DOCSLIB.ORG

Criminal Law Outline Rachel Barkow Spring 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE RACHEL BARKOW SPRING 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction A. The Criminal Justice System in the US B. The Role of the Prosecutor C. The Role of the Jury D. What to Punish? E. The Justification of Punishment II. Building Blocks of Criminal Law A. Legality B. Culpability and Elements of the Offense 1. Actus Reus/Omissions 2. Mens Rea a) Basic Conceptions and Applications b) Mistake of Fact c) Strict Liability d) Mistake of Law and the Cultural Defense III. Substantive Offenses A. Homicide and the Grading of Offenses 1. Premeditation/Deliberation 2. Provocation 3. Unintentional Killing 4. Felony Murder 5. Causation B. Rape 1. Introduction 2. Actus Reus 3. Mens Rea C. Blackmail IV. Attempts A. Mens Rea B. Actus Reus/Preparation V. Group Criminality A. Accountability for the Acts of Others 1. Mens Rea 2. Natural and Probable Consequences Theory 3. Actus Reus B. Conspiracy 1. Actus Reus and Mens Rea 2. Conspiracy as Accessory Liability 3. Duration and Scope of a Conspiracy 4. Reassessing the Law of Conspiracy 1 C. Corporate Criminal Liability VI. General Defenses to Liability A. Overview B. Justifications 1. Self Defense 2. Defense of Property 3. Necessity C. Excuses 1. Insanity 2. Expansion of Excuses 3. Duress VII. The Imposition of Criminal Punishment A. Sentencing B. Proportionality 2 INTRODUCTION Criminal Justice System in the U.S. I. Mass Incarceration and its Causes and Consequences A. Mass incarceration • Massive in terms of total numbers • Massive in terms of disproportionate impact on people of color B. Causes 1. Tough on crime policies • Examples of these policies: • Policing, arrest, charging, and convictions • Longer and mandatory sentences • Three-strikes laws and other recidivism laws • Federalizing crimes • What led to these policies? • High crime rates, especially the homicide rate • Actors with an interest in the system being like this • Private prison industries (for-profit systems) that make money by putting people in prison • Voters with an interest in these issues + anyone who doesn’t want people in prison voting • Victims and victims’ families • Death penalty abolitionists who advocate for life without parole as an alternative • Rural communities for whom prisons are a source of income • Prosecutors • Careerist rationales • Do-good rationale (acting in the good-faith public interest) • Limited resources • Not enough people with power on the other side • Some public interest lawyers, families, Sentencing Project, but mostly people who do not have the means to enact change or who are not politically favored • One group with power = fiscally concerned 2. War on drugs • Huge part of the federal crimes (25%) and accounts for about 30% of the state increase in crimes C. Consequences • Disproportionate impact on people of color • Roughly 33% of African Americans ages 20-29 are in some form of criminal supervision • Strained resources The Role of the Prosecutor I. Prosecutorial Discretion A. Types of prosecutorial discretion: 1. Charging sentencing 2. Selective enforcement 3. Plea bargaining B. Differing standards • ABA requires a prosecutor to dismiss charges when he or she “reasonably believes that proof of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is lacking.” ABA recommends that prosecutors consider the strength of evidence, harm caused, possible disproportion between authorized punishment and gravity of particular crime, defendant’s willingness to cooperate in the prosecution of others, and the likelihood of prosecution in another jurisdictions. • DOJ authorizes prosecutors to bring charges when they have “probable cause” that the person committed a federal offense • Even when there is evidence that prosecutors believe shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, can choose not to pursue charges (often because of limited resources/the need to individualize justice/overcriminalization) C. Federal versus state prosecution 3 • Many of the important federal crimes can also be charged as state crimes. State penalties are typically much lower • Decision to refer a case for state rather than federal prosecution can be as significant as the decision whether to prosecute the case at all. D. Internal/external review • Not much internal oversight on discretionary decisions (supervisors) generally • There are few additional mechanisms other than the trial process to police prosecutorial overreaching or misconduct in bringing charges E. Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller (1973) • Facts: Inmates want to have a writ of mandamus to force prosecutors to investigate the people who beat/ mistreated the inmates during this riot. The inmates want the state to charge and prosecute, and/or the federal government. • Background: Attica is a NY prison which was the site of a massive prison riot during which prisoners took hostage of prison guards. The prisoners wanted to negotiate prison conditions. There was also a lot of racial tension during this time period. During the riot, Governor Rockerfeller didn’t go into negotiate and instead authorized government officials to try to take back the prison by force. There was a gunfight and lots of teargas, during which lots of inmates and hostages died. After the prison was reclaimed, the corrections officers beat all of the inmates. • Issue: Can the court force state or federal prosecutors to investigate/prosecute? • Holding: It is the discretion of prosecutors to decide whether to charge or not; it is not up to the court to decide when to prosecute. There is no mandatory duty the court can put upon the state/federal prosecutors to bring such prosecution. • Rationale: The judiciary can’t force the prosecutors to prosecute because it is hard to draw the line, resource constraint problems, the problem of confidential information prosecutors don’t want to disclose, etc. • Significance: Establishes a general principle that the court cannot insist on prosecution. A victim or another person also cannot go to court and make a prosecutor bring charges. Private prosecution violates American separation-of-power principles and additionally, if this were allowed, it cannot be assured that the powers of the State are employed for the public interest broadly. F. U.S. v. Armstrong (1996) • Facts: Respondents were indicted in federal court on various crack charges. Respondents filed a motion for discovery, alleging that they were selected for federal prosecution because they are black. The claim is that white defendants are prosecuted in state courts, where penalties are generally lower. • Background: The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and subsequent legislation established a regime of high penalties for the possession and distribution of crack cocaine, which treat one gram of crack as the equivalent of 100 grams of powder cocaine. There is also a disparity between the severity of punishment imposed by federal law and that imposed by state law. The brunt of these elevated penalties fell most heavily on blacks, even though 65% of the persons who had used crack were white. • Issue: What is the appropriate standard for discovery for a selective-prosecution claim based on discrimination? • Holding: The claimant for a selective-prosecution claim must demonstrate that the federal prosecutorial policy had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose, by showing that similarly situated individuals of a different race were not prosecuted. Respondents’ evidence did not constitute this evidence. • Not enough to show effect; have to show purpose as well. Statistics can show effect but this doesn’t show purpose. To get intent, need other forms of evidence. • Rationale: Respondents failed to identify individuals who were not black and could have been prosecuted (though this information only would have been available if discovery were ordered and prosecutors released their data on charges), and their other evidence was hearsay. Sentencing data further shows that in 90% of federal crack sentences, the convicted person was black. If discovery were ordered, this would divert prosecutors’ resources and disclose the Government’s strategy. • Dissent: Defendants shouldn’t have to prepare sophisticated statistical studies to receive mere discovery. This is a dangerous pattern and should be examined. • Significance: Really high threshold for discovery in these cases. We would need evidence on all the cases brought and then rejected. We would need numbers on rates of use of the drugs in both populations. We would need numbers on distribution. However, can’t get this information unless given discovery. Can’t get discovery until proof with this information (meaning discovery has to be done by the person seeking discovery). • Difficulty in balancing policy interests: don’t want to make it too easy for people to bring these claims, but also don’t want to make them do too much to get discovery . 4 • Post-Armstrong, these cases are rarely brought and when they are brought they are VERY rarely successful. The policy rationale is wanting to give government the benefit of the doubt unless the defendant can show the evidence that there is discrimination. This is the main rationale for having a high, demanding threshold. II. Plea Bargaining A. Plea bargaining • Can threaten someone with just about anything as long as there is evidence for the threat • If there are a range of laws under which one can be charged, a prosecutor can threaten the defendant with the law that has the highest penalty to get the defendant to plead guilty and accept the lower penalty • Almost always a range of penalties which the prosecutor can try to bring • Plea bargaining is called the “trial penalty” B. Plea bargaining v. guilty plea • Guilty plea is very prevalent; 95% of state felony convictions and 96% federal • Accepting a guilty plea waives three principal rights: • Privilege against self-incrimination • Right to jury trial • Right to confront one’s accusers • Guilty plea rate is not necessarily considered the same as the bargaining rate • Some defendants enter a guilty plea with no expectation of receiving more lenient treatment in return • Indirect inducements v.
Recommended publications
  • INVESTIGATIVE REPORT Lori Torres, Inspector General

