Criminal Law Course @ Moritz College of Law

Why should a legislator focused on public safety worry much about mental states?

As I will try to explain in class, the abstract question in the title of this post is lurking deep within many of the issues and debates we will be having in the next few weeks as we turn to an exploration of the critical and complicated concept of mens rea in the interpretation and application of criminal law. In addition to thinking about this question in public policy terms, you should also seek to connect this question with the punishment theory topics that occupied us during the first few weeks of class.

To provide some specificity as you begin reflecting on these issues, consider how legislators in Ohio and elsewhere ought to respond to this notable article from Monday's Columbus Dispatch, which is headlined "CDC: Beef up traffic laws," and starts this way:

Traffic deaths and injuries are a preventable scourge that cost the nation about $99 billion a year in medical bills and lost productivity, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That's about $500 for each licensed driver in America, according to a study by the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.  Researchers tallied the costs nationally using hospital, insurance and other data from 2005, when there were 3.7 million deaths and injuries from crashes.

They hope the cost information will persuade states and communities to take action to prevent traffic crashes, said Rebecca Naumann, a CDC epidemiologist and lead researcher on the study.

Does (or should) Ohio have a "duty to aid" statute like Wisconsin?

Here is a research (or advocacy) assignment/question for the long weekend:

Does (or should) Ohio have a "duty to aid" statute like Wisconsin?

Here is a related question to consider: If you were to be tasked with drafting such a statute for a state's legislature to consider, what provisions of the Wisconsin approach would you preserve and what provisions might you want to tweak?

For anyone eager to do some more (totally optional) reading on this interesting topic, consider checking out an article in the Spring 2010 issue of the Georgia Law Review by Ken Levy, which is titled "Killing, Letting Die, and the Case for Mildly Punishing Bad Samaritanism."

UPDATE:  Here is a sad story via CNN about what sounds like a case like a New York version of the Jones case in 2010.  The piece is headlined "Girl, 4, weighed 15 pounds at death," and starts this way:

The mother of a 4-year-old girl found dead in her Brooklyn home Thursday morning was charged Friday with second-degree assault, reckless endangerment and endangering the welfare of a child, according to police.

Marchella Pierce weighed just 15 pounds and had marks on her hands and ankles when police found her unconscious in her family's apartment, according to CNN affiliate WABC-TV.

Real criminal law "purposes" statutes and theories of punishment

As I highlighted at the end of our first class, most views on theories of punishment and most criminal laws incorporate a mix of utilitarian and retributivist commitments and concerns.  To test your own understanding of these basic concepts, take a gander at the real criminal law statutes linked below and see if you can identify which theories of punishment are getting the most attention and love:

• US Code, Title 18, Section 3553(a)

• Ohio Revised Code, Section 2929.11

• New Jersey Statutes, Section 2C:1-2

Some pictures to help understand Dillard and Wulff

Thanks to the web, I was able to find this picture of the weapon that Moses Dillard Jr. was carrying when stopped by the police.  As you reflect on this case, think about whether and why the type of firearm that Dillard was carrying matters (and note that the court spends a good deal of time talking about the type of weapon toward the end of its opinion).

I was also able to find this picture of a talon necklace that is likely similar to what got Robert Wulff in trouble, though I doubt this picture shows talons from the red-talked hawk and the great-horned owl.

Any pre-class thoughts on Dudley and Stephens?

I typically won't solicit pre-class discussion of our reading assignments in this space.  But because Dudley and Stephens is such a renown case and because we really will not have time to cover it completely during our first class, I cannot resist providing a forum here for any student who wants to express outrage or sympathy or anything else after reading one of the most famous cases in the history of criminal law. 

Also, I am often going to try to use this forum to provide some visuals to accompany all the text in our casebook. In this post, for example, I have provided above a drawing of the English yacht Mignonette, the small ship on which a crew of four set sail on May 19, 1884.  And I have provided below a photograph of the 13-foot lifeboat onto which the entire crew of the Mignonette escaped when their ship seemed doomed.

I am not sure if each of these pictures are worth 1000 words of a judicial ruling, but they do provide some useful imagery as you consider and contemplate the ruling in the case.  In addition, go to this link and search for Dudley if you would like a somewhat lighter perspective on the case.