mistrial .

Statute of Limitations: A jurisdictional requirement that certain crimes be prosecuted within a set period of time. The statute of limitations starts to run when the crime has been, or should have been, discovered. BUT, since this a jurisdiction based defense, if the defendant leaves the jurisdiction this may stop the time limit from running.



Burden of Proof

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Preponderance of the Evidence


Burden of Proof

• (720 ILCS 5/3‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 3‑2) Sec. 3‑2. Affirmative defense. (a) "Affirmative defense" means that unless the State's evidence raises the issue involving the alleged defense, the defendant, to raise the issue, must present some evidence thereon. (b) If the issue involved in an affirmative defense, other than insanity, is raised then the State must sustain the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to that issue together with all the other elements of the offense. If the affirmative defense of insanity is raised, the defendant bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence his insanity at the time of the offense. (Source: P.A. 89‑404, eff. 8‑20‑95; 90‑593, eff. 6‑19‑98.)


Burden of Proof

• (720 ILCS 5/3‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 3‑1) Sec. 3‑1. Presumption of innocence and proof of guilt. Every person is presumed innocent until proved guilty. No person shall be convicted of any offense unless his guilt thereof is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. (Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)


Burden of Proof

• (720 ILCS 5/3‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 3‑2) Sec. 3‑2. Affirmative defense. (a) "Affirmative defense" means that unless the State's evidence raises the issue involving the alleged defense, the defendant, to raise the issue, must present some evidence thereon. (b) If the issue involved in an affirmative defense, other than insanity, is raised then the State must sustain the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to that issue together with all the other elements of the offense. If the affirmative defense of insanity is raised, the defendant bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence his insanity at the time of the offense. (Source: P.A. 89‑404, eff. 8‑20‑95; 90‑593, eff. 6‑19‑98.)


CRIMINAL OFFENSES(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of

1961. (720 ILCS 5/Art. 7 heading) ARTICLE 7.

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION



(720 ILCS 5/7‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑5)

Sec. 7‑5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has

summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from

efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or

threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any

force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest

and of any force which he reasonably believes to be

necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while

making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to

cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes

that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both

that: (1) Such force is necessary to

prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape;

and (2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a

forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting

to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that

he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless

arrested without delay. (b) A peace officer making an

arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in

using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is

invalid. (Source: P.A. 84‑1426.)

(720 ILCS 5/2‑8) (from Ch. 38, par. 2‑8)

Sec. 2‑8. "Forcible felony". "Forcible felony" means treason,

first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual

assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal

sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated

arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or

disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against

any individual. (Source: P.A. 88‑277; 89‑428, eff. 12‑13‑95; 89‑462, eff. 5‑29‑96.)

Documents

Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2006 Capital Punishment I believe capital punishment is the wrong way to go except for the deterring effect. The reason is because