What is Criminal Law?
Criminal law is the body of law that defines crimes and prescribes punishment for crimes. It deals with those who harm or threaten harm to society by their acts. The prescriptive nature of criminal law provides individuals with a set of guidelines for behavior in society that, if broken, provide a clear procedure for sanctions and punishment. As such, it serves as a deterrent aimed at the public to prevent individuals from committing ‘harms’ that would affect the peace and safety of the community.
Given that criminal laws deal with individuals affecting the safety or peace of the community as a whole, they are enforced by a governmental entity (Such as the Washington State Legislature) and generally involve two components – the actus reus and mens rea. The actus reus refers to the physical element of the crime – the deed performed by the accused . The mens rea refers to the mental element of the crime – the criminal intent of the accused. Both of these components must be present in order for a crime to be committed and for the justice system to become involved.
Criminal law is separate and distinct from civil law. In civil law, individuals seek compensation for perceived harms caused to them by the actions of other individuals (such as a debt owed or property encroachment). In criminal law, the government seeks to punish individuals for violating generally accepted societal norms, by either imposing a fine or requiring imprisonment for a specified time. Because penalties are usually harsher in the criminal context, most individuals will seek to resolve the situation prior to defense of the case and are more likely to accept a plea deal for reduced charges or sentences.
Categories and Classifications of Crimes
The criminal justice system classifies crimes into three primary categories: felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions. All three categories are treated differently in a court of law, and they all differ drastically in terms of consequences under the law and how an individual who has been accused of a crime will be treated. There is a big difference between a felony on a record and a misdemeanor, and of course a petty offense, or infraction, is a mostly-concerning mark that should not be confused with other crime classifications.
Felonies are the most severe category of crimes under both federal and state law, standing at the top of the criminal hierarchy. They are the most serious types of crime and carry the most serious set of punishments. Felony level offenses typically include major drug crimes, violent crimes and sexual offenses. Examples of felony crimes include: rape, murder, assault, fraud, arson and kidnapping. In many states, felonies are further separated into levels, such as first degree murder as a Class A felony, second degree murder as a Class B felony and so on. The punishment for a felony conviction is prison time, typically ranging from one year to more than 20 years, depending on the seriousness of the crime and the degree of the felony.
Misdemeanors are considered to be less serious offenses. They are typically defined as such in state law and code. An individual can face a fine and/or up to one year in jail on a misdemeanor charge. There are also two subdivisions of this classification: Gross misdemeanors carry stiffer sentences, such as a $5,000 fine and one year in jail, but still not as harsh as felonies; and petty misdemeanors, which are treated similarly to infractions.
Infractions are offenses that are considered to be petty and for which there are only financial penalties, not jail time. Typical crimes under the category of infractions include littering, excessive noise and jaywalking. The punishments for these offenses include fines and surcharges.
Elements of a Crime: Examples Detailed
When criminal cases are presented to juries, they are given jury instructions specific to the crime being tried, which detail the elements of the crime that must be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" in order to convict the defendant. There are generally two essential components to every crime that must be proved: actus reus and mens rea. To be guilty of a particular crime, the prosecutor (government) must prove both actus reus and mens rea.
Generally speaking, the actus reus is the defendant’s guilty act. The mens rea is the defendant’s guilty state of mind. Some crimes require both, some crimes require just one or the other. Some crimes require something a little different than the typical mens rea or actus reus. Let’s break it down and look at each element with examples.
Actus reus means guilty act in Latin. If a defendant is guilty of murder, it is a result of a guilty act; in other words, there was a homicide. So the actus reus regarding murder would be homicide. In essence, the defendant caused a death of another human being.
A defendant cannot commit a crime by merely thinking about committing it. There must be a guilty act. This does not exclude situation in which the defendant’s mere presence at a crime scene makes them guilty. If an individual watches and listens to their co-conspirators rape and kill someone without intervening and helping the victim and they had the power to do so, they could be guilty of murder as well, through aiding and abetting (more on that later).
Mens rea is a Latin term that means guilty state of mind. In plain English, it means that the defendant meant to commit the crime, or intended the criminal act to happen. Let’s take the example from above and tweak it; what if the defendant witnessed the rape and murder of a victim by co-conspirators; however, the defendant was sleeping or had headphones in listening to music with no knowledge of the crime? If the defendant was unaware and it was not possible for him to stop the crime, they could not be guilty of murder.
It is important to note that the word "to kill" does not have the same meaning as "to commit murder." In other words, the fact that someone may have "killed" someone does not mean that they committed murder. For instance, if the defendant was playing a game of poker and shot the victim in the face after losing the game because he thought he was cheating the defendant, if the defendant honestly believed that the victim a danger to him and honestly believed that he was about to be killed (in other words, the defendant thought he was about to die) and the victim actually did not have a weapon and the threat was not real, the defendant could be guilty of first-degree murder but not second-degree murder, because the mens rea would be slightly different.
First-degree murder (the worst kind) requires premeditation, deliberation and intent to kill; while second-degree murder typically only requires intent to kill and malice aforethought. But as mentioned above, intent to kill is not the same as being aware that you were about to kill someone, and it’s very important that the prosecutor prove intent and do it beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction.
