Understanding Punishment: Justifications and Culpability

School

St. Mary's University**We aren't endorsed by this school

Course

LW 6341

Subject

Law

Date

Dec 10, 2024

Pages

Uploaded by UltraBraveryTurkey40

I.BASIS FOR PUNISHMENT A.Justifications for Punishment: i.Utilitarian 1.Deterrence of Future Criminal Activity a.Individual- Specific b.Societal- General 2.Rehabilitation for Criminals a.Empirical Struggle b.Tough to achieve 3.Incapacitation of Criminals a.Works by definition, BUT: i.Is expensive ii.Low level criminals are easily replaceable 4.Normalizing Social Morality a.Make it a better world b.Promoting certain values to society ii.Retribution for Victims 1.Punish criminals b/c they deserve it 2.The norms are still unsettled 3.Not trying to protect society 4.Only care about punishment of criminals and bad people II.CULPABILITY A.Actus Reus:physical component of a crime (conduct); Whether the defendant committed a voluntary act? i.Voluntary Act Requirement: 1.Definition of Voluntary: a.Voluntary commission of some act prohibited by law b.MPC: habitual action done w/o thought is a voluntary act b/c it is nonetheless a product of the effort or determination of the actor 2.Voluntary Act is necessary, but not sufficient, for criminal liability a.Impose blame only when additional requirements are also met B.Voluntary manslaughter- the intended killing during the heat of passion that is provoked by adequate circumstances i.Involuntary Acts Are Never Blameworthy: 1.Definition of Involuntary: a.Automatism: an act which is done by the muscles w/o any control by the mind i.E.g., spasm, reflex action, convulsion, or epilepsy 1.HOWEVER, if D has knowledge that they are susceptible to a condition which may produce such consequences, and disregards the possibility of the consequences, then they will be liable for culpable negligence ii.Involuntary manslaughter- a.Unconscious: an act done by a person who is not conscious (aware) of what they are doing i.E.g., concussion, hypnotism, or sleep walking iii.Omission

1.The omission of a duty owed by one individual to another will make them chargeable w/ manslaughter if: a.The duty owed is a legal duty i.4 situations where failure to act is a breach of a legal duty 1.A statute imposes a duty to care 2.One stands in a certain status relationship to another 3.One has assumed a K duty to care for another 4.One has voluntarily assumed the care of another a.Thus preventing others from rendering aid b.Imposed by law or K, AND c.The omission to perform the duty must be the immediate and direct cause of death C.Mens Rea:blameworthiness entailed in choosing to commit a criminal wrong (awareness) i.MPC Approach: one of the following must be established w/ respect to each material element of the crime 1.Intent: purpose or knowledge a.Purpose (highest requirement of defendant): conscious objective was to cause specific result i.Specific Intent: there is a true purpose to effect the criminal result in addition to the physical act ii.General intent: the intent to do an act without any further purpose in mind b.Knowledge(2nd highest of defendant):practical certainty that the result will happen 2.Recklessness(3rd highest requirement of defendant): consciously aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, disregard such risk, and acted anyway 3.Gross Negligence (4thhighest requirement of defendant):should have known of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, such that the failure to perceive the risk constitutes a severe departure from the reasonable standard of care under the circumstances; “Damn” Negligencea.Greater standard than ordinary/civil negligence 4.Silence: no explicit mens rea requirement a.Default minimum is proof of recklessness b.Gross/ordinary negligence w/n suffice •Malice- can be found in two situations oAn actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that was done oRecklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not (the accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it) ▪The risk must be unjustifiable under the circumstances ▪The actor must be consciously aware of the risk ii.Strict Liability:liability is imposed w/o any demonstrated mens rea 1.The purpose of imposing strict liability is to: a.Regulate unwanted behavior by means of penalties b.Weigh the interests of the public/consumers at large > those in positions of responsibility where it is reasonable to avoid a public danger 2.Factors for Determining a Strict Liability Crime: a.Legislative History (not the law, but is sometimes helpful) b.Analogous Statutes c.Level of Punishment i.More severe punishment makes it less likely that it is a strict liability crime d.Potential for a Broad Public Danger

