Most of us watch Law and Order, the Practice, and other law-related shows. In fact, no other profession so dominates telelviosn and the media, and for good reason. Ours is a litigious society, and people (and the government) are constantly seeking redress for wrongs that have been committed. So, to give you all a little information to help you get a bit more out of these shows, I present a brief overview of criminal law - one of the compulsory first-year course in every law school in America.
But before that, here's a little history about crim law. Criminal law is one of the oldest bodies of jurisprudence, simply due to the fact that crimes have existed since the beginning of man. However, unlike with other bodies of law, crim law is perhaps the most confusing from a logical standpoint, since many of the crimes are born both out of religious principles and/or fudnamental concepts of right and wrong - both sources that don't have purely rational bases behind belief. So we see that the law here sometimes bases culpability on the intent of the actor, known as the mens rea, some based on the result of the action, known as the actus reus, most on both, and some on neither.
There are 2 sources of criminal law - the common law (that is, law as created by the courts), and statutory law (law expressly enacted by governing bodies, with such laws either being entirely new or simply an express codification of a common law). Since there are a trillion statutorys laws, the extend beyond the scope of this lesson. The common law will be discussed, and as you'll see, alot of peculiarities exist, because of the social and political context during the olden times when these crimes came into being.
Intent - Levels of Mens Rea
At the common law, there was no specifc uniform series of levels of intent. Some crimes merely required "bad heart" and others where only punishabel where a specific act was done "knowingly". However, most of the crimes can be categorized into 4 levels of intent --> conscious intent to engage in a certain behavior (specific intent), high reckless disregard of the high probability of such a criminal result happening (malice - note that misnomer here), mere awareness that such conduct either will result, or is crminal (general intent), and reckless behavior (criminal negligence). Why have these classifications? Well, because depending on what level of intent is required, certain "defenses" to the crime may be available.
Defenses to Specific Intent Crimes: because specific intent is the highest form of intent, what law people common sensically understand as "intent", anything that negates this unambigious commitment to do something WILL absolve the defendant of being convicted, including notably, voluntary intoxication and a mistake of fact essential to the crime, even if it is unreasonable. As an example, larceny is a specific intent crime (which you'll see below) is the taking of someone else's property with the specific intent to deprive them of that property permanently. If I am charged with larceny and I can prove that my decision to take your car from your driveway away was a result of me being plastered (voluntary intoxication) or because I mistakenly thought that it was mine (even if I had no reasonable reason to think that), then I CANNOT be convicted of larceny.
Defenses to all Other Crimes: Because they require less than a specific intent to commit the act, being intoxicated or being unreasonable about a mistake essential to the crime, is NOT a defense.
The Common Law Crimes
Rape
rape is "having unconsensual sex with someone not his wife". NOTE that a husband could NOT be convicted of raping his wife in the common law! Now, many states have enacted statutes to codify rape, and in doing so, have removed the "not his wife". This is an example of what I meant when I say that the laws had historical pecularities. This is a general intent crime, and therefore being shitfaced or unreasonably thinking a girl consented is not a defense. Reasonable belief about consent IS.
Larceny
Larceny is "the trespassory taking of another's property without their consent with the specific intent to deprive them of that property permanently". Therefore, if one does not have that specific intent to deprive at the time of taking it is not larceny. Say I go into your house to take back a TV I lent you and then also take your DVD player with an intent to borrow it and bring it back, I have committed no larceny - my intent in taking the TV is to get back what is mine, and I only intended to borrow, not permanently deprive you of your DD player.
Murder
Murder at the common law is quite different than has been statutorily codified. At the common law, murder was 2 main levels:
Murder: A killing by someone where the person had the intention to kill, was merely acting in a way that was extremely reckless with respect to the possibility of causing death, had the intent to only cause serious bodily harm but the guy subsequently died, or caused a killing (by any manner, even by accident) during the commission of a felony, was Murder.
Voluntary Manslaughter: An action that would otherwise fit into murder above was reduced to Voluntary manslaughter if it was done as the result of "inflamed passion". If a guy saw his wife cheating on him, or other equally egregious situation which made the person lose his temper and kill in a rage, his charge would only be voluntary manslaughter.
Involuntary Manslaughter: An action that resulted in a death but was merely negligent in behavior was called involuntary manslaughter
Robbery
Robbery is "the taking of another's property, by force, with the specific intent to deprive that person of his property permanently". Note that the only difference between robbery and larceny is the use of force or threat of force) and the awareness by the person being deprived, of the deprivation. So if I pointed a gun at you and demanded your wallet, and you give it to me, I've robbed you. But if I pointed a gun at you and demanded your wallet, and you pass out, and then I take the wallet out of your pocket, I've only committed larceny. See the difference? You had no awareness of my taking and it wasn't taken from you by force or against your will.
embezzlement
Embezzlement is the "fraudulent taking of another person's property without his consent with the specific intent to deprive them of that property permanently, but where you have possesion". Note then that the only difference between embezzlement and larceny is that the taking is in fact merely a "conversion" - that is, you are ALREADY in posession of the property legitimately but decide to take it for yourself. A classic example is a cashier at Wal-Mart who slips a $20 from the register into his pocket. He has legitimate posession of the money since, as cashier he is entrusted with the cash at his cash register, but he has know "stolen" it for himself.
