字幕列表 影片播放 列印英文字幕 We're going to spend some time today talking about criminal law. This is one area of law that it's important for you to know and be aware of, just as a citizen. So that you'll know what your rights are, and so you can recognize when those rights are being violated. So just to begin: there are two basic categories that any crime could fall into. And that's felonies and misdemeanors. A felony is a crime that is punishable by more than one year in jail. And a misdemeanor is a lesser offense that is punishable by less than one year in jail. So that's the distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor. Now with any crime, there are two elements that have to be proven. You have to prove that there was a guilty act; an actus reas, and you have to prove that there was a guilty mind - that the defendant had a guilty mind mens rea. So as far as the guilty act, it could be solicitation; trying to get somebody to help you commit a crime even if they end up not helping you, just the fact that you asked them could be a guilty act. It could be conspiracy; for you and one or two other people get together and plan a crime. You don't go as far as actually attempting it, but you plan for it and maybe gather some guns or something to help you when you do attempt it. So that will be conspiracy. The third thing that could constitute an act would be an attempt. So not only do you gather supplies and plan, but then you actually try to carry it out. You may not succeed but you tried to carry it out, and that would be an attempt .And then the last option there for the guilty act is, if you actually complete the crime. You consummate the crime. Then that would satisfy the guilty act requirement. As far as the guilty mind the mens rea, there are different levels of the guilty mind, the most serious is the inttentional where you have sat down and thought it through and planned it out like a premeditated murder. The least serious guilty mind is that of negligence. For instance they were speeding and happened to hit a pedestrian. While you weren't trying to hit the pedestrian, you didn't mean to, you were just being negligent. And that would be negligent homicide, where this guilty mind is going to come into play is in the punishment phase of the criminal case. If you're found guilty and you're being sentenced, if you intentionally committed a crime, you're going to get a more serious punishment than someone who was reckless or negligent. And so that's how those different levels of intent come into play. So some specific crimes that I want to point out and make sure you understand the differences between them- primarily looking at theft and related crimes. Robbery occurs if you forcefully or unlawfully take the personal property of someone else. Burglary occurs when you unlawfully enter a building with the intent to commit a felony. Notice that that you don't have to actually steal anything or take anything to commit burglary. Just the fact that you unlawfully entered with the intent to commit a felony is sufficient. Then I want to look at these theft crimes. The text discusses these separately, but they're really all just different theft crimes. The first one there is larceny. Larceny occurs when you take something from somebody else with the intent to permanently deprive them of their property. It's similar to robbery, you're taking somebody else's property without their permission. But the difference is that with robbery, there's some force or some intimidation involved and you don't have that with larceny. So for instance if you're walking down the street and somebody sneaks up behind you and picks your pocket, well they haven't committed robbery, because there was no force or intimidation used. But they have committed larceny, because they've taken your property with the intent to deprive. False pretenses is another theft crime. The distinction here is that with false pretenses, the defendant has tricked you into giving them the property. And then embezzlement. The distinction here is that when someone embezzles funds or property, it's something that has already been entrusted to them. For instance, if you were the bookkeeper at your place of business and you handled all the bank deposits and that was your job responsibilities, and you happen to help yourself to a few thousand dollars of the bank deposit, well, that would be embezzlement. That money was entrusted to you as part of your job, and you took it for your own use. The last theft related crime I want to talk about is receiving stolen property. Any time that you receive property that you know or should have known was stolen you could be committing the crime of receipt of stolen property. Next I want to talk about some defenses that can come into play in the criminal arena. First is self defense and the general rule with self defense is that you can use reasonable force to defend yourself. What's reasonable force? Well it's a case-by-case determination. If someone is coming at you with a big stick, would it be reasonable for you to pull out a gun and shoot them? Well no that wouldn't be reasonable use of force. But you can probably you know pick up a stick of your own to defend yourself you could probably punch, or kick, something like that to defend yourself. But use of a gun in that scenario would probably not be reasonable force. So it's a case-by-case determination as to what's reasonable. Now the one exception to this reasonable