本课程由6门美国基本法律组成：侵权法、合同法、财产法、宪法、刑法和民事诉讼。通过本课程，你们将对美国法律在不同情况下的适用和不同的美国法律路径有一个大概认识。
Criminal Law: Part 3
Loading...
来自 University of Pennsylvania 的课程
美国法律概论
个评分
Explore Related Videos
At Coursera, you will find the best lectures in the world. Here are some of our personalized recommendations for you
从本节课中
Criminal Law
In this module, Professor Morse will focus on the basics of criminal law, an area of law so exciting that countless TV shows and movies have been based on it. The major aspects of criminal law will be discussed - why we impose punishment, when we impose the most punishment, and how the state proves a criminal case. Defenses to criminal charges, which are divided into justifications and excuses will also be addressed.
与讲师见面
Anita AllenHenry R. Silverman Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy
Penn Law
Shyam BalganeshProfessor of Law
Penn Law
Stephen MorseFerdinand Wakeman Hubbell Professor of Law; Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry; Associate Director, Center for Neuroscience & Society
Penn Law
Theodore RugerDean and Bernard G. Segal Professor of Law
Penn Law
Tess Wilkinson-RyanAssistant Professor of Law and Psychology
Penn Law
Tobias Barrington WolffProfessor of Law
Penn Law
[MUSIC.
Welcome back.
Let's begin this section with the discussion of the structure of
criminal guilt.
That is, how the state establishes criminal liability.
The structure of guilt, criminal guilt, includes what is known as
the prosecution's prima facie case, and what are termed affirmative defenses.
At first I'll be speaking rather abstractly, but
don't worry, I'll soon give concrete examples.
The definitional criteria for culpability for
criminal offenses are what lawyers call the elements of the crime.
They are typically defined by statute,
although courts may later interpret the meaning of these criteria.
These elements are known as the prima facie case.
The constitution requires that the prosecution must
prove the definitional elements of an offense beyond reasonable doubt.
If the prosecution cannot prove any one of the elements of the charged crime,
the defendant will be acquitted of that crime.
Although the defendant may be guilty of some other crime, for
which the prosecution can prove all the elements.
If the prosecution can prove the prima facie case,
all the definitional elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt,
the defendant will be guilty unless, and it is a very big unless,
the defendant can establish what is known as an affirmative defense.
Affirmative defenses are also defined by their elements.
Even if the defendants conduct met the prima fascie case,
the defendant will avoid guilt if an affirmative defense is established.
The United States Constitution permits placing the burden of proof for
affirmative defenses on the defendant if a jurisdiction wants to do this, and
many do for some affirmative defenses.
In some, criminal guilt requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of
the prima facie case, and the failure to establish an affirmative defense.
Guilt is avoided, the defendant will be acquitted and legally innocent of
the crime charged, if either the prosecution cannot prove the prima
facie case beyond a reasonable doubt or an affirmative defense is established.
Let us now use a concrete example based on a real case,
Clark versus Arizona, that reached the United States Supreme Court.
Eric Clark was riding in his pick-up truck in Flagstaff,
Arizona when he was stopped on a routine traffic stop
by officer Jeffrey Moritz who was in full uniform and driving his police cruiser.
The stop quickly turned deadly as Clark shot and killed Moritz.
Clark was charged with the murder of a police officer.
In Arizona, the crime was defined as follows, intentionally, or
knowingly killing a law enforcement officer,
who also had to be a person, obviously, in the line of duty.
Note that this particular form of homicide focuses on the identity of the victim.
It carries enhanced penalties because we believe that killing an official member of
the government, who serves to protect all of us,
is more serious than the already serious killing of a civilian.
Thus, such defendants are more culpable if all of these elements are proven, and
we want to deter such conduct with higher penalties,
especially to protect police officers.
Thus, the prosecution's case was to prove that Clark killed Moritz,
that Clark killed Moritz purposely or knowingly.
And that Clark knew that Moritz was a human being and
a police officer acting in the line of duty.
But even if the prosecution was able to prove this prima facie case, suppose Clark
killed because someone threatened to kill him if he didn't kill Moritz.
Or suppose Clark suffered from a sever mental illness, and
delusionally believed that Moritz was about to kill him, Clark.
In either case, maybe Clark shouldn't be found guilty.
Even if the prosecution can prove that he intentionally killed a police officer,
knowing he was a police officer in the line of duty.
We shall use this example as we examine the prima facie case, and
affirmative defenses in more detail.
In this section I will discuss each type of element in the definition of
a crime and how the defense can try to show that the element did not exist, and
thus that the element is innocent of the crime requiring that element.
Each crime includes a conduct element, a prohibited type of intentional behavior.
In the Clark case, the conduct is any type of intentional killing conduct.
So, it wouldn't matter if Clark intentionally shot Moritz, stabbed him,
bludgeoned him, strangled him, or pushed him off a cliff.
This requirement that the defendant intentionally engaged in
prohibited conduct is known as the act requirement.
After all,
if the defendant's bodily movement was not an action, how can we blame the defendant?
Suppose for example after the traffic stop, Clarks, Clark and
Moritz were talking about the ticket.