Well, that about sums it up people. Later, I will post a few multiple choice questions for you to test you new knowledge about the law!
But before that, here's a little history about crim law. Criminal law is one of the oldest bodies of jurisprudence, simply due to the fact that crimes have existed since the beginning of man. However, unlike with other bodies of law, crim law is perhaps the most confusing from a logical standpoint, since many of the crimes are born both out of religious principles and/or fudnamental concepts of right and wrong - both sources that don't have purely rational bases behind belief. So we see that the law here sometimes bases culpability on the intent of the actor, known as the mens rea, some based on the result of the action, known as the actus reus, most on both, and some on neither.
There are 2 sources of criminal law - the common law (that is, law as created by the courts), and statutory law (law expressly enacted by governing bodies, with such laws either being entirely new or simply an express codification of a common law). Since there are a trillion statutorys laws, the extend beyond the scope of this lesson. The common law will be discussed, and as you'll see, alot of peculiarities exist, because of the social and political context during the olden times when these crimes came into being.
Intent - Levels of Mens Rea
At the common law, there was no specifc uniform series of levels of intent. Some crimes merely required "bad heart" and others where only punishabel where a specific act was done "knowingly". However, most of the crimes can be categorized into 4 levels of intent --> conscious intent to engage in a certain behavior (specific intent), high reckless disregard of the high probability of such a criminal result happening (malice - note that misnomer here), mere awareness that such conduct either will result, or is crminal (general intent), and reckless behavior (criminal negligence). Why have these classifications? Well, because depending on what level of intent is required, certain "defenses" to the crime may be available.
Defenses to Specific Intent Crimes: because specific intent is the highest form of intent, what law people common sensically understand as "intent", anything that negates this unambigious commitment to do something WILL absolve the defendant of being convicted, including notably, voluntary intoxication and a mistake of fact essential to the crime, even if it is unreasonable. As an example, larceny is a specific intent crime (which you'll see below) is the taking of someone else's property with the specific intent to deprive them of that property permanently. If I am charged with larceny and I can prove that my decision to take your car from your driveway away was a result of me being plastered (voluntary intoxication) or because I mistakenly thought that it was mine (even if I had no reasonable reason to think that), then I CANNOT be convicted of larceny.
Defenses to all Other Crimes: Because they require less than a specific intent to commit the act, being intoxicated or being unreasonable about a mistake essential to the crime, is NOT a defense.
The Common Law Crimes
Rape
rape is "having unconsensual sex with someone not his wife". NOTE that a husband could NOT be convicted of raping his wife in the common law! Now, many states have enacted statutes to codify rape, and in doing so, have removed the "not his wife". This is an example of what I meant when I say that the laws had historical pecularities. This is a general intent crime, and therefore being shitfaced or unreasonably thinking a girl consented is not a defense. Reasonable belief about consent IS.
Larceny
Larceny is "the trespassory taking of another's property without their consent with the specific intent to deprive them of that property permanently". Therefore, if one does not have that specific intent to deprive at the time of taking it is not larceny. Say I go into your house to take back a TV I lent you and then also take your DVD player with an intent to borrow it and bring it back, I have committed no larceny - my intent in taking the TV is to get back what is mine, and I only intended to borrow, not permanently deprive you of your DD player.
Murder
Murder at the common law is quite different than has been statutorily codified. At the common law, murder was 2 main levels:
Murder: A killing by someone where the person had the intention to kill, was merely acting in a way that was extremely reckless with respect to the possibility of causing death, had the intent to only cause serious bodily harm but the guy subsequently died, or caused a killing (by any manner, even by accident) during the commission of a felony, was Murder.
Voluntary Manslaughter: An action that would otherwise fit into murder above was reduced to Voluntary manslaughter if it was done as the result of "inflamed passion". If a guy saw his wife cheating on him, or other equally egregious situation which made the person lose his temper and kill in a rage, his charge would only be voluntary manslaughter.
Involuntary Manslaughter: An action that resulted in a death but was merely negligent in behavior was called involuntary manslaughter
Robbery
Robbery is "the taking of another's property, by force, with the specific intent to deprive that person of his property permanently". Note that the only difference between robbery and larceny is the use of force or threat of force) and the awareness by the person being deprived, of the deprivation. So if I pointed a gun at you and demanded your wallet, and you give it to me, I've robbed you. But if I pointed a gun at you and demanded your wallet, and you pass out, and then I take the wallet out of your pocket, I've only committed larceny. See the difference? You had no awareness of my taking and it wasn't taken from you by force or against your will.
embezzlement
Embezzlement is the "fraudulent taking of another person's property without his consent with the specific intent to deprive them of that property permanently, but where you have possesion". Note then that the only difference between embezzlement and larceny is that the taking is in fact merely a "conversion" - that is, you are ALREADY in posession of the property legitimately but decide to take it for yourself. A classic example is a cashier at Wal-Mart who slips a $20 from the register into his pocket. He has legitimate posession of the money since, as cashier he is entrusted with the cash at his cash register, but he has know "stolen" it for himself.
Well, that about sums it up people. Later, I will post a few multiple choice questions for you to test you new knowledge about the law!
Facebook
Twitter