i.The greater the danger for mass public harm makes it more likely to be a strict liability crime e.D’s Opportunity to Know the Factsand to void violations of the law f.Difficulty of Proving Mens Rea i.The more difficult it is to prove mens rea, the more likely that it is a strict liability crime g.# of Prosecutions Expected: i.Increased prosecutions bog down the judicial system ii.Ex: speeding tickets would be very time consuming if had to prove mens rea 3.Typical Strict Liability Offenses: Public Welfare Offenses a.Illegal sales of intoxicating liquors b.Sales of impure or adulterated food or drugs c.Sales of misbranded articles d.Violations of anti-narcotics acts e.Criminal nuisances f.Violations of traffic regulations g.Violations of general police regulations, passed for the safety/heath/well-being of the community iii.Defenses: 1.Mistake: a.Mistake of Fact: i.MPC Approach: 1.Ignorance or mistake is a defense when: a.It negates the existence of the mens rea essential to the commission of an offense, OR b.It establishes a state of mind that constitutes a defense under a rule of law relating to defenses 2.Where a D claims mistake, but a criminal offense would have still occurred had the situation been as the D believed them to be, the solution is to either: a.Deny the defense, OR b.Limit the classification of the offense to those that would have been available upon conviction of the lesser offense ii.Statutory Rape: 1.Majority Rule: a reasonable good faith mistake is not a defense (strict liability) 2.Minority Rule: a reasonable mistake can be a defense under certain circumstances where: a.The age of consent is greater than 14 b.Where the two parties are close in age 3.MPC Approach: a.Strict Liability: i.When criminality turns on the child being below the age of 10 b.Affirmative Defense (D has BOP): i.When criminality turns on the child being a critical age greater than 10 b.Mistake of Law: i.Situations in which a mistake of law defense arises: 1.D is aware of the law but misinterprets its meaning 2.D’s misinterpretation or ignorance is relevant b/c awareness of the legal standard is part of the criminal offense 3.D’s misinterpretation is based on an official document/source/advice

a.D has BOP: i.Not sufficient that D misinterpreted the statute ii.D must show that they correctly interpreted the statute and the statute permitted the conduct, but the statute relied upon was later invalidated ii.General Rule: mistake/ignorance of the law is NOT a defense 1.An unreasonable belief is NOT a defense 2.Statutory Language: “Willful” & “Knowingly”a.Test: intentional violation of a known duty b.3 BOPs: i.Consciously aware of regulation/statute (highest) ii.General awareness that acts were unlawful (medium) iii.Willful-Act Requirement: Merely aware of what acts were committed, i.e. the facts (lowest) 2.Cultural Defense: a.Arguments For: i.Achievement of individualized justice for the D ii.Demonstrate commitment to cultural pluralism b.Arguments Against: i.Cultural Defense is not a mistake of law ii.Victims(women & children) are denied the protections of the criminal law iii.The legal system would adopt different standards for D’s and victims who are members of different cultures c.Solution: P’s and Judges acknowledge culture as a relevant factor w/i the formal doctrinal defense framework III.HOMICIDE A.Murder i.Intent to Kill Murder: 1.First-Degree Murder: premeditated & deliberate; also felony murder; roughly half of the jurisdictions split into first and second degree murder a.Can be establishing by proving either: i.Purpose- defendant’s purpose was to killii.Practical certainty- the defendant knew the person would die b.P must show an opportunity for reflection (premeditation) on the intent to kill i.Two Approaches: 1.Appreciable period of time between formation of intent and execution (modern)(about half of JDs) a.Could be a few minutes 2.Intent (Premeditation and Delib.) can be formed simultaneously (traditional) ii.50/50 split between the two c.Ways to Prove Premeditation: i.Planning ii.Manner of the killing itself iii.Motive: reason why 2.Second-Degree Murder: spontaneous & non-reflexive 3.On Exam: a.30 States distinguish between First/Second Degree Murder

