{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

LS 170 Crime and Criminal Justice-- Study questions 3

LS 170 Crime and Criminal Justice-- Study questions 3 -...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Legal Studies 170- Crime and Criminal Justice Summer 2008 Prof. Richard Perry Stephen Galoob- GSI Crime and Criminal Justice Fall 2008 Professor Perry GSI- Stephen Galoob Study Questions III Jonathan Simon, Governing Through Crime, Introduction and Chapter 1 •What does Simon mean by the claim that “the American elite are governing through crime”? [4] What corollaries to this thesis does he address? How is governing through crime distinct from “governing crime”? •Simon claims that this book serves both descriptive and normative tasks. What is Simon’s descriptive task? What is his normative task? How does Simon’s project compare/contrast with Durkheim’s? With Lombroso’s? •Simon claims that his approach to thinking about crime “should win assent from both Left and Right.” [10-11] Is this contention correct? Why might a rightist or leftist support Simon’s diagnosis and recommendations? What might be opposed by a rightist or leftist? •How does the paradigm of governing through crime differ from the traditional democratic/liberal framework? How does the experience of governing through crime in the contemporary U.S. differ from apparently similar approaches in other countries or other historical contexts? •What does Simon mean when he says that the U.S. Supreme Court “has it just right” in upholding the drug testing regime at issue in Pottawatomie County v. Earl ? [17] •What assumptions about crime does Simon think should be avoided? Does Simon do a good job of avoiding these assumptions? •How does Simon’s theory about the relationship between crime and the post-New Deal political order differ from the theories of Scheingold, Beckett, and Garland? What explains the success of governing through crime, rather than alternative sites for “governance”? Why was governing through crime acceptable to conservatives? To liberals? Why did the “due process revolution” not interfere with the strategy of governing through crime? Samaha, Criminal Law NOTE : You may also find it helpful to answer the “review questions” at the end of each chapter. Chapter 3- The General Principles of Criminal Liability: The Requirement of Action •What is the actus reus requirement? What purposes are served by the actus reus requirement? Why does it seem “absurd” to punish a person who has only the intent to kill? [3] Why, in most cases, must the actus reus be voluntary?
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.
  • Summer '08
  • perry
  • criminal law, actus reus requirement, Stephen Galoob- GSI, Perry Stephen Galoob, Prof. Richard Perry, Studies 170- Crime

{[ snackBarMessage ]}