Defenses and Legal Strategies
There are various defenses that one can mount if charged with a crime. It is important to speak with a criminal attorney well-versed with the defense strategies and planning a strategy accordingly.
Insanity is a common defense in criminal law. If someone is diagnosed with a severe mental illness such as schizophrenia, or is so delusional that they do not understand their actions, they may be unable to form the requisite intent to commit a crime. This defense, generally called the M’Naghten Rule, has been upheld in many states. The burden of proof in a criminal case is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the charged crime with the requisite state of mind, i.e., they knew it was wrong to kill the victim. If they can’t prove this, the defendant will be acquitted. In 2010, John Hinckley, who attempted an assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981, was unconditionally freed from the insanity hospital where he was committed after a jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity. He had pleaded insanity as his defense, and the jury accepted it.
Duress is a form of coercion whereby a person is threatened with some kind of harm, say a missing family member, if they do not commit a crime. A common example of this is where a person is told that if they do not rob a bank by their boss, their family member will be killed. However, as a general rule, this defense must go to the state officer, such as the police, rather than a private citizen. For example, if someone decides to forcibly take your jewerly and you resist, the defense of duress will generally not work if you stop resisting, because, under the law, the threat is over, and so it must be reported. Also, keeping someone against their will – for example, a kidnapper who tries to stop the kidnapped victim from calling police by pointing a gun at them – would not be duress, because credible physical injury will occur if there’s no assistance. The courts tend to disfavor this defense because it recognizes the right to commit a crime if you are being threatened.
Self-defense is one of the more commonly known criminal law defenses, and it is an affirmative defense – that is, the person did commit the crime but it was justified due to the circumstances. A person claiming self-defense must prove that (a) a sudden assault was threatened; (b) the attack was unlawful; and (c) the attacker had a reasonable ability to retreat from the threatened harm. Typically, a duty to retreat is recognized if the suspect is in their apartment, which is private property, rather than a public area such as a street, gas station or bar, where the duty to retreat applies to the general public. An example victim can use this defense if he, for example, is being attacked with a knife by someone at a bar and stabs the attacker in self-defense. If found to be justified, the suspect is not liable for any damages.
Analyzing Famous Criminal Cases
Notable Criminal Cases
The criminal law process is often put on display when a case goes to trial, but most cases are resolved through plea agreements before ever making it that far. Those that do reach the trial stage are considered newsworthy, and some are so famous that people still recognize them by name even years after their conclusion. Below are some examples of famous criminal law cases.
United States v. John Lennon
In the fall of 1976, a 35-year-old John Lennon and his wife Yoko Ono, were staying at a New York hotel when officers stormed in and arrested him. The warrant had been issued one month earlier by President Nixon as part of an effort to deport Lennon for his long anti-Vietnam war stance. After being booked on a charge of possession of marijuana, Lennon immediately posted the $5,000 bond. He would later plead guilty to the reduced charge of disorderly conduct as part of a plea bargain. The next day, several newspapers reported that "Lennon pleads guilty to possession and gets a slap on the wrist."
People v. Vanzzini
In 1932, Philip Vanzzini, the president of the Anton Vanzzini Snuff Co. was arrested for possessing cocaine with intent to deliver. The drug charge was based on Philadelphia Police recovering two packages from a cargo shipment from an Antwerp , Belgium company. The packages, each containing a half-pound of powdered cocaine, were destined for a hoodlum believed to be associated with the infamous gang, the Five Points Gang of New York. Vanzzini was charged with intent to manufacture, deliver and possess the drug. During the trial, the prosecution introduced testimony that Vanzzini was an associate with the Five Points Gang of New York. The jury convicted, and Vanzzini was sentenced to five years.
Regina v. Ahmed
On November 2, 2005, Nahid Ahmed, Daniel Hassan Brane and Mohammed Ali Ahmed were convicted by the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales of two counts of engaging in conduct in preparation for terrorist acts. This conviction was the first of its kind in the British courts. Trial testimony revealed that members of the group held radical views of Islam, supported terrorism and intended to commit a violent act. Me and my pals at Sweeney Attorneys have never committed any such acts, but we have read that their aim was to detonate four bombs carrying 1,500-pounds of explosives near the houses of parliament and Westminster Abbey.
The Role of Intent and Motive
In criminal law, "intent" refers to an individual’s mental state when committing a crime. It assesses whether the person intended to engage in the criminal conduct, such as whether they intended to cause harm to another. "Motive," on the other hand, refers to the reasons behind an individual’s actions in a crime.
At first glance, intent and motive may seem similar. In practice, however, motive can be much more fluid and subjective. Further, while motive can play a role in how an individual is charged with a crime, it has no impact on whether they are guilty of a crime or how severe the potential penalty for the crime is.
For example, a crime of assault could be charged in one of two different ways. If an individual assaulted another with intent to cause bodily harm, they could be charged with intentionally causing a minor injury. If, however, the individual assaulted another because that means of force was necessary to stop an ongoing violent crime, the same crime could be designated as an example of a justifiable and excusable use of physical force.
