This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: 1) Introduction a) Three features of criminal law (Hart p.1) i) Directions/commands – tell people what they can and cannot do ii) Valid and binding – speak to members of community on community’s behalf iii) Sanctions for disobedience – community will enforce b) Sources of criminal law: i) Statutes – legislatures usually make the criminal law ii) CL/case law – can help resolve ambiguities in statutes, etc. iii) MPC c) Criminal law is limited by substantive constitutional limits d) Standard of Proof: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt i) Prosecution has the B of P to prove every element of crime according to this standard ii) Example: Owens (p.14) – Drunk in car in driveway (not his own); car running (1) DWI statute referred to driving on public road (a) State argued he must have been on public road at some point (2) D claimed insufficiency of evidence (3) Appellate court said review of totality of circumstances would be inconsistent with a finding of innocence (a) Not asking did state prove beyond reasonable doubt b/c jury/judge already answered question and this is appeal so adopt more deferential standard. (b) Court not asking whether only rational conclusion could be a conclusion of guilt but is it a rational conclusion – could rational jury concluded beyond reasonable doubt 2) Principles of Punishment a) Questions of punishment: i) Why punish? ii) What are necessary conditions for punishment in cases (who is punished)? iii) What degree of severity is appropriate (how much punishment)? b) Theories of punishment i) Utilitarianism (1) Philosopher: Jeremy Bentham; describes principle of utility – measuring actions according to aggregate contributions to social good; is forward looking (2) Costs of deterring crime should not outweigh societal benefits of deterring crime (3) Utilitarians will name four benefits of effective punishment (a) General deterrence – providing a rational reason for people not to commit crime (b) Individual/specific deterrence (c) Incapacitation and risk management – taking offender out of society (d) Rehabilitation (4) Hard case for utilitarian is: what if social good in punishing someone who did nothing? (5) How much punishment? (a) Should punish people to the extend that it maximizes social welfare (b) “Value” of punishment must not be less than “profit” of crime to doer ii) Retributivism (1) Philosopher: Immanuel Kant; punishment is justified because wrongdoer deserves to be punished but only to extent that they deserve to be punished (a) Extent might not mean “eye for eye” but might be some fairness ration (2) Categorical imperative: violates a person’s humanity to treat them as means to end (3) Two types of retributivism: (a) Positive retributivism- deserving punishment for wrongdoing is necessary and sufficient condition; Wrongdoers deserve be punished to full extent of wrongdoing (b) Negative retributivism- mix of utilitarian and retributivism; deserving punishment is necessary condition for one to be...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 03/31/2008 for the course LAW crim taught by Professor Clymer during the Spring '06 term at Cornell.
- Spring '06