i.Half those States require an appreciable period of time ii.Half those States hold premeditation can be satisfied in an instant b.Present Arguments For/Against Punishing First Degree more harshly: i.For: 1.One who premeditates murder is more dangerous than one who kills on impulse (Teeter doesn’t like this reasoning)2.Death penalty is more likely to deter those who premeditate murder because they are more likely to be dissuaded by the consequences ii.Against: 1.Spontaneous killings can be more culpable than premeditated killings c.State which one is better and why ii.Intent to Cause Great (Serious) Bodily Harm Murder (2nddegree murder): 1.You did not intend to kill anybody, but you wanted to inflict serious bodily harm 2.MPC has eliminated this type of murder because: a.Really bad situations will establish depraved heart murder b.The lighter situations will be knocked down to involuntary manslaughter 3.Starting to disappear in criminal law a.Replace with involuntary manslaughter (lighter cases) b.Depraved heart murder (worse cases) iii.Depraved Heart Murder (extreme recklessness murder)(2nddegree murder):manifesting extreme indifference to the value of a human life; reasonably anticipate that death to another is likely to result; recklessness so severe as show an extreme indifference 1.Associated Risk: a.Very High unjustifiable Risk of Death or great bodily harm= Depraved Heart Murder b.High unjustifiable Risk of Death or great bodily harm = Involuntary Manslaughter 2.On Exam: be wary of convicting of depraved heart murder a.Ex: Russian Roulette is depraved heart murder; throwing boulders onto highway; firing a gun into a house where you know that people are inside b.Ex: Attempting to load a gun, the gun goes off and kills someone, is NOT depraved heart murder c.If a felon initiates a shootout with police which causes cops to kill other co-felons then he could be convicted of depraved heart murder 3.Tends to be second degree murder iv.Felony Murder:killing in the furtherance of a felony (no mens rea elements) 1.First Degree Felony Murder (Majority)(most jurisdictions it is barrk or nothing): a.Applied only to BARRK felonies: i.Burglary ii.Arson iii.Rape iv.Robbery v.Kidnapping vi.Maybe felonious escape (in some jurisdictions) b.Strict liability 2.Second Degree Felony Murder (a good amount of jurisdictions): a.Felony Must Be Inherently Dangerous to Human Life i.Determined by the particular facts of the case ii.Look at how the felony is committed

1.When the felony was committed in that manner, was it inherently dangerous to human life? iii.Defining “Inherently Dangerous”:1.Pro-Prosecution Def.: a.Dangerous per se b.Creates a foreseeable risk of death 2.Pro-Defendant Def.: a.High probability that death will result i.Answer on Exam 3.“In Furtherance of a Felony Requirement”:a.Can be based on: i.During commission of BARRK ii.Attempted BARRK 1.mere preparation will not suffice iii.Immediate Flight From BARRK 1.Test: has the defendant reached a place of at least apparent temporary safety? 2.Booty Factor: a.If D still has the ill-gotten gains = immediate flight b.If D has already stashed the loot = not immediate flight 4.Co-Felons as Defendants: a.Agency Approach (Majority)(apply this on the test): i.Killing had to be committed by one of the co-felons in furtheranceof the felony ii.A good-guy(not one of the felons) kills a co-felon, the other co-felons are NOT liable for felony-murder (called justifiable homicide) 1.Justification: The law is only meant to protect innocent people iii.Shield Case Exception: defendants use iv.The felony murder rule will not apply when other co-felons are killed v.Examples: 1.Good guy kills a co-felon: then no felony murder 2.Good guy shoots at co-felon but they miss and kill an innocent person: no felony murder generally but some courts might impose it because an innocent person died 3.A group of 3 felons. A kills B because he won’t be quiet. Can C be convicted of felony murder?: Need more facts on the reason for the killing of B a.Some courts will apply felony murder if it is done in furtherance of the crime b.Other courts though will not apply because they refuse to apply it when a co-felon dies 4.A co-felon accidentally kills himself with a bomb while he is on the way to bomb something: A lot of courts will not charge the other co-felons with felony murder b.Proximate Cause Theory(Foreseeability Jurisdiction) (Minority): i.If anyone dies in the course of committing the felony and it is foreseeable, all co-felons are liable for felony murder ii.Killing does not have to be by one of the co-felons iii.This is better for prosecution 5.On Exam:

