Prepare:
Read Dressler, pages 33-48, 55-62
Think about the various limitations on the power of legislatures, the courts, and the executive to create and define crimes and impose punishments. What is the source of these limitations? How do these limits apply in actual cases? How, if presented with a statute that perhaps goes beyond acceptable limits, would you articulate arguments to challenge it?
Do: Try the following problems to see how the principles we’ve read about apply to actual statutes. What kind of arguments can you make on behalf of the defendant? the government? Would you expect them to succeed?
In Class: Exercise on the Limits of Criminalization
Reflect:
1. Thanks to Mr. Monroe for being a good sport in our class exercise.
2. Are you satisfied with the limits on criminalization identified in class and in the readings? Do they appropriately serve the purposes of punishment while providing adequate protection for individual rights?
3. Should these limits be built into the definition of criminal statutes? How? By better defining conduct? By better defining other terms? By focusing on results as opposed to risks? By focusing on state of mind? How does looking at these limits help us in thinking about legislative definition of crime?
4. We’ve seen that the wording of a statute may be so ambiguous that it fails to provide adequate notice as to what conduct is prohibited or adequate limits on discretion in enforcement. In such cases, the statute may well be unconstitutional. But statutes may appear clear on their face yet have significant ambiguity. How should such statutes be handled? By what means can such ambiguity be resolved?
| Next Class | Previous Class | Home |