The Model Penal Code's approach to criminal mental states is fairly new. Many states still follow the common law approach. Because so many courts have been involved over the centuries in developing this approach, sometimes the language can be confusing, and the exact meaning of terms can vary from state to state. Criminal intent, for instance, can mean not only intent in the Model Penal Code sense, but also knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. General intent normally means an intention to do an act, while specific intent is an intent more than just to do an act. For instance, to prove that John is guilty of larceny under the common law, a prosecutor must show not only that John intentionally took Jerry's property; she must also prove that when John did so, he specifically intended to steal that property when he took it.
A famous saying declares that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". This means, for instance, that if Sharon robs a bank and does not know that bank robbery is a crime, then Sharon is still guilty of the crime of bank robbery. But why should this be so, especially in modern America with its huge number of criminal laws, where no one is able to know every possible criminal offense?
One argument is that if ignorance of the law were an excuse, then every criminal defendant could claim that he or she did not know that his or her actions were illegal, thus slowing trials and tying up courts so badly that the criminal justice system would break down. Juries would also have to investigate whether a defendant should have known about the law he or she allegedly broke, which would add another level of difficulty to trials.
Another argument is that the law is the command of the community that is binding upon all members of society; the law is not what individual members of society believe it to be. By allowing defendants to decide what the law is by their own ignorance, the legal system would be destroying its own authority. Still another reason is that the very act of prosecuting and punishing someone for breaking a law he or she did not know about will help educate other members of society about the existence of that law.
Nevertheless, punishing individuals for breaking laws they honestly did not know about and had no reason to know about has struck many people as harsh. This difficulty is one reason why police and prosecutors have some discretion in deciding who to charge for crimes. If charging someone for an honest mistake about the law when his or her conduct is not dangerous to the community would be unjust, then police and prosecutors may choose to warn the wrongdoer and release him or her instead.
In criminal law, a warrant is an order, usually for search of premises, seizure of evidence of crime, or arrest of a suspected criminal, issued by a judge. In the American legal system, judges are not law enforcement officers; instead, in criminal cases, they are referees between the government and its citizens. The Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, therefore, places law officers under the supervision of a neutral party in order to make sure that they follow the requirements of due process and other constitutional safeguards when carrying out criminal investigations.
Our website is not responsible for the information contained by this article. Articleinput.com is a free articles resource thus practically any visitor can submit an article. However if you notice any copyrighted material, please contact us and we will remove the article(s) in discussion right away.
Note: This article was sent to us by: Grace R. Adams at 09252010
1. Sellers can sue customers and go to trial if these do not respect the contract
All articles are property of their respective authors. Please read our Privacy Policy!
© 2009 ArticleInput.com.
Partners: Damenmode