a.If a death occurs while the defendant is still in preparation for the felony then no felony murder b.3 felons are committing a felony i.A kills B in furtherance of the felony ii.A will be charged with intent to kill murder iii.Should C be charged with felony murder? 1.Split in jurisdictions 2.Some will apply it but some will not c.Deep Think Question: i.Arguments for Felony Murder: 1.To deter from attempting/committing felonies 2.To incentivize caution when committing a felony 3.It is pro-Prosecution because it eases mens rea a.Easy First Degree Murder Conviction ii.Arguments Against Felony Murder: 1.Criminals d/n use B<PL 2.You could deter by increasing the sentences for the underlying felonies 3.Felony Murder bastardizes mens rea 4.Extremely rare for someone to die during a felony iii.Would you apply the felony murder doctrine when co-felons are murdered? a.Argument for applying it: i.Provide deterrence against committing felonies ii.Deterrence against poor conduct during a felony d.Alternatives: try to argue for as many types of convictions as possible i.Depraved Heart Murder 1.Try to argue that commiting the felony shows an extreme indifference to the value of human life 6.MPC gets rid of felony murder a.Instead, if a killing does occur during a BARRK then a rebuttable presumption is created that the person acted with an extreme indifference to the value of a human life v.What other option would you employ instead of felony murder? 1.vi.Which approach would you take for felony murder? 1.Agency approach 2.Proximate cause B.Manslaughter i.Voluntary Manslaughter: intentional killing in the heat of passion due to legally adequate provocation 1.(In several states) If you end up killing someone who is not the provoker then it will never be mitigated down 2.If someone deliberately misdirects their rage it will never be mitigated down 3.Traditional CL Approach (Use on Issue Spotter): a.Type of provocation that would drive a reasonable person into a rage (objective)

i.Categorical Approach (Vast Majority of JDs use this): sufficient provocation is: 1.Extreme assault or battery (violent) a.Whether an attempted (but missed) serious battery is legally adequate provocation is undecided 2.Mutual combat (not self-defense) 3.Illegal arrest (kidnapping) (false imprisonment) 4.Injury/serious abuse of a close relative a.Ex: man kills person who rapes his child b.Problem occurs when the injury inflicted upon the child was by accident 5.Sudden discovery of a spouse’s adulterya.Old Majority view: must be ocular evidence b.More courts are loosening the requirement that one must see the adultery with their own eyes 6.Insulting words are NOT sufficient a.In a few jurisdictions, informational words CAN suffice if they disclose facts that are meet a sufficient category ii.“New” Approach: (Mahr Approach)(case by case basis)(small of amount of JDs) 1.Judge decides: could a reasonable jury find that the provocation was sufficient? a.If yes, then it goes to the jury b.If no, then it D/N go to the jury 2.Jury decides: was the provocation sufficient? 3.Then look for other 3 elements b.D was driven into a hot blooded rage (subjective) c.Insufficient time for a reasonable person to cool off (objective) i.A few minutes is fine ii.Over 24 hours is way too long iii.More than a couple hours is probably going to be too long d.D had not cooled off (subjective) i.At the time of the killing was the defendant in a rage? ii.If the defendant is cool, calm, & collected at the time of the killing then it will not be manslaughter 4.MPC Approach: a.Committed under influence of extreme emotional or mental disturbance (subjective) b.For which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse for the disturbance c.This approach rejects the categories and the idea of a cooling off period d.Easier for defendants 5.Differences between MPC and Traditional Common Law Approaches: a.Eliminates cooling off period b.No set categories c.D/N have to be any one specific provocation i.Can be minor provocations built up over time d.Affirmative Defense: D has BOP 6.There CAN be Attempted Voluntary Manslaughter a.There cannot be attempted involuntary manslaughter b.How could there be an attempted accident? 7.On Exam: tell Traditional and MPC Approaches a.Pros-Cons of Categorical vs. MPC

