Criminal
Law Class Notes
A
bit more on Beardsley
Should
people be punished for omissions?
Keep
in mind the difference between statutory omissions and the more typical case,
that is, commission by omission. That’s
what we have in Beardsley.
Beardsley is being prosecuted for a regular old crime that you
can usually only commit by an act.
Isn’t
there a slippery slope problem with punishing omission? Is this problem evident in the Beardsley case?
Another
problem with omission cases is the interpretation of what is going on.
Beardsley
tried to take away Ms. Burns’s morphine.
That would seem to show that he knew it was dangerous.
What
about personal responsibility? What if
you’re too drunk to make a rational choice?
How about the distinction between a legal duty and a moral duty?
Say
we want to find Beardsley guilty, but we don’t want to change the law. There are five categories of circumstances
listed in Jones. Which one could
we use to “git” Beardsley?
We
have the parent-child relationship and the husband-wife relationship. We are also told that if you voluntarily
assume the care of another, you may have a legal duty to them. What about his action of knocking the pills
out of her hand? What about having
someone else move her to the basement?
Well, he didn’t prevent others for rendering aid.
But…arguably,
by moving her into the basement, she might have been better off if he had
kicked her out of the house. In some
sense, we might argue, he secluded her in a place where nobody else is likely
to find her in an appropriate length of time.
That’s probably the strongest argument for the prosecutor in this case.
Say
you have no legal duty to act, but you start to act. If you then quit, you will have a duty if by
having started then quitting you put the person in a worse position than
if you had done nothing at all.
Say
you see someone drowning in the ocean and you go out and swim to try to save
them. Say you turn around and go
home. You’re not responsible. You haven’t made that person’s condition any
worse. On the other hand, let’s say you
start swimming out and you told someone else not to bother because you’ll take
care of it. Now, you’ve secluded the
person in need, and if you omit, you may be found to be responsible.
Recall
that in the Beardsley case, we are only questioning the first element of a
crime: an omission. If we found a breach
of a legal duty, then we would have to look at mens rea, which can
either get him off entirely or cause him to be convicted of a lesser offense.
Two
doctors are charged with murder and conspiracy.
We’ll zero in on the murder charge.
We’re
in a pretrial stage, where the doctors are trying to keep the case from
proceeding by filing writs of prohibition.
The
victim was in a vegetative state for good.
The family wrote a request to have life support ended, and the doctors
complied, first by stopping his breathing mechanism and finally by turning off
his feeding tubes.
Questions
to ask about the voluntary act or omission
·
Was there conduct involved here?
·
If yes, does the conduct include a voluntary act?
·
If no, is this a case where there is a legal duty
to act?
This
court views the doctors as withdrawing treatment rather than acting to end
treatment. What is the court’s
rationale? They don’t find that the
doctors “pulled the plug”, but rather that the doctors stopped doing something
they were doing before.
The
court sees each drop going in as an act, so if you stop the drop, it’s an
omission, even though it’s done mechanically instead of manually injection food
and water into the victim’s body.
But
don’t doctors owe a duty to their patients?
How does the court find that the doctors don’t have a duty to act? They say the physician has no duty to act
once the treatment is found to be “disproportionate”. They note that this is different between the
traditional line between “ordinary” and “extraordinary” care. The court claims that this distinction begs
the question. Traditionally, doctors
have a duty to provide “ordinary” care.
But what is “ordinary” care and what is “extraordinary” care?
The
court phrases the question in a new and different way. The benefits of giving him alive are
virtually nil and the harm of keeping him alive is material.
Why
is swatting a fly not murder, while killing a fetus other than in abortion is
murder?
What
about the act versus omission distinction?
John
& Mary
Many
people feel that by pushing the button, you have blood on your hands that you
wouldn’t have if you did not act.
If
you act, you have changed the outcome, or have “played God” by letting one
person live and causing the other to die.
Social
Harm
Learn
the definition of social harm: it’s basically any harm to any socially valuable
interest. It’s pretty broad.
Think
about the remainder of class as a foreign language class where we study certain
terms that we’ll need to know well as we go along.
Note
that most penal statutes will only contain the social harm portion and the mens
rea portion of a crime.
In
future cases, we will always look at the statute involved in a crime, and we
will find the words that represent the actus
Social
harm has three components:
1. Result
elements
2. Conduct
elements
3. Attendant
circumstances
Take,
for example, DUI. The actus
Suggestion: when studying statutes
in the Model Penal Code, single-underline under the actus
Driving
the car is conduct. It’s something you do. Being in an intoxicated condition is an
attendant circumstance, that is, it’s something that must be present at the
time of the conduct. It’s not an offense
to get drunk per se.
What’s
the last attendance circumstance here?
It’s the fact that it’s an automobile.
Driving a bicycle while drunk is not covered by this statute. The thing this person is driving must
be an automobile, however that term is defined.
We
don’t know why we should care yet, but we must begin to consider this
carefully.
It
is difficult to draw a distinction between the result of an act and the conduct
related to an act. Luckily, it usually
doesn’t matter. However, you must draw
the distinction between these two elements and attendance circumstance.
When
we’re talking about homicide, the mens rea is the “purposely, knowingly,
recklessly, or negligently” part.
The
actus
Now
we want to break down the actus
Note
that this is different than the common law definition, where “killing” is
mentioned. However, we’re not really
punishing the act of killing, we’re really punishing the death of
somebody.
Note
that a crime need not have all three elements of actus
Memorize the definition of common
law burglary. We will not spend a lot of
time on burglary in class.
The
actus
What’s
the social harm we want to prevent? This
will be equivalent to the actus
What’s
the conduct? It’s “breaking and entering”. What are the attendant circumstances? They include the fact that it’s a “dwelling
house”, that it’s somebody else’s house, and that it’s nighttime.
But
could breaking and entering also be results?
You broke something, and you also unlawfully entered.
We
might say that entering isn’t really a conduct, but a result. In other words, by breaking, you are
able to enter.
In
our next assignment, we’ll move into mens rea. Practice labeling parts of a statute as actus