These two classifications of a crime—the intentional, in this case criminal, act and the permissibility of the action—determine the manner in which the crime will be prosecuted. In the first scenario, the prosecution will seek to maximize punishment, whereas in the second scenario, the prosecution will seek to remedy the violence.
The statute for the offense at issue and an interpretation of those statutes through case law will ultimately determine how a particular fact pattern is served by the application of the law.
Intent may be defined as requiring only an awareness of the consequences of an act (hereby referred to as the "consequentialist" understanding). Depending upon the offense charged, however, a court may require an individual to strictly intend the harm caused (e.g. causing bodily injury intentionally).
Even if a court requires that an individual intends the harm, the meaning of the term "harm" is very rarely quantified. For example, does "harm" include the performance of a physical task, such as pulling a trigger—a seemingly harmless act—or does it mean performing the act with the intent to kill? In most cases, criminal defendants are charged with crimes in which prove of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is significantly easier than if another intent standard were to be applied. Prosecutors often exercise their discretion to charge a defendant with a lesser offense than that for which they are guilty.
The requirement of mere awareness of the consequence of an act and the ability to act in spite of that awareness is often called "negligence." The relationship between culpability and negligence is that an even greater societal interest is served in prohibiting negligent conduct.
Sentencing and Punishment
Sentencing and punishment in criminal law refer to the various consequences that a person found guilty of a crime may face after a conviction. The process of determining an appropriate sentence is known as sentencing, and it can vary significantly based on the country, the severity of the offense, and various other factors.
Essentially, the criminal justice system has a few different options for punishment. In most cases, these options depend on the type of crime committed, and the laws that are in place for that type of crime. First, courts will consider whether or not imprisonment is warranted. This will depend in part upon the type of crime committed. For example, violent crimes almost always result in sentences of imprisonment. Less serious (but still serious) crimes frequently result in sentences of probation, especially if the accused has no prior criminal history. In some cases, judges can determine that involuntary commitment to a mental health treatment facility is appropriate.
For offenses that are not likely to lead to imprisonment, fines may be presented as a type of punishment. Courts will often assess the severity of the crime, and determine an appropriate fine that the convicted individual will then be required to pay. The amount in fines is typically determined using a "sliding scale" based upon the severity of the crime, and the wealth of the perpetrator. Less wealthy individuals who commit crimes are likely to receive much lower fines than more wealthy individuals who commit the same crime or a more severe crime.
Mandatory minimum sentencing is another way that courts punish those convicted of crimes. Minimum sentencing laws exist for serious crimes in many jurisdictions, and they not only require that individuals be imprisoned or fined, but that the individuals serve at least a certain amount of time in jail or pay fines up to a certain amount. If a judge is required to impose a mandatory minimum sentence, he or she is usually not allowed to choose an alternative punishment, such as probation or community service.
For crimes that do not automatically lead to imprisonment, courts do have some flexibility in the sentences that they impose. Community service is one popular punishment in which a typology of community service is performed to help the community in some way. Common community service projects include public cleanup, animal rescue, and construction on public parks. Depending on the type of crime, courts may also encourage rehabilitation by mandating the perpetrator undergo rehabilitation programs.
Of course, sentencing in criminal law isn’t limited only to those three sentences—there are many other options as well. Probation is one popular sentence, and it is a good balance between maintaining an individual’s freedom while also ensuring the safety of the community and allowing the court to supervise the actions of the person. Those on probation are generally required to follow a number of restrictions, such as participating in therapy, avoiding frequent association with other criminals, and performing community service.
Prison work programs are also a sentencing option, and these programs allow those convicted of offenses to serve their sentences by doing work within the prison system itself—in exchange for early release or a reduction in sentences. Again, the type of punishment depends on many factors, but these are some of the more common situations.
Societal Implications of Criminal Law
The impact of criminal law on society is significant. First and foremost, it helps to maintain social order. When individuals know that there is a legal consequence for their actions, they are less likely to violate the law. For example, if people were not afraid of getting caught for speeding, it would become a common occurrence and could result in more accidents and deaths. Thus, criminal law enforces a form of social control.
Another impact of criminal law is that it helps to deter crime. Although not all criminals are deterred by the fear of getting caught, studies have shown that when individuals know that there will be swift and harsh consequences to their actions, they often refrain from committing a crime. For example, when drunk driving laws got tougher and offenders faced jail time, people were less likely to get behind the wheel after drinking alcohol . As laws continue to evolve, researchers continue to try and determine what type and severity of punishment will have the greatest impact on lowering crime rates.
Criminal law also plays an important role in protecting citizens’ rights. Without laws in place, citizens would not have as many rights as they do currently. In addition, criminal laws help to ensure that offenders are punished according to the severity of the crime committed. For example, a child rapist will face far stiffer penalties than someone who committed shoplifting, even though both acts are crimes. This helps to uphold the values and morals of society by showing that those who commit the most heinous crimes will be dealt with the most harshly.
Overall, criminal law has a tremendous impact on society. It protects citizens’ rights, maintains social order, and deters crime among offenders.