    INVESTIGATIVE REPORT Lori Torres, Inspector General

    INVESTIGATIVE REPORT Lori Torres, Inspector General OFFICE: INDIANA BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES TITLE: FORGERY; PERJURY; THEFT CASE ID: 2017-12-0293 DATE: August 30, 2018 Inspector General Staff Attorney Kelly Elliott, after an investigation by Special Agent Mark Mitchell, reports as follows: The Indiana General Assembly charged the Office of Inspector General (OIG) with addressing fraud, waste, abuse, and wrongdoing in the executive branch of state government. IC 4-2-7-2(b). The OIG also investigates criminal activity and ethics violations by state workers. IC 4-2-7-3. The OIG may recommend policies and carry out other activities designed to deter, detect, and eradicate fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement, and misconduct in state government. IC 4-2- 7-3(2). On March 23, 2017, the OIG received a complaint from the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) that alleged a former BMV employee, Richard Pringle, submitted false information to the BMV on personal certificate of title applications. OIG Special Agent Mark Mitchell conducted an investigation into this matter. Through the course of his investigation, Special Agent Mitchell interviewed Pringle and reviewed documentation received from BMV, including their internal investigation report on this matter. According to BMV’s investigative report of the allegations against Pringle, BMV found that Pringle submitted an application for a 1997 GMC Yukon in October 2016 that listed a sale price 1 that was different from the price the seller of the vehicle stated they sold it. At the conclusion of their investigation, BMV terminated Pringle’s employment in or around March 2017. Special Agent Mitchell reviewed the BMV certificate of title application for the 1997 GMC Yukon.
  • Criminal Liability of Corporations

    Criminal Liability of Corporations

    THE LAW COMMISSION WORKING PAPER NO. 44 SECOND PROGRAMME, ITEM XVIII CODIFICATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW \ GENERAL PRINCIPLES CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF CORPORATIONS LAW COhlMISSION INTRODUCTION 1. This Paper is the third in a series prepared by the Working Party' assisting the Law Commission in the examination of the general principles of the criminal law which is designed as a basis upon which to seek the views of those concerned with the criminal law. It is being issued for con- sultation simultaneously with Working Paper No. 43. 2 2. As the introduction to Working Paper No. 43 explains, extended consideration of the liability of corporations outside the context of criminal liability for another's acts was thought necessary because of particular problems in the field of the criminal law to which corporations give rise. Those problems also dictated the form which the present Paper takes. Unlike the two previous Papers in this series, it contains, not a series of propositions with illustrations and commentary, but in the first place an exposition of the present state of the law and its development togetver with a survey of the current position abroad and, secondly, an examination of the various possible bases of corporate liability followed by a discussion of the social and policy factors which may favour the choice of one or other of these bases for the future. - -- 1. For membership; see p. (3). 2, "Parties, complicity and liability for the acts of nnothrr". 3. The Law Commission agrees with the views expressed by the Working Party that the subject of corporate criminal liability requires treatment separate from that accorded to the subject of complicity in general and that such treatment may best take the form of an exposition of the problems such as the present Paper adopts, The Commission therefore welcomes the Paper for purposes of consultation and, in accordance with its usual policy, is publishing it with an invitation to com- mcnt upon its generai approach and conclusions.
  • Criminal Procedure University of the Pacific; Cm George School of Law

    Criminal Procedure University of the Pacific; Cm George School of Law

    McGeorge Law Review Volume 27 | Issue 2 Article 16 1-1-1996 Criminal Procedure University of the Pacific; cM George School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr Part of the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation University of the Pacific; McGeorge School of Law, Criminal Procedure, 27 Pac. L. J. 603 (1996). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr/vol27/iss2/16 This Greensheet is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals and Law Reviews at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure; admissibility of voluntary intoxication Penal Code § 22 (amended). SB 121 (Thompson); 1995 STAT. Ch. 793 Existing law provides that when a specific intent crime' ischarged, evidence of voluntary intoxication2 will be admissible to negate the formation of the required intent? However, when a general intent crime4 is charged, existing law does not allow the admission of voluntary intoxication to negate the formation of the required intent.5 Existing law further provides that voluntary intoxication is not admissible to negate a defendant's capacity to form any requisite mental state.6 Under prior law, voluntary intoxication would be admissible as to whether 1. See People v. Hood, I Cal. 3d 444,457,462 P.2d 370,378, 82 Cal. Rptr. 618,626 (1969) (stating the general rule that a crime is one of specific intent if the definition of the crime requires that the defendant intend to do a further act or achieve an additional result); see also CAL.
  • Parties to Crime and Vicarious Liability