b.Should there, or not, be a cooling-off limitation? c.Your approach to voluntary manslaughter 8.Words generally do not constitute adequate provocation unless the words provide factual information that relates to one of the categories listed ii.Involuntary Manslaughter 1.P must prove either (depends on jurisdiction): a.Recklessness (MPC view)(Texas view): consciously aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, yet proceed anyhow i.Can be harder prove this for experts because it could be that they were not consciously aware of the rick because they didn’t think there was a risk ii.Alcohol Exception: If the defendant has voluntarily consumed alcohol then the prosecutor might not have to establish that defendant was consciously aware of the risk b.Gross Negligence (“damn” negligence): should have known of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, such that the failure to perceive the risk constitutes a severe departure from the reasonable standard of care under the circumstances c.Simple Negligence (tiny minority view) i.Will NOT suffice 2.There C/N be Attempted Involuntary Manslaughter 3.In reality the Gap between recklessness and gross negligence is not as big as it seems on paper a.Juries tend to not believe that defendant was not aware of the risk 4.Exam: a.“depending on the jurisdiction it will either be recklessness or gross negligence”b.Deep think: What should the standard for involuntary manslaughter be? i.Basically should the prosecution have to prove the defendant was consciously aware of the substantial and unjustifiable risk 5.Difference between involuntary manslaugter and depraved heart murder a.IV: defendant has created a high & unjustifiable risk of death or great bodily harm b.DHM: defendant has created a very high & unjustifiable risk of death or great bodily harm c.To actually find that difference depends on the better lawyer

IV.ATTEMPT A.Attempt is punished less severely than actually committing the crime (clear majority view) i.Alternate view 1.MPC: an attempted crime should be punished the same as actually committing the crime (except for murder) a.Reasoning: someone should not punished because of bad luck or misfortune ii.The divide in courts depends on whether one believes the point of criminal law is retribution B.An intent to kill may be inferred when a party fires a weapon at a vital part of the human body C.If the facts had been as the defendant believed them to be and a murder would have ensued then that justifies a conviction for attempted murder D.Mere Preparation does not constitute an attempt to commit the crime i.The conduct must cross the line from preparation into attempt E.Tests for Distinguishing Preparation & Attempt: i.MPC Substantial Step Test (apply this on test for issue spotter) (closest to majority view)(roughly half of states)(pro-prosecution): 1.Criminal Intent AND 2.Substantial Step Strongly Corroborative of Criminal Purpose a.Lying in wait, searching for, or following the contemplated victim b.Enticing the contemplated victim of the crime to go to the place contemplated for its commission c.Reconnoitering the place contemplated for the commission of the crime (casing the joint) d.Unlawful entry of a structure, vehicle, or enclosure in which it is contemplated that the crime will be committed e.Possession of the materials to be employed in the commission of the crime i.Specially designed for unlawful use, OR ii.Can serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances f.Possession, collection, or fabrication of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime, at or near the place contemplated for its commission g.Soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime ii.Dangerous Proximity Test (minority but followed in a number of states)(Pro-defendant): 1.No attempt unless there was dangerous proximity to the result, i.e. would have been completed if not for outside influence a.Ex: Never began the robbery = no attempt i.Dangerous because criminals go free b.Could be potentially dangerous because police have to wait to arrest the criminal c.Police are put in a horrible situation i.Either they allow the criminal to get dangerously close to committing crime ii.Or arresting the criminal too early and the charge of attemot cannot be sustained iii.Equivocality Test (minority): 1.Does the conduct evidence there was a felonious agenda? a.Res Ipsa Loquitur

