Transcript The General Principles of Criminal Liability

The General Principles of
Criminal Liability
Going beyond actus rea
Culpability
• “Even a dog distinguishes between being
stumbled over and being kicked.”
• For the most serious crimes the law requires
blameworthiness – that the offender deserves
to be punished
• Mens rea – evil state of mind
• But culpable states of mind can vary
• First established in the English Common Law
The MPC’s four states of mind
• Purposely – we tried to achieve the harm
• Knowingly – we knew this would happen
• Recklessly – we didn’t care
• Negligently – we should have known better
Mens Rea – a “mind bent on moral
wrongdoing”
• Dating back to Plato
• But it wasn’t until the Middle Ages that the
law seemed to consider intent with respect to
guilt and then punishment
• By the mid-19th Century, “an act and evil
intent must combine to constitute a crime”
Mens rea today
Judge/scholar Jack Weinstein stated in US v
Cordoba-Hincapie:
“Western civilized nations have long
looked to the wrongdoer’s mind to determine
both the propriety and the grading of
punishment”
But it’s not that that simple
• How do you prove mens rea?
• What does it exactly mean? – great variation
from state to state
• Differing levels of “intent”. – from purposely
to negligently
• All this worked through guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt
• And then, what about motive?
Motive – what causes someone to act
• A big deal in cop shows on TV, but always in
real life.
• Does it really matter?
• Not always, but sometimes it’s essential to
establishing intent.
• Can soften or enhance severity of
punishment.
• Also, crucial in some defenses – necessity.
Differing types of Criminal Intent
• Subjective fault – accused had a “bad mind”
often framed in moral terms
“depravity” or “wicked heart”
• Objective fault – no need to prove the
accused had any kind of evil or bad intent
Accused should have known better.
• Strict liability – no type of fault is needed, if
you did it, for whatever reason, trouble.
General or Specific Intent
• General intent – the intent to commit the
criminal act forbidden by statute
Satisfies the actus rea requirement
• Specific intent – requires that you have
general intent plus the specific intent to cause
a criminally harmful result
Usually applies only to core felonies
Back to the MPC – Levels of Culpability
• Created to move from moral to behavioral
terminology
• Required years of drafts, debate, revisions,
and more debate
• From most to least blameworthy:
1) purposely
2) knowingly
3) recklessly
4) negligently
Purposely
• Intentionally trying to commit a crime or
cause a criminal outcome
• The most blameworthy mental state
• Must be proven for serious offenses like
burglary or first degree murder
• State v Stark
Knowingly
• Accused are aware or practically certain that
their action(s) are criminal or will cause a bad
result
• Does not require that the accused has the
“conscious object” of committing a crime
• Can be very difficult to distinguish from
recklessly
Recklessly
• Accused appreciate that their conduct has
“substantial and unjustifiable risks” but don’t
intend that a bad outcome might result
• Maybe they just don’t care
• Don’t know that harm is likely to follow
• Risk must be unjustifiable
• Also, under the MPC, risk must objectively
vary from societal “standards”
Negligently
• Creating risks without any conscious
awareness
• Objective test – should the accused have
known that their conduct was unreasonable
• Tough line to draw – Koppersmith
Strict Liability
• For many minor crimes, you can be criminally
liable without any type of fault
• State only has to prove a voluntary action
• Why?
1) public policy – protects us in the
industrial age
2) penalties are relatively minor –
fines, not jail
• But aren’t we forgetting the moral foundation
of the criminal law – blameworthyness?
Concurrence
• Their must be a connection between the
necessary mental state and the conduct or
result
• Mens rea must trigger the actus reus
• Law doesn’t punish coincidences
• Does not apply to strict liability crimes
• Rarely, if ever, an issue in the “real world”
Causation
• Holding someone responsible for the results
of their conduct
• Applies only to result crimes – homicide,
destruction of property through arson, etc.
• Must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
Two Types of Causation
• Both must be proven
• Factual causation – also known as “but for”
causation
“But for the defendant’s actions, the criminal
result would not have occurred”
• Objective question of fact – usually easy to do
• Necessary but not sufficient
Legal or “Proximate” Cause
• Sure the accused’s action set in motion a chain
of events that led to the criminal result – but
is it fair to punish them?
• Was the conduct too far removed from the
result?
• What if there was an intervening cause?
• Can be very difficult to determine.
• State v Bauer
Failure of Proof Defenses
• Ignorance of Law – won’t work
• Ignorance maxim – presumed that everyone
knows the law, even though it may not be true
Mistake of Fact
• Sometimes a mistake of fact can work as a
defense
• Only if the mistake prevents having the
necessary mens rea
The MPC weighs in
• The MPC has codified mistake defenses
• Very influential, even in states which have not
enacted the MPC
• In essence, the MPC provides that a mistake of
fact can help if it prevents forming the mens
rea necessary for the relevant crime
• But, of course, no type of ignorance defense
will work for strict liability crimes
Morality and Ignorance of the Law
• The criminal law loses its power if it lacks the
respect of those it governs
• And if they don’t respect it, they won’t obey it
• Respect only comes if the law’s procedures
are perceived to be fair
• Is it fair to punish for breaking laws we didn’t
know about?
• After all, there are 1000’s of them, many
obscure
Should we ignore ignorance?
• People view this through the prism of
morality.
• If the breaking the law was viewed as
immoral, ignorance was no excuse
• However, if the law was violated by an
“ignorant” actor in the context of a moral or
neutral action, the defense was viewed as
valid and/or the sentence was lessened