    Parties to Crime and Vicarious Liability

    CHAPTER 6: PARTIES TO CRIME AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY The text discusses parties to crime in terms of accessories and accomplices. Accessories are defined as accessory before the fact – those who help prepare for the crime – and accessories after the fact – those who assist offenders after the crime. Accomplices are defined as those who participate in the crime. Under the common law, accessories were typically not punished as much as accomplices or principle offenders; on the other hand, accomplices were usually punished the same as principal offenders. Accomplices and Accessories Before the Fact Under Ohio’s statutes, accomplices and accessories before the fact are now treated similarly, while accessories after the fact are treated separately under the obstruction of justice statute discussed later. Under Ohio’s complicity staute: (A) No person acting with the kind of culpability required for an offense…shall do any of the following: Solicit or procure another to commit the offense; Aid or abet another in committing the offense; Conspire with another to commit the offense… ; Cause an innocent or irresponsible person to commit the offense. (Ohio Revised Code, § 2923.03, 1986, available at http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.03). Note that parts of the complicity statute – (A)(1) and (A)(3) – mention both solicitation and conspiracy. These two crimes are discussed in Chapter 7. The punishment for complicity is the same as for the principal offender; that is, if Offender A robs a liquor store and Offender B drives the getaway car, both offenders are subject to the same punishment, even though Offender A would be charged with robbery and Offender B would be charged with complicity (Ohio Revised Code, § 2923.03 (F), 1986, available at http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.03).
  • Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal

    Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal

    Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal Release 20, September 2019 NOTICE TO USERS: THE FOLLOWING SET OF UNANNOTATED MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS ARE BEING MADE AVAILABLE WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER, MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY, INC. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FULL ANNOTATED VERSION OF THESE MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS IS AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE FROM MATTHEW BENDER® BY WAY OF THE FOLLOWING LINK: https://store.lexisnexis.com/categories/area-of-practice/criminal-law-procedure- 161/virginia-model-jury-instructions-criminal-skuusSku6572 Matthew Bender is a registered trademark of Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Instruction No. 2.050 Preliminary Instructions to Jury Members of the jury, the order of the trial of this case will be in four stages: 1. Opening statements 2. Presentation of the evidence 3. Instructions of law 4. Final argument After the conclusion of final argument, I will instruct you concerning your deliberations. You will then go to your room, select a foreperson, deliberate, and arrive at your verdict. Opening Statements First, the Commonwealth's attorney may make an opening statement outlining his or her case. Then the defendant's attorney also may make an opening statement. Neither side is required to do so. Presentation of the Evidence [Second, following the opening statements, the Commonwealth will introduce evidence, after which the defendant then has the right to introduce evidence (but is not required to do so). Rebuttal evidence may then be introduced if appropriate.] [Second, following the opening statements, the evidence will be presented.] Instructions of Law Third, at the conclusion of all evidence, I will instruct you on the law which is to be applied to this case.
  • False Statements and Perjury: a Sketch of Federal Criminal Law

    False Statements and Perjury: a Sketch of Federal Criminal Law

    False Statements and Perjury: A Sketch of Federal Criminal Law Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law May 11, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov 98-807 False Statements and Perjury: A Sketch of Federal Criminal Law Summary Federal courts, Congress, and federal agencies rely upon truthful information in order to make informed decisions. Federal law therefore proscribes providing the federal courts, Congress, or federal agencies with false information. The prohibition takes four forms: false statements; perjury in judicial proceedings; perjury in other contexts; and subornation of perjury. Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the general false statement statute, outlaws material false statements in matters within the jurisdiction of a federal agency or department. It reaches false statements in federal court and grand jury sessions as well as congressional hearings and administrative matters but not the statements of advocates or parties in court proceedings. Under Section 1001, a statement is a crime if it is false regardless of whether it is made under oath. In contrast, an oath is the hallmark of the three perjury statutes in Title 18. The oldest, Section 1621, condemns presenting material false statements under oath in federal official proceedings. Section 1623 of the same title prohibits presenting material false statements under oath in federal court proceedings, although it lacks some of Section 1621’s traditional procedural features, such as a two-witness requirement. Subornation of perjury, barred in Section 1622, consists of inducing another to commit perjury. All four sections carry a penalty of imprisonment for not more than five years, although Section 1001 is punishable by imprisonment for not more than eight years when the offense involves terrorism or one of the various federal sex offenses.
  • SECOND CONCURRENCE SCHALLER, J., Concurring

