Unit 7 Seminar Prof. Heather Valdes

 Read Philosophy of Law, Chapter 4, p  Respond to the Unit 2 Discussion  Take the Self-Check Quiz  Complete the Unit 7 Writing Assignment  Attend the Unit 7 Seminar  Or complete the alternative assignment

What happens if the conditions sufficient to establish one’s deed as criminal exist, mens rea + actus reus = a crime = punishment but one is undeserving of legal punishment

Justification & Excuse

 To say that one’s deed was justified is to say that it was the right, or at least not the wrong, act (Murphy, 2007, p.133).  So, how can you punish when the act was not really wrong??? Justification the act is not worthy of condemnation, no punishment needed Who does that sound like????

Even though one violated the letter of the law, one was right to do so in this case because breaking the law would be a lesser evil than adhering to it. Alright to break the law? Sounds like something we have covered before!

 John goes into his local CVS to buy some chips for Alice. While he is standing at the counter, he suffers a heart- attack. Unless he receives an immediate dose of nitroglycerine, he will die.  John staggers back to the pharmacy, plunks a ten dollar bill down on the counter, and asks for the drug. Henry, the pharmacist on duty, sells the drug to John without a prescription because there is no time to find a doctor.  Is Henry guilty of selling a drug without a prescription?  What if the FDA had not yet approved the drug, if in fact there are significant risks associated with administering it which only a doctor can fully appreciate?  What if John simply says, "Give me something quick, I'm having a heart attack," and Henry sells him the drug, but there is another drug that Henry could have sold to John for the same price but one with far fewer risks, but Henry did not know the difference because he does not have a medical degree?

Is a duty to retreat? What amount of force one can use in self defense?

Pro Gun Rights Ad (Fair Use)

 Interpretative – to interpret a prohibition reasonably we need not interpret it to mean that in every imaginable circumstance the rule is to apply.  Law’s status as authoritative. To be authoritative law must provide decisive reasons for adherence and situations of necessity do not provide decisive reasons for adherence.

 To say that one’s deed is excused is to say that if the deed was wrong, the agent should not be blamed.  Punishment condemns the agent as performer of a wrongful act. Excuse means the agent does not deserve condemnation. The source of the excuse is internal to the agent – it is a fact about the agent that makes the agent not blameworthy. (Murphy, 2006)

 With the defense of excuse, one admits the action is wrong but claims one is not to be blamed.  Technically only some types of insanity would qualify as excuse. Under the M’Naghten rule: if one is so incapacitated by a defect of reason or disease of the mind that one does not understand the nature or the act committed or its wrongfulness cognitive deficits = no mens rea

 mental illnesses can generate deficiencies that are volitional rather than cognitive  in which cases one might know that the act is wrongful but be unable to keep from performing it. Compulsion to act Not a diagnosis (medical)  The American Law Institute’s definition of insanity includes mental disease or defect that causes one to lack substantial capacity “to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.”  one could know the act was wrongful (have mens rea)  but be unable to control one’s behavior and, as such, would be a type of excuse. Remember Andrea Yates? Was she insane?

 Very bad persons who are not insane also could be said to lack capacity to control their behaviors.  To distinguish the very bad from those who are sick, the Model Penal Code conditions that “mental disease or defect” does not include “abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.”  What does your state say? Dahmer Gacy Bundy

According to an eight-state study the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all court cases and, when used, has only a 26% success rate. Of those cases that were successful, 90% of the defendants had been previously diagnosed with mental illness. (Schmalleger, Frank (2001). Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction. Prentice Hall)

Children are not deemed to have full capacity. They are deemed unable to make adult decisions Negates the mens rea

Fail at your crime = Do less time! Do less time!  Treats failure to succeed in bringing about a criminal objective as mitigating blameworthiness.  Under the Model Penal Code, attempts that are unlikely to result in the crime or harm are treated even less severely  I am going to kill you with my long stem roses!

 Punishing attempts less severely than successful crimes does not make sense  From a retributivist viewpoint, because punishment is based upon blameworthiness and failed attempts are not less blameworthy than successful attempts  From a utilitarian viewpoint as deterrence is not enhanced by mitigating punishment for attempts that fail.

 Read Philosophy of Law, Chapter 4, p  Respond to the Unit 2 Discussion  Take the Self-Check Quiz  Complete the Unit 7 Writing Assignment  Attend the Unit 7 Seminar  Or complete the alternative assignment