Monday, September 30, 2019
Elements of Crime
Elements of a Crime (Actus Reus & Mens Rea) Model Lesson Plan Source: Original lesson plan. Handout #2 from David Crump, Criminal Law: Cases, Statutes, And Lawyering Strategies, Lexis Nexis 2005 pg. 117-18. I. Goals: by the end of this class sstudents should have a sthrong foundation for reading criminal statutes and differentiating ssimilar crimes. II. Objectives a. Knowledge objectives: as a result of this class sstudents will be better able to: i. define ââ¬Å"Actus Reusâ⬠and ââ¬Å"Mens Reaâ⬠ii. understand the different gradations of Mens Rea iii. nderstand the differences between Washingtonââ¬â¢s homicide statutes b. Skills objectives: as a result of this class sstudents will be better able to: i. read a statute carefully and apply it to fact patterns ii. present and defend their interpretations of the law c. Attitude objectives: i. Sstudents should understand that the severity of criminal punishments can vary greatly depending on the defendantââ¬â¢s mental st ate in a manner that is largely consistent with the general societal belief that intentionally wrongful acts are worse than unintentional, but still wrongful acts. ii.Sstudents should carefully consider the potentially harsh results that occur when legislatures replace mens rea with strict liability. III. Methods (1)Distribute Handout #1 (Hypos) (2)Read the introductory hypothetical aloud as a class. Ask for volunteers to answer the questions. a. The class should come to the conclusion that Frank did ââ¬Å"causeâ⬠Billââ¬â¢s death in the sense that if he hadnââ¬â¢t moved the mirror in the particular way he did at that exact time, the window washer wouldnââ¬â¢t have been blinded and Bill wouldnââ¬â¢t have slipped. This is a good example of ââ¬Å"but forâ⬠or ââ¬Å"actual causationâ⬠as used in Handout #2.However, the law typically only imposes liability where the defendantââ¬â¢s conduct is the ââ¬Å"proximate causeâ⬠of the harmful event/ crime. b. However, it seems like Frank didnââ¬â¢t do anything ââ¬Å"wrong. â⬠Try to elicit why this result seems wrong and write the classââ¬â¢s ideas on the whiteboard. (3)Distribute Handout #2 (Elements) (4)Handout #2 Walk through the Elements handout. Be careful to explain that not all of the elements are always present in a criminal statute. For example, attempted murder doesnââ¬â¢t have a harm element and parking violations donââ¬â¢t have a mens rea element, e. g. ne can receive a parking citation for parking in a handicapped spot even if it was unintentional or an accident. Furthermore, the elements arenââ¬â¢t perfectly discrete and there is some overlap. (5)Distribute Handout #3 (Statutes) a. Explain that the groups will be analyzing the hypos with respect to the statutes provided in Handout #3. The Grades of Homicide are meant to demonstrate the changes mens rea. b. Walk through the statutes and give a thumbnail sketch of i. First degree murder: 1. Premeditat ed killing. An intentional killing that was deliberate and contemplated prior to the killing. . Extreme Indifference. Covers the possibility that someone knows that what they are going to do will result in the death of another person, but at the same time doesnââ¬â¢t ââ¬Å"intendâ⬠to kill. See the bomb hypo in handout # 1. ii. Second degree murder 1. Intentional killing without premeditation. The classic example is a passion killing where the homicide occurs in the heat of the moment. iii. First degree manslaughter 1. Recklessness. Conscious awareness of an unacceptable risk to human life. Recklessness is ssimilar to extreme indifference, but the risk that human life will be lost is less. v. Second degree manslaughter 1. Criminal negligence. Gross deviation from standard of care. v. Statutory rape 1. No mens rea. Strict liability with a limited affirmative defense where minor misrepresents age. In an effort to protect minor children, state legislatures have placed an incre ased burden to ascertain age on the older party. (6)Break into groups of 3-5 to apply statutes to Hypos 1-5. Have groups designate a reporter and a recorder. The recorder should write each of the group membersââ¬â¢ names on the top of handout #1 and also record the groupââ¬â¢s aanswers on the space provided.The Reporter is responsible for explaining the groupââ¬â¢s reasoning and conclusion when the class reconvenes. (7)Reconvene Class: call on each group to present their analysis of one hypo. Ask questions to push them in the right direction if you think they missed something or ask questions forcing them to defend their aanswers if you think they got it right. Note to teacher: suggested aanswers to the hypotheticals are on a separate sheet at the end of this lesson plan. (8)Take-away: mens rea standards vary widely from premeditated intent to strict liability.You need to read statutes carefully to determine the correct standard. IV. Evaluation a. Group performance on writt en responses to Hypos1-5 and class discussion. V. Assignment a. Write a one page response to the following question: Shcould Melvin be punished for his relationship with Laura? If not, please explain why. How do you think Washingtonââ¬â¢s statutory rape statute should be changed? If you think that Melvin should be punished, please explain why. Handout #1: Hypothetical Scenarios Introductory Hypo: Frank is helping his friend move into a downtown Seattle condo.While unloading a large mirror from the moving truck, the bright sunlight hits the mirror and reflects against the 40th floor of the skyscraper across the street which temporarily blinds a window washer and causes him to stumble. During this moment of temporary blindness, lasting about a second and a half, the window washer inadvertently kicks over his window washing bucket onto the street below. The water and soap from the bucket hit the sidewalk right in front of Bill the jogger. Bill was unable to stop before stepping on t he slippery sidewalk, causing him to lose his balance and fall.When Bill fell, he hit his head on the sidewalk. Bill died two weeks later from his head injury. Suppose that Washington law provides: Anyone who causes the death of another person shall be guilty of murder. Wcould Frank be guilty of murder under this law? Shcould he be? Group Exercise Hypos Instructions: Nominate someone in your group to be the recorder and another person to be the class reporter. Read each hypothetical and determine which statute, if any, applies to the facts of the hypothetical and whether the defendant has violated the statute.Hypo #1: Sarah is held at gun point by Roger on a rooftop. Roger tells Sarah that she must shoot and kill Steven. Sarah pleads with Roger to let her go and that she does not want to kill Steven. Roger tells Sarah that unless she successfully shoots and kills Steven, he will kill Sarah and her entire family. Roger has a violent reputation and Sarah has no reason to believe that Roger will not follow through with his threat. Roger identifies Steven walking on the other side of the street and tells Sarah to take the shot.Fearing for the safety of her family and herself, Sarah takes careful aim at Steven, gauges the wind and change in elevation, and fires a precise shot penetrating Stevenââ¬â¢s heart. What crimes if any has Sarah committed?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.