2.The defendant need not commit the last act necessary to complete the crime, but the unequivocal act toward the commission of the act must demonstrate that a crime is about to be committed unless frustrated by intervening circumstances 3.Defendant’s actions must speak for themselves iv.Eagleton Test (minority)(ignore): 1.Attempt requires the last-step, but failure in the overall mission a.Rejected b/c it interferes w/ the legitimate needs of law enforcement v.On Exam: 1.If Question Involves Attempt: a.Use MPC Substantial Step Test i.Must find criminal intent ii.Must find a substantial step Strongly Corroborative of Criminal Purpose b.D/N apply Dangerous Proximity, Equivocality, or Eagleton 2.If Question Asks for Your Opinion on Tests for Attempt: a.Everything is fair game F.Abandonment i.Traditional Common Law Approach: 1.Once you cross the threshold from preparation into attempt, there can be no abandonment or renunciation ii.MPC Approach: 1.Affirmative Defense (D has BOP) 2.Abandonment must be complete and voluntary a.Not voluntary if: motivated by circumstances not present or apparent at the inception of the act which increased the probability of getting caught or made it more difficult to accomplish b.Not complete if: postpone until a more advantageous time or choose a new victim or similar objective iii.On Exam: 1.Impossible to generalize the law a.Give P’s best argument for not recognizing abandonmenti.Criminals can take preliminary steps consequence free ii.Perjury iii.Criminals can get extremely close to committing the crime and then gauge the situation to determine if they should commit the crime b.Give D’s best arguments for recognizing abandonmentc.Your conclusion G.Impossibility i.MPC Approach (majority): 1.Impossibility is NOT a defense IF: a.The crime could have been committed if the facts were as the D believed them to be i.Focuses on the D’s mens reaii.If you think that something is a crime, but it is in fact not, you C/N be guilty of attempting a crime that D/N exist

V.EXCULPATION A.Self-Defense i.Perfect Self Defense 1.Majority View: deadly force is justifiable when the actor honestly and reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect themselves from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm a.Reasonableness Requirement: i.Reasonable Person Under Those Circumstances 1.Subjectivity to prove the belief was objectively reasonable ii.Battered Woman Syndrome: 1.Majority View: expert testimony is admissible to establish that the woman honestly and reasonablybelieved that deadly force was necessary to protect herself from imminent death or great bodily harm 2.Learned Helplessness: psychological inability to defend herself because of a fear of reaction and further escalation of abuse 3.3 approaches to domestic violence: a.Do not address domestic violence; it is a private matter b.Look at the context of the situation c.There is no consideration of the context of the situation; the abuser will be arrested regardless of what the spouse wishes; mandatory arrest 4.PTSD is not allowed to be brought into court like BWS; courts do not deem it is in the same class because it deals with the death of an innocent 5.Minority: if the 6.3rd Party Help: woman turns to a 3rd party to kill her abusive husband a.No self defense b.Going away for murder c.If the wife can recruit somebody to kill husband then she can seek other alternatives like go to police 7.Injury to other innocent parties a.If the person is defending themselves in a reasonable manner then they are not liable to innocent people that get injured 8.Problems: a.Relaxes the reasonableness requirement out of sympathy b.Forces D to choose between either: i.Conviction for murder, or ii.Put on evidence of a mental health disorder 9.Exam a.When dealing with battered wife’s syndrome you can choose from 3 different perspectives i.Give up on BWS and go back to old days of ignoring domestic violence ii.BWS only applies to women and it does not includes husbands or anybody else

