- •Contents
- •Acknowledgments
- •I. The Criminal Law and Preventing Harm
- •II. Questions about Retributivism
- •A. WEAK, MODERATE, OR STRONG RETRIBUTIVISM?
- •B. MEASURING DESERT
- •C. THE STRENGTH OF THE RETRIBUTIVIST SIDE CONSTRAINT
- •D. THE FREEWILL-DETERMINISM DEBATE
- •E. CHOICE OR CHARACTER?
- •III. Conclusion
- •I. Unpacking Recklessness
- •II. Folding Knowledge and Purpose into Recklessness
- •A. KNOWLEDGE
- •B. PURPOSE
- •A. UNDERSTANDING INSUFFICIENT CONCERN
- •1. How Many Categories Do We Need?
- •2. Indifference Compared
- •3. Bizarre Metaphysical Beliefs and Culpability
- •B. ASSESSING THE RISK
- •1. The Holism of Risk Assessment
- •2. Opaque Recklessness
- •3. Genetic Recklessness
- •C. REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION
- •E. RECKLESSNESS AND ACT AGGREGATION
- •IV. Proxy Crimes
- •I. Why Negligence Is Not Culpable
- •A. SIMONS’S CULPABLE INDIFFERENCE
- •B. TADROS’S CHARACTER APPROACH
- •C. GARVEY’S DOXASTIC SELF-CONTROL THEORY
- •III. The Strongest Counterexample to Our Position
- •IV. The Arbitrariness of the Reasonable-Person Test
- •A. EVISCERATING THE OFFENSE-DEFENSE DISTINCTION
- •B. ELIMINATING THE WRONGDOING-CULPABILITY DISTINCTION
- •C. SUMMARY
- •II. Socially Justifying Reasons
- •A. IN GENERAL: THE LESSER-EVILS PARADIGM
- •1. The General Consequentialist Structure of Lesser-Evil Choices
- •2. Deontological Constraints on the Consequentialist Calculus
- •4. The Special Case of Lesser versus Least Evil
- •2. Third-Party Focus
- •4. The Risk That a Possible Culpable Aggressor Is Not One
- •5. Culpable Aggressors versus Culpable Aggressors
- •6. The Provoked Culpable Aggressor
- •7. The Range of Culpable Actors
- •C. SOCIALLY JUSTIFYING REASONS: SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS
- •III. Excuses
- •A. PERSONAL JUSTIFICATIONS AND HARD CHOICES
- •2. Expanding Duress
- •3. Duress, Preemptive Action, and Proportionality
- •4. Implications
- •B. EXCULPATORY MISTAKES
- •C. IMPAIRED RATIONALITY EXCUSES
- •1. Excuses versus Exemptions
- •2. Insanity
- •3. Degraded Decision-Making Conditions
- •IV. Mitigating Culpability
- •A. THE PERPLEXING PARTIAL EXCUSE OF PROVOCATION
- •2. Provocation as Excuse (1): The Character Explanation
- •3. Provocation as Excuse (2): The Decision-Making Explanation
- •B. ASSIMILATING PROVOCATION
- •C. HOW MITIGATION WORKS
- •I. The Irrelevance of Results
- •II. The Intuitive Appeal of the “Results Matter” Claim
- •III. “Results Matter” Quandaries
- •B. CAUSAL CONUNDRUMS
- •IV. Free Will and Determinism Reprised
- •VI. The Immateriality of Results and Inchoate Crimes
- •I. Our Theory of Culpable Action
- •A. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
- •B. INTENTIONS
- •1. Are Intentions Acts?
