September 28, 2017
Thoughts on, reactions to, and results from Shooter role-play
In addition to thanking again our terrific state homicide lawyers, I also want to provide this space for any pressing questions or other thoughts on the Shooter exercise. The primary point of the role-play was to preview homicide issues we will be working through in October. But the exercise may also prompt thoughts about matters of procedure and practice that I would be happy to field here or elsewhere.
Some questions and reactions might also be triggered by the document linked below showing the voting results in the Shooter role play in the three different jurisdictions we examined (California, Kansas and Ohio). Consider whether the pattern of outcomes tells us more about the unique law in the three different jurisdictions or about the unique choices made by the lawyers who presented the case in these jurisdictions.
Finally, and as a preview of the start of our discussions next week, think about (and perhaps comment upon) the ideal number of different types of homicide. As mentioned in class, the drafters of the Model Penal Code decided there should only be three different types of homicide. To my knowledge, not a single US jurisdiction has only three types of homicide crimes. In Ohio, if you include aggravated vehicular homicide and vehicular homicide, the Revised Code has nine different types of homicide. Do you think it better for a modern criminal code to have fewer or to have more types of homicide? What are some consequences of one general criminal harm being subdivided into so many different offenses?
The comments to this entry are closed.