Suddenly, as a result of an unforeseeable neurological event, Clark's arm spasmed!
And struck Moritz in the head, killing him.
We would say in such cases that Clark didn't act at all, and
can't be blamed for Moritz's death.
In our actual case, there is simply no reason to believe that Clark shooting at
Moritz wasn't an intentional action.
So the prosecution will have little trouble proving the act requirement.
As we saw, mental states are the primary fault criteria.
Guilt under the homicide statute in Clark requires that when
Clark intentionally shot at Moritz, he did so with the purpose of killing Clark or
knowing that a gunshot was practically certain to kill him.
This looks like another easy win for the cross persecution, but
Clark undisputedly suffered from paranoid schizophrenia.
There was evidence they had delusional beliefs that space aliens were
persecuting them.
Clark claimed that he genuinely believed that Moritz was a space alien.
If we believe him, then he did not purposely or knowingly kill a human being.
His purpose or knowledge concerns space aliens, and
killing a space alien with any mental state is not a crime.
At least not yet.
Clark also had to know that a particular so-called circumstance element existed,
namely that Moritz was an officer acting in the line of duty.
But even though Moritz was in uniform and in a police cruiser,
if Clark genuinely believed he was a space alien impersonating a police officer,
then Clark really didn't know Moritz was an officer acting in the line of duty.
Indeed, if he really had this belief,
he wouldn't be guilty of reckless homicide, because he was not aware that he
was risking the life of a person by shooting at a supposed space alien.
At most, he would have been guilty of negligent homicide because he
made an unreasonable mistake about the nature of his victim.
A reasonable person would have been aware, as Clark arguably was not,
because he was acting under the influence of a delusion,
that Moritz was a person and police officer, and not a space alien.
There are other elements the prosecution must prove to establish guilt for
criminal homicide.
And there are many ways other than introducing mental disorder evidence,
that a defendant can try to cast reasonable doubt on the elements of
the prosecution's prima facie case, but I'm sure you get the general picture.
In the event, this case was tried before a judge.
Clark waived his right to a jury presumably because he thought a judge,
who on average is more highly educated than a juror, would better understand and
sympathize with expert psychiatric or psychological testimony.
But the judge thought that the prosecution had proven that Clark knew that Moritz was
a person and a police officer, and that Clark had killed Moritz on purpose.
Thus Clark, Clark was prima facie guilty, and
would be convicted of murder unless he was able to establish an affirmative defense.
Let us now therefore turn to understanding the affirmative defenses.
In essence, the elements of the prima facie case do
not require proving why a defendant acted as he or she did.
It is simple prima facie wrong, for
example, to kill another human being intentionally.
If you do that, you are prima facie guilty of murder.
But we all understand from our ordinary experience that people sometimes do things
that at first appear wrong, but then, when we understand why the person did them,
we may think that it was not wrong after all.
Or, even if we think that it was wrong, we may think that the person was
not blameworthy because there was something amiss about the defendant, or
the situation.
There are two classes of affirmative defenses.
Justifications and excuses that follow from these
observations that sometimes these things that appear wrong, may not be wrong.
And sometimes the person who does wrong, may not be a responsible person.
Let us consider them in order, beginning with justifications.
Justifications exist when conduct that is ordinarily wrongful,
such as the intentional killing of a human being, is in fact right or
at least permissible under the specific circumstances.
To succeed with a justification,
the defendant must have had a reasonable belief that he had an objectively good
reason in these circumstances to act in ways that are ordinarily wrong.
By an objectively good reason,
I mean a reason that we as a society think is a good reason.
Not simply a reason an individual thinks is acceptable from his
own idiosyncratic point of view.
Justifications do not require that the person formed a correct belief about
the need to act in ways that would otherwise be wrongful.
It is sufficient if their belief is objectively reasonable.
That is all we can expect of fallible creature such as ourselves.
Self-defense is a perfect example of a justification.
We as a society believe that people are justified in using
intentional force to prevent immediate wrongful aggression against them.
Suppose I wrongfully threatened to kill someone with immediate deadly force.
My innocent victim would be justified in protecting his own life with deadly force.
He would be justified in intentionally killing me,
because the intentional killing of a wrongful aggressor when there really is
no alternative, is preferable to an innocent life being taken by a wrong doer.
Intentional killing is thus right, or at least permissible under the circumstances.
Imagine, for
example, that Moritz, the police officer, hated Clark and stopped him for
the purpose of killing Clark, and Clark responded more quickly to kill Moritz.
If that had really happened, Clark's killing of Moritz would be
justified self defense, and he would be fully acquitted even though
the prosecution prima facie case could be established.
Other examples of justification that include defense of others, and
defense of property.
Intentional harming of others is considered right or
permissible under limited conditions in these situations.
But, once again, what all justifications have in common is that
otherwise wrongful conduct is right, or permissible under the circumstance.
Notice that there is nothing wrong with the defendant in these cases.
The defendant was a responsible person, and was simply doing the right or
permissible thing in the circumstances of the case.
Before we turn to our discussion of the affirmative defenses of excuse and
the remaining topics in this introduction, let us take a final break.
[MUSIC]
