Читать книгу Criminology For Dummies - Steven Briggs - Страница 45

Along with requiring a physical act, a crime also requires a culpable mental state. This phrase is law-school talk that means the act wasn’t an accident and the offender had some moral responsibility. For example, a person can be considered morally culpable if he planned or intended to commit the criminal act. Aside from intent, however, most states recognize three other mental states that can result in criminal responsibility.

You can find detailed descriptions of these culpable mental states in the Model Penal Code, which the American Law Institute drafted in the 1960s as a model for states as they reformed their antiquated criminal laws. Many states adopted the Model Penal Code’s definitions of the four mental states required to prove criminal responsibility, which I paraphrase in the following list. In almost every criminal case, the jurors must find that the defendant committed the crime in one of these four ways:

 Intentionally (or purposely): A person acts intentionally when she has the conscious objective of engaging in criminal conduct.

 Knowingly: A person acts knowingly when she’s aware that her conduct is of a certain nature that is an element of the crime. (For example, a thief acts knowingly when she steals a TV, knowing that it belongs to someone else.)

 Recklessly: A person acts recklessly when she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a particular result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that disregard of the risk is a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding citizen would observe.

 Negligently: A person acts negligently when she should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a particular result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that her failure to perceive it is a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe.

I list these mental states in order of responsibility, so a person who acts intentionally is usually held more accountable and, thus, punished more severely than a person who acts negligently.

Using homicide as an example (although this principle applies to many crimes), an intentional killing is murder and can result in a life sentence in prison or even a death sentence. A reckless killing may be considered murder in the second degree or manslaughter and results in a lesser sentence of 10 to 20 years. A negligent killing, such as when a drunk driver kills his own passenger in a crash, can result in 5 years or less in prison.

In rare circumstances, a jury can hold a person liable for a crime without proof of any of these culpable mental states, a situation called strict liability. A great example of strict liability has to do with the crime of driving under the influence of intoxicants. When it comes to driving under the influence, most states don’t require any proof that the offender acted intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. The prosecutor just has to prove that the defendant drove while he was intoxicated. Although strict liability is somewhat common in civil law, it’s almost unheard of in criminal law, except for the crime of driving while intoxicated, because society doesn’t want to lock people up unless they have some moral responsibility for what they did.