The criminal law of the United States is a manifold system of laws and practices that connects crimes and consequences. In comparison, civil law addresses non-criminal disputes. The system varies considerably by jurisdiction, but conforms to the US Constitution. Generally there are two systems of criminal law to which a person maybe subject; the most frequent is state criminal law, and the other is federal law.
The American Model Penal Code defines the purpose of criminal law as: to prevent any conduct that cause or may cause harm to people or society, to enact public order, to define what acts are criminal, to inform the public what acts constitute crimes, and to distinguish a minor from a serious offense.
Definitions A crime has three parts: the act (actus reus), the intent, and the concurrence of the two. Generally, crimes can be divided into categories: crime against a person, crime against property, sexual crimes, public morality, crimes against the state, and inchoate crimes.
Degrees Many crimes address the severity of a criminal act by specifying the degree of an offense. First degree crimes are more serious than those in the second or third degree. For example, murder in the first degree is a greater offense than murder in the second.
Parties The parties to a crime can be principals or accessories. A principal is a person directly involved in a crime. The two types of principals are: Principal in the first degree: the person who commits the crime. Principal in the second degree (accomplice): someone who aids, counsels, assists, or encourages the first-degree principal.
Presence is required for a party to be considered a principal in the second degree, with constructive presence considered sufficient. Both principals are punished equally and are equally liable for the crime. Presence is not sufficient to impose liability; the party must take an affirmative action. A party must also have the requisite intent and must have a criminal state of mind to be convicted.
An accessory is a person who helps commit the crime without presence. Accessories are generally punished less severely than the principal. The two types of accessories are: An accessory before the fact is a person who encourages or helps another commit a crime. Statutes group principals with these accessories and punish them together. An accessory after the fact is a person who learns of a crime and helps to conceal it or the perpetrator by providing aid, comfort, or shelter to help the principal avoid arrest or prosecution after the crime. An accessory after the fact must be aware of the criminal's status and intend to hinder the arrest.
Sources of law All levels of government rely on the following:
Common law
Common law is law developed by judges through legal opinions, as opposed to statutes adopted through the legislative process or regulations issued by the executive branch. A common law crime is thus a crime that was originally defined by judges.
Common law no longer applies to federal crimes because of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32 (1812). The acceptance of common law crimes varies at the state level. These states expressly retain a role for common law crimes: Alabama, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington. All recognize the common law authority of judges to convict for conduct not criminalized by statute.
Statutes The federal government, the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and US territories such as Puerto Rico have their own penal codes. Statutes derive from the common law. For example, if a state's murder statute does not define "human being," its courts rely on the common-law definition.Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 3d 619 (1970)
State vs. federal
States possess the police power, the most general power to pass criminal laws. The federal government can only exercise those powers granted to it by the Constitution, limiting federal laws to the powers granted to Congress. For example, drug crimes, which comprise a large percentage of federal criminal cases, are subject to federal control because drugs are a commodity traded across state lines, thus making controlled substances subject to regulation by Congress in the Controlled Substances Act, which relies on the Commerce Clause. Gonzales v. Raich affirmed Congress's power to regulate drug possession.
Model Penal Code
The Model Penal Code ("MPC") was created by the American Law Institute ("ALI") in 1962. In other areas of law, the ALI created Restatements of Law, usually referred to as Restatements. Examples are Restatement of Contracts and Restatement of Torts. The MPC is their equivalent for criminal law.
Many states have wholly or largely adopted the MPC. Others have implemented it in part, and still others have not adopted any portion of it. However, even in jurisdictions where it has not been adopted, the MPC is often cited as persuasive authority in the same way that Restatements are in other areas of law.
Theories of punishment
Principle of legality
An overarching concept in American criminal law is that people may not be punished for committing merely immoral or unethical acts. They can only be punished for acts declared beforehand as a crime.
Burden of proof
In the United States, the adversarial system is used. The prosecution must prove each element of the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction.In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) Corpus delicti is also required, the principle that a crime must be proved to have occurred before a person can be convicted of committing that crime; confession is not enough to prove that a crime has occurred.
Elements Crimes can generally be reduced to actus reus elements and mens rea elements. Actus reus elements are elements that describe conduct. Mens rea elements are elements that identify a particular mental state.
