CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE
1. Legality
MPC: S 1.02 (1) = the general purpose of the provisions governing the definitions of offenses
Rule 1: Court creates crimes for conduct that is so scandalous and immoral Mochan- numerous phone calls suggesting sex to a married woman o Court made crime after the fact because the conduct was SO outrageous - Common Law Rule (able to bridge legal gaps) Rule 2: When there is a vague statute and crime doesn't quite fit in the statute. the statute should not be extended simply because it may seem that similar policy applies McBoyle -- stole an airplane, question of the word "vehicle" in the statute oLegislative Intent Rule 3: Can't criminalize conduct when the statutory language is ambiguous When the statute can be read in support or against indictment -> Use Rule of Lenity Dauray -- pictures of child porn that were cut out from a magazine o When there are ambiguities in the statute; the court is to rule in the defendant's favor Rule 4: FAIR WARNING -> can't create a crime that doesn't fit within the statute -> if the enlargement of a statute is unforeseeable to the defendant, he cannot be charged with that crime, since it would deny defendant of due process Keeler -- man kicks pregnant ex-wife and kills the fetus, but the word "fetus"" wasn't in the statute and since it was not foreseeable that the fetus would be in the statute, the defendant can't be charged with the crime as if it was to a "human being" o Rule: When a new penal statute is applied retrospectively to make punishable an act which was not criminal at the time, the defendant has been given no advanced notice consistent with due process Rule 5: When the statute does not provide adequate notice to the public and is vague on its face -> rule of lenity, it cannot be enforced since the terms were too unclear -> have to rule in defendant's favor Morales- the loitering statute was too vague and did not give proper notice to the public
2. Justification for Punishment
(A) Does the punishment fit the crime? HYPO: o 1. A helped B in drug deal once -> 4 years later the police found A and was sentenced to 10 months prison -> punishment was too harsh (B) Utilitarian Forward looking -- future useful purposes of punishment o Cost outweighs the benefits -> justify punishment on the basis of expected good behavior in the future o Deterrence If pain > pleasure -> crime won't be committed in the future Dudley & Stephens -- cannibalism on the ship (C) Retribution Backward looking -- punishment is justified because people deserve it for their past behavior and blameworthiness of their actions o Moral culpability -- only the guilty should be punished Deterrence Severe punishment to reduce crime (doesn't matter about weighing the benefits or the cost of the crime to see if that will keep them from committing the cri