iii.BWS could be extended to husbands and other family members b.Necessity Requirement: i.When necessity ends, so does the right to use deadly force in self defense c.Imminence Requirement: i.Imminent: immediate or instant danger, must be instantly met, C/N be guarded by calling for assistance or protection of the law ii.Inevitable ≠Imminent iii.“Might” ≠ “Definitely” 2.Alternative View: you can use deadly force whenever necessary to protect yourself effectively against unlawful physical violence 3.Non deadly self-defense is allowed 4.If A is caught cheating with B’s wife and then B tries to kill A. Then ii.Imperfect Self Defense (minority)(doesn’t really exist and should not put it on exam) 1.Honestly, but unreasonably think someone is going to kill you, so you kill them a.Majority: go away for murder b.Minority 1: go away for voluntary manslaughter c.Minority 2: go away for involuntary manslaughter iii.Retreat 1.You never have to retreat before using non-deadly force 2.If you are in your own home you never have to retreat (Castle Doctrine)a.Some jurisdictions extend this doctrine to: i.Workplace ii.Car iii.Any place you have a legal right to be (basically anywhere) b.If the aggressor is someone that lives in the same house you can still kill them. (Clear majority view) i.This even applies for family members 3.Do you have to retreat before resorting to deadly force? a.Stand Your Ground (Majority): you have a right to defend yourself with deadly force i.Favored by Legislatures ii.Teeter would choose this b.Safe-Retreat Rule (Minority): i.Favored by Judges ii.Exception: 1.Castle Doctrine: if you are attacked in your own home, then you can kill in self defense a.Some jurisdictions include workplace and car iv.Self-Defense by an Aggressor 1.Conflict in the Law (three points of view): a.Aggressor has NO right to self defense (majority) b.If the aggressor, in good faith, communicates an intent to escape and attempts to withdraw from the confrontation, and they are further pursued by the victim retaliating, then they are allowed to use deadly force in self defense c.If you attack someone with non-deadly force and then that person escalates the situation with deadly force then you are justified in killing them

v.Self-defense in burglaries 1.Machine operated guns will not constitute self-defense because the homeowner is not in imminent danger because the homeowner is not actually home a.Judges hate spring loaded guns and likely won’t apply the RSTi.RST. Allows deadly spring loaded guns if the burglary would have warranted deadly self-defense if the homeowner was actually home ii.Judges believe the spring loaded guns could do so much damage to cops, children, and firemen. They rely too much on chance & fortuity 2.People v. Ceballos (1974) a.The deadly use of force was justified only if the offence was a forcible and atrocious crime. b.It cannot be said that, in California, under all circumstances burglary constitutes a forcible and atrocious crime. c.Where the character and manner of the burglary do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm, there is no cause for extraction of human life or for the use of deadly force 3.Timeline of law (California) a.Can kill anyone who is attempting to burglarize your home b.Judges then stated that you can only use deadly force if a person honestly & reasonably believes that they are in imminent danger (even when dealing with home burglaries) i.This caused some homeowners to become liable for murder or huge damage awards c.Legislature then stepped in and adopted statutes to solve problems i.Created a presumption that homeowner has a honest & reasonable belief that they are subject to great bodily harm when someone breaks into their home 1.Applied if the homeowner killed someone who broke into their house ii.The presumption is not irrebuttable though. A prosecution can argue this in certain cases. •Exam oGive solids arguments of both prosecution and defense. oThen arm wrestle over the two arguments oPro- retreat ▪Life is too valuable to waste ▪It is better save life oPro-stand your ground ▪Unreasonable to expect someone to gauge if they can get away safely ▪A person has very little time to determine how dangerous the situation oNon deadly provoker deep think question ▪Options

•Goes away for murder •Let off due to escalation by other person •Go away for murder unless the person made a good faith effort to get way and communicated the effort to the other person (Peterson) oWhen should you get to kill people without being punished for it? ▪Outright attacked is obvious ▪When a provoker kills someone then its cloudy (non-deadly provoker) ▪Castle doctrine