Criminaloutline - Criminal - Outline 13/03/2008 08:20:00...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Criminal - Outline 13/03/2008 08:20:00 Reasons for punishment no one reason is main goal Deterrence - prospective o General deter others who would follow if not price to be paid o Specific the criminal himself Retribution retrospective (no future implication in deterrnace) o Because behavior was WRONG reinforce societal norms Incapacitation prospective Rehabilitation - incidental to punishment o Rehab when you punish o Get person to be productive, no threat, no need to deter o Hard to accomplish b/c prison conditions, difficult to achieve during punishment Balance 4 factors focus on impact of system, not individual REGINA v. DUDLEY & STEVENS o says justified to save their lives by taking life claim they are not guilty of illegal act Taking crim law norm and applying to an extreme situation might not be fair on high seas, not normal circumstances o looking for general deterrence, retribution moral judgment SWARZENEGGAR HYPO o Talk about 4 reasons for punishment from both sides U.S. v. Milken o Recd 600mil fine 10 years in prison o Judge says Hard to detect crimes and criminals who hide crimes deserve harsher penalties o Why prison and not just $$ general and Spec deterrence, incapacitation U.S. v. Jackson Bank robber on work release robs bank w/in 30 minutes Judge says specific deterrence has failed must look at incapacitiation and general deterrence Dissent Incapacitiation doesnt need life sentence b/c at certain age people stop robbing banks o Arbitrary. If 30 years is enough, why not 28, or 26 o Remember, this is for repeat offenders (recitivism)so harsher penalty is justified for general deterrence MODEL PENAL CODE 1. culpability safeguard conduct which is not criminal 2. legality gives fair warning for criminal behavior 3. proportionality - differentiate between more and less serious ACTUS REUS MARTIN v. STATE Drunk man in home, police taken into hgwy convicted of being drunk in public Court implies he must have been there voluntarily Not about intent, was there an act? Principle is that we are punished for the things we do (conduct) How would punishment be served? o Retribution no act, nothing to punishment Counterargument foreseeable that it could be happen when you get drunk o Deterrence wouldnt be served INTENT v. ACT....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/18/2011 for the course LAW 101 taught by Professor Many during the Spring '11 term at University of Louisville.

Page1 / 50

Criminaloutline - Criminal - Outline 13/03/2008 08:20:00...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online