    SECOND CONCURRENCE SCHALLER, J., Concurring

    ****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con- necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro- duced and distributed without the express written per- mission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** CONNECTICUT COALITION FOR JUSTICE IN EDUCATION FUNDING, INC. v. RELLÐSECOND
  • Milatz V. City of Cincinnati, Ohio

    Milatz V. City of Cincinnati, Ohio

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO MARGARET MILATZ, APPEAL NO. C-180272 : TRIAL NO. A-1603564 Plaintiff-Appellant, : vs. O P I N I O N. : CITY OF CINCINNATI, OHIO, : CINCINNATI USA REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, : and : LOUD AND CLEAR, INC., : Defendants-Appellees. : Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: September 27, 2019 Brannon & Associates, Dwight D. Brannon and Matthew C. Schultz, for Plaintiff- Appellant, Paula Boggs Muething, City Solicitor, and Peter J. Stackpole, Deputy City Solicitor, for Defendant-Appellee City of Cincinnati, Ohio, Douglas J. May, for Defendant-Appellee Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber of Commerce, Reminger Co., L.P.A., and Ian D. Mitchell, for Defendant-Appellee Loud and Clear, Inc. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS BERGERON, Judge. {¶1} A night at Oktoberfest in downtown Cincinnati went awry when a patron fell and injured herself. As the culprit for the fall, the patron zeroed in on a safety utility box (placed over wires on the ground to prevent people from tripping), which appeared haphazardly assembled when the patron returned to the scene a day after the accident. In the ensuing lawsuit, the trial court granted summary judgment based on the “open and obvious” nature of the box—a conclusion that the plaintiff does not seriously dispute at this point. Instead, she claims that attendant circumstances distracted her attention, thereby granting her entitlement to a trial. But her position would represent a substantial expansion of the attendant- circumstances doctrine, which is a step we are unwilling to take on this record, particularly in light of the lack of evidence of actual causation.
  • Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the First Circuit)

    Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the First Circuit)

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE 2019 REVISIONS TO PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT DISTRICT OF MAINE INTERNET SITE EDITION Updated 6/24/19 by Chief District Judge Nancy Torresen PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Preface to 1998 Edition Citations to Other Pattern Instructions How to Use the Pattern Instructions Part 1—Preliminary Instructions 1.01 Duties of the Jury 1.02 Nature of Indictment; Presumption of Innocence 1.03 Previous Trial 1.04 Preliminary Statement of Elements of Crime 1.05 Evidence; Objections; Rulings; Bench Conferences 1.06 Credibility of Witnesses 1.07 Conduct of the Jury 1.08 Notetaking 1.09 Outline of the Trial Part 2—Instructions Concerning Certain Matters of Evidence 2.01 Stipulations 2.02 Judicial Notice 2.03 Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statement 2.04 Impeachment of Witness Testimony by Prior Conviction 2.05 Impeachment of Defendant's Testimony by Prior Conviction 2.06 Evidence of Defendant's Prior Similar Acts 2.07 Weighing the Testimony of an Expert Witness 2.08 Caution as to Cooperating Witness/Accomplice/Paid Informant 2.09 Use of Tapes and Transcripts 2.10 Flight After Accusation/Consciousness of Guilt 2.11 Statements by Defendant 2.12 Missing Witness 2.13 Spoliation 2.14 Witness (Not the Defendant) Who Takes the Fifth Amendment 2.15 Definition of “Knowingly” 2.16 “Willful Blindness” As a Way of Satisfying “Knowingly” 2.17 Definition of “Willfully” 2.18 Taking a View 2.19 Character Evidence 2.20 Testimony by Defendant
  • A Timely History of Cheating and Fraud Following Ivey V Genting Casinos (UK)

