Allows for criminal liability for social harm At minimum, MPC requires a mens rea of Defendant convicted for taking metal casings off alone recklessness (for homicide) gov’t property (defendant claims he thought they Courts have strong presumption against Allows for strict liability for offenses were abandoned no intent to purposefully strict liability offenses designated as not “violations” “crimes” /knowingly steal them) Doesn’t address moral culpability Light penalties for violations Fair notice problem Mere omission of mention of intent doesn’t mean Factors for the application of Strict Liability that element is eliminated (may be inherent in No mens rea specified in the some statutes) statute Regulates health, safety, or welfare Omissions (duty imposed by law) Defendant is in position to prevent harm and it is reasonable to expect defendant to do so Imposed with penalties, light stigma Crime not rooted in CL Legislative policy undermined by mens rea Transferred Intent BASIC RULE: intent to cause one kind of 2.02(2) harm cannot serve as proof of the intent to When purposefully or knowingly causing a Basic rule the same for CL and MPC cause another kind of harm particular result is an element of the Exception: homicide offenses offense, the element is not established if Ex. People v. Scott the actual result is not within the Defendant charged with murder & attempted purpose/contemplation of the murder by shooting at park, sprayed bullets) UNLESS: Defendants had intent to kill and killed, also (a) the actual result differs from attempted the life of another, should be punished that designed/contemplated only at the same level as if they had hit their target. in the respect that a different Transferred intent allowed for homicides. person/property is injured/affected OR that the Regina v. Pembliton injury/harm would have been Defendant throws rock at person, hits and breaks more serious/extensive than that window. No indication that he knew window was caused there, court decides he can’t be held responsible. (b) the actual result involves the Mental state not attached (defendant didn’t mean same kind of injury/harm as that to break window, not his intent). No transferred designed/contemplated and is not intent for crimes unless homicide. too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have bearing on the
Defendant convicted for taking metal casings off gov’t property (defendant claims he thought they were abandoned no intent to purposefully /knowingly steal them) Mere omission of mention of intent doesn’t mean that element is eliminated (may be inherent in some statutes) Allows for criminal liability for social harm alone Courts have strong presumption against strict liability offenses Doesn’t address moral culpability Fair notice problem Factors for the application of Strict Liability No mens rea specified in the statute Regulates health, safety, or welfare Omissions (duty imposed by law) Defendant is in position to prevent harm and it is reasonable to expect defendant to do so Imposed with penalties, light stigma Crime not rooted in CL Legislative policy undermined by mens rea At minimum, MPC requires a mens rea of recklessness (for homicide) Allows for strict liability for offenses designated as “violations” not “crimes” Light penalties for violations Transferred Intent Basic rule the same for CL and MPC Ex. People v. Scott Defendant charged with murder & attempted murder by shooting at park, sprayed bullets) Defendants had intent to kill and killed, also attempted the life of another, should be punished at the same level as if they had hit their target. Transferred intent allowed for homicides. Regina v. Pembliton Defendant throws rock at person, hits and breaks window. No indication that he knew window was there, court decides he can’t be held responsible. Mental state not attached (defendant didn’t mean to break window, not his intent). No transferred intent for crimes unless homicide. BASIC RULE: intent to cause one kind of harm cannot serve as proof of the intent to cause another kind of harm Exception: homicide offenses 2.02(2) When purposefully or knowingly causing a particular result is an element of the offense, the element is not established if the actual result is not within the purpose/contemplation of the UNLESS: (a) the actual result differs from that designed/contemplated only in the respect that a different person/property is injured/affected OR that the injury/harm would have been more serious/extensive than that caused (b) the actual result involves the same kind of injury/harm as that designed/contemplated and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have bearing on the
Criminal-Law-Ocen-20143.docx