Actus reus
Res gestae
Animus furandi The phrase animus furandi is typically translated as "evil in the heart" or "the intention to steal". This intent is usually associated with permanence. For example, a person who takes an object unlawfully with the intent of returning it later does not have animus furandi. However, a person who takes an object with the intent of possessing it permanently does.
Voluntary act
The Voluntary Act Requirement (VAR) is a predicate that prevents those convicted from being punished for involuntary conduct that may be linked to crime. Accordingly, justifying a conviction requires an action to be (a) willingly taken, (b) necessary for a crime's occurrence, and (c) able to be attributed beyond doubt to voluntary efforts. Ordinarily, a voluntary act refers to commission. However, as discussed below, some laws punish failure to act. A status is not a voluntary act. For example, no law is constitutional that makes it a crime to be addicted to illegal drugs, as opposed to using them, as demonstrated in Robinson v. California.370 U.S. 660 (1962)
Omission Failure to act can occasionally be criminal, such as, not paying taxes or Criminal dereliction of duty. Typically, the criminality of failing to act is codified.
Certain relationships create a duty to act under common law, such as spouse to spouse, parent to child, or employer to employee, for example. A person may contract to act, such as a babysitter to render aid in the event of the child in their care hurting himself.
A person typically has a duty to act when he is responsible for putting another in peril, such as through accidental injury.
Creation of reliance
A person may have a legal duty to continue after beginning to act. This situation typically arises in for example, a possible drowning. One bystander among many starts swimming out to rescue him, but turns around halfway and returns to shore alone. The rationale for holding the bystander culpable is that other bystanders relied on that action. If the bystander had been the only person present, no such culpability is established.
Social harm Criminal law is distinguishable from tort law or contract law, for example, in that society as a whole is theoretically damaged. Beyond the particular victims, society as a whole is responsible for the case and in the event of a conviction, carrying out a sentence. Social harm is that part of the crime to be avoided.
Mens rea
The phrase mens rea is typically translated as "guilty mind" and describes the expected mental state of an accused.
General intent is an awareness of factors constituting the crime, including attendant circumstances. The criminal must be aware of committing an illegal act and that attendant circumstances are likely to occur. The requisite intent may be inferred from the performance of the act.
A specific intent crime requires the doing of an act coupled with specific intent or objective. Specific intent cannot be inferred from the act. The major specific intent crimes are:
conspiracy (intent to have crime completed), attempt (intent to complete a crime – whether specific or not, but falling short in completing the crime), solicitation (intent to have another person commit a crime), embezzlement (intent to defraud), first degree premeditated murder (premeditation), false pretenses (intent to defraud), forgery (intent to defraud), larceny & robbery (intent to permanently deprive other of interest in property taken), assault (intent to commit battery) and burglary (intent to commit felony in dwelling).
A strict liability crime, however, does not require that mens rea be found. Common strict liability crimes include statutory rape and sale of alcohol to minors.
The MPC addresses intent. One of its major innovations is the use of standardized mens rea terms (in MPC terms, culpability) to determine levels of mental states, just as homicide is considered more severe if done intentionally rather than accidentally. These terms are (in descending order) "purposely", "knowingly," "recklessly", "negligently", and "strict liability". Each material element of every crime has an associated culpability state that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Causation To determine causation, the result of an action must be foreseeable and must be a substantial factor in the crime.
The actual cause principle (also called "cause-in-fact") holds that the defendant cannot be criminally liable unless it can be shown that he was the cause-in-fact of the prohibited result. Actual cause is satisfied if the result would not have happened in the absence of defendant's conduct. To find a defendant guilty, a court must use the following test: but-for test, where but for the defendant's conduct the result would not have occurred. substantial factor test, if there are multiple causes for a crime the defendant's conduct must be a substantial factor in causing the harm. Exceptions to the but-for test include a case where multiple wrongdoers "overdetermine" the harm that a victim would have experienced. An act that hastens or accelerates a harmful consequence can create criminal liability.
The proximate cause principle (also called "legal" cause) restricts criminal liability to those cases where a harmful result was a foreseeable result of an act. It is often phrased that the harmful result must be the "natural or probable" consequence of the act. If the result is unusual, abnormal, or unlikely, no liability attaches.
Transfer intent maintains that an act remains liable when a victim other than the intended one experiences the harm.
Concurrence of actus reus and mens rea