    A Timely History of Cheating and Fraud Following Ivey V Genting Casinos (UK)

    The honest cheat: a timely history of cheating and fraud following Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 Cerian Griffiths Lecturer in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Lancaster University Law School1 Author email: [email protected] Abstract: The UK Supreme Court took the opportunity in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 to reverse the long-standing, but unpopular, test for dishonesty in R v Ghosh. It reduced the relevance of subjectivity in the test of dishonesty, and brought the civil and the criminal law approaches to dishonesty into line by adopting the test as laid down in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan. This article employs extensive legal historical research to demonstrate that the Supreme Court in Ivey was too quick to dismiss the significance of the historical roots of dishonesty. Through an innovative and comprehensive historical framework of fraud, this article demonstrates that dishonesty has long been a central pillar of the actus reus of deceptive offences. The recognition of such significance permits us to situate the role of dishonesty in contemporary criminal property offences. This historical analysis further demonstrates that the Justices erroneously overlooked centuries of jurisprudence in their haste to unite civil and criminal law tests for dishonesty. 1 I would like to thank Lindsay Farmer, Dave Campbell, and Dave Ellis for giving very helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this article. I would also like to thank Angus MacCulloch, Phil Lawton, and the Lancaster Law School Peer Review College for their guidance in developing this paper.
  • From Social Welfare to Social Control: Federal War in American Cities, 1968-1988

    From Social Welfare to Social Control: Federal War in American Cities, 1968-1988

    From Social Welfare to Social Control: Federal War in American Cities, 1968-1988 Elizabeth Kai Hinton Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2013 © 2012 Elizabeth Kai Hinton All rights reserved ABSTRACT From Social Welfare to Social Control: Federal War in American Cities, 1968-1988 Elizabeth Hinton The first historical account of federal crime control policy, “From Social Welfare to Social Control” contextualizes the mass incarceration of marginalized Americans by illuminating the process that gave rise to the modern carceral state in the decades after the Civil Rights Movement. The dissertation examines the development of the national law enforcement program during its initial two decades, from the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which established the block grant system and a massive federal investment into penal and juridical agencies, to the Omnibus Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which set sentencing guidelines that ensured historic incarceration rates. During this critical period, Presidential Administrations, State Departments, and Congress refocused the domestic agenda from social programs to crime and punishment. To challenge our understanding of the liberal welfare state and the rise of modern conservatism, “From Social Welfare to Social Control” emphasizes the bipartisan dimensions of punitive policy and situates crime control as the dominant federal response to the social and demographic transformations brought about by mass protest and the decline of domestic manufacturing. The federal government’s decision to manage the material consequences of rising unemployment, subpar school systems, and poverty in American cities as they manifested through crime reinforced violence within the communities national law enforcement legislation targeted with billions of dollars in grant funds from 1968 onwards.
  • Chapter 11: Homicide

    Chapter 11: Homicide

    Chapter 11: Homicide Chapter Overview: Chapter eleven discusses the fourth category of crime against the person, criminal homicide. This is considered to be the most serious of all criminal offenses. There are four different types of homicide: justifiable homicide, excusable homicide, murder, and manslaughter. Criminal homicide is divided into murder and manslaughter, with the distinction being the presence or lack of malice. Murder can include a broad group of crimes, such as depraved heart murders, which is a killing caused by an extreme level of negligence on the part of perpetrator, and felony murder, which is killing that takes place during the course of another felony crime. There are also separate distinctions within the terms murder and manslaughter that serve to identify different levels of crime. Manslaughter is divided into voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter involved a heat-of-the-moment decision made without malice. Involuntary manslaughter results from a criminal degree of negligence and in some states, like Florida, can also include categories like vehicular manslaughter. Murder is also divided into two categories: first-degree murder and second-degree murder. The distinction between the two that makes first-degree murder the most serious is that it includes premeditation and deliberation. This means that the perpetrator took time to consider his or her decision to commit the act for some length of time prior to the murder. This chapter also addresses important questions such as when human life begins and ends. Due the limits of medical science, common law utilized the rule that a person could not be criminally responsible for the murder of a fetus unless the child is born alive.