- •2. Why Intentions Are Not Culpable Acts
- •C. SUBSTANTIAL STEPS
- •D. DANGEROUS PROXIMITY
- •E. LAST ACTS
- •A. WHEN PREPARATORY ACTS ARE ALSO LAST ACTS
- •B. LIT-FUSE ATTEMPTS
- •C. IMPOSSIBLE ATTEMPTS
- •D. RECONCEPTUALIZING OTHER INCHOATE CRIMES
- •I. The Unit of Culpable Action
- •A. RETHINKING CULPABLE ACTION
- •B. FROM VOLITIONS TO WILLED BODILY MOVEMENTS
- •II. Culpability for Omissions
- •B. ELEMENTS OF OMISSIONS LIABILITY
- •C. THE CRIME OF POSSESSION
- •III. Acts, Omission, and Duration
- •A. RISKY ACTS AND FAILURES TO RESCUE
- •B. CULPABILITY AND DURATION
- •IV. Individuating Crimes
- •A. TYPES OF CRIMES
- •1. A Brief Normative Defense
- •2. Disentangling Legally Protected Interests
- •B. TOKENS OF CRIMES
- •1. Counting Willed Bodily Movements
- •2. Volume Discounts
- •3. Analyzing Continuous Courses of Conduct
- •I. An Idealized Culpability-Based Criminal Code
- •A. LEGALLY PROTECTED INTERESTS
- •1. A Normative Defense of Unpacking Crimes
- •2. Which Interests?
- •B. CALCULATING CULPABILITY
- •1. Some Preliminaries
- •2. A First Attempt
- •II. From an Idealized Code to a Practical One: Implementing Our Theory in “the Real World”
- •A. WHAT WE ARE SEEKING TO REPLACE
- •2. Do Our Current Criminal Codes Contain Rules?
- •B. IMPLEMENTING A PRACTICAL CODE
- •1. Rules versus Standards: In General
- •2. The Argument for Rules over Standards
- •3. Problems with Rules
- •4. An Empirical Experiment
- •C. INEVITABLE PROXY CRIMES
- •1. Recognizing the Alternatives
- •2. Enacting Proxy Crimes
- •D. LEGALITY QUESTIONS
- •1. Notice
- •2. Constraining Power
- •E. ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS
- •1. Do We Unjustly Empower Prosecutors?
- •2. Reconciling Our Act Requirement with Concerns about Law Enforcement
- •F. PROCEDURAL, EVIDENTIARY, AND SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS
- •1. Burdens of Proof and Evidentiary Rules
- •2. Plea Bargaining
- •3. Sentencing Considerations
- •Epilogue
- •General instructions:
- •Defense of self and others:
- •Bibliography
- •Primary Materials
- •Secondary Materials
- •Index
198 |
T HE CULPA BLE ACT |
In this chapter, we begin by setting forth the principles that underlie our adoption of the “last act” formula.1 We then survey the various points along the inchoate crime continuum, from the formation of the intention to impose the risk, to the Model Penal Code’s intention plus “substantial step,” to the common law’s intention plus “dangerous proximity,” to the last act. In our view, it is only the last act – the act through which the actor believes he has relinquished (complete) control over whether he has created an undue risk of harm (or proxy conduct) – that is a culpable act. (In the next chapter, we further refine this view by clarifying that it is the actor’s volition to move his body in such a way as to engage in the last act necessary for the unleashing of the risk that is the culpable “act.”)
I. Our Theory of Culpable Action
A. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
Underlying our defense of the last-act test are three separate, but related, claims. First, the criminal law – and the morality that underlies it – aims to influence the actor’s reasons for action. Second, an actor can change his mind about imposing a risk of harm to others until he believes he has actually unleashed that risk of harm and can no longer control it through further practical reasoning eventuating in acts of will. Third, an actor should be punished only for what he has done and not what he will do.
In determining what should count as a culpable act, we should thus first take account of the way that law and morality aim to influence conduct: actors act for reasons, and the criminal law and its underlying morality reflect that there are powerful reasons to abstain from engaging in unduly risky behavior. The law and its underlying morality thus influence (or should influence) the actor’s practical reasoning.
Not only do the law and morality seek to influence the actor’s reasons for action, but they can also continue to influence these reasons until the point at which the actor engages in some conduct that (he believes) has unleashed a risk over which he no longer has complete control. To
1T his chapter draws from Larry Alexander and Kimberly D. Kessler, “Mens Rea and Inchoate Crimes,” 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1138 (1997).