force requirement is if someone breaks and enters your home. In Tennessee we have what is called castle doctrine. And the basic idea is that if someone enters your home without your permission, there's a presumption that they are there to do you harm and you have the right to shoot first and ask questions later. So that's the one exception to this reasonable force rule. Necessity-- sometimes a criminal defendant can show that, "hey had to commit this criminal act in order to prevent some more serious even greater harm from occurring." If they can establish that, they may be able to make out a defense for necessity. Insanity--The defense of insanity looks at the time that the crime was committed and says at the time that the defendant committed that crime, did he understand what he was doing did he understand the difference between right and wrong? And so it looks at the time that the crime is committed. Mistake-- mistake maybe a defense usually because it negates the intent, the mens rea. For instance, if I have a black leather jacket and hang it up at a restaurant and another customer who also has a black leather jacket accidentally picks mine up and walks out with my jacket mistakenly believing it was his. Well he didn't have the intent to steal my jacket, he was mistaken and so he would assert the defensive mistake if he were to be prosecuted for theft. Duress--duress is the defense that can be raised where some sort of pressure has been placed on a person causing them to act in a way that they normally wouldn't. The classic scenario of this would be the bad guys call you and say, "Hey if you don't rob the bank I'm going to shoot your wife and kids. They're here and I've got a gun to their head." in that situation you would go rob the bank and you would have the valid defense of duress. There was fear of real harm to your wife and your children if you didn't carry out that act. Entrapment--This is basically a defense where you're saying hey the cops made me do it. In order for the defendant to win on this defense, they'd have to show that the government somehow induced them to commit a crime that they would not have otherwise committed. This is a stretch of the defense and it doesn't work very often. Statute of limitations-- a statue of limitations just limits the amount of time that you have to file a lawsuit, or in this case to prosecute a crime, and so if enough time has passed prosecution may be barred by that statute of limitations. The last defense that might be raised is the defense of immunity-- occasionally the government will agree to grant immunity to a defendant so that they can be used to testify against some other defendant. And once that agreement is in place then the person will testify but they cannot be prosecuted. There are some constitutional protections that you need to know. The United States offers a number of protections the accused through our Constitution. The first one that I'll mention is protection under the Fourth Amendment and that is this requirement of probable cause. It basically says police cannot search you or your your vehicle your home without probable cause. And they can't arrest you or seize you without probable cause. So what does probable cause mean? It means that they have a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and basically that you have some part in it. The Fifth Amendment guarantees you the right under the protection of double jeopardy which means that you cannot be tried twice for the same crime. Also if a jury returns a verdict of not guilty then that is that. You cannot be tried twice for that crime. The system also assures you the right to remain silent. You don't have to testify or talk to the police if you don't want to. You can speak up and assert your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent you don't have to testify or provide information that incriminates you. Under the Sixth Amendment we are guaranteed the right to be represented by an attorney. But again you do have to speak up and asert that right. Under the Eighth Amendment we are guaranteed protection from excessive bail, and we're also guaranteed that we're protected from cruel and unusual punishment. What has the court, what do the courts consider to be cruel and unusual punishment? Well the courts have said that execution of juveniles is cruel and unusual punishment, they have also said that execution of those who are mentally ill is also a form of cruel and unusual punishment. The Miranda rights or Miranda rule-- as its discussed in the text, basically is a requirement that you have to be informed. If the police are going to to question you, take you into custody, they have to inform you of your rights. The exclusionary rule-- is a tool that the courts can use to help prevent the government from abusing its authority. Basically the exclusionary rule says that if evidence is obtained in violation of your constitutional protections; for instance if they conduct a search without probable cause and obtain evidence against you, then the exclusionary rule is going to exclude that evidence. That can't be used against you at trial. Similarly, if you confess to a crime but the police have not advised you of your right to remain silent before they arrested you before you confessed, then the exclusionary rule may keep that confession out of court. And so, it makes it harder for the government to prove their case if they don't have evidence against you in court.