POL 123 – Module 4 Lecture Notes
What is a Crime?
th
What is a crime? In the early 18 century, William Blackstone defined it as “a wrong committed against
the public.” This definition is still in use because the general public is injured when a crime is committed.
The person who was the victim is also injured, but there are quite a few criminal offenses that appear to
be “victimless,” take recreational drug use or possessing alcohol in a “dry” county. Because the public
passed these laws, through its representatives in the legislature, the public is the injured victim.
Criminal Law
The government is responsible for determining whether criminal behavior will be prosecuted. The
government bears the burden of investigating, prosecuting, and punishing criminal activity. Everyone is
afforded equal protection under the law as proscribed by the Fourteenth Amendment. So, neither the
defendant’s nor the victim’s financial condition is supposed to matter. The government pays for the costs
of investigation and litigation. Government will also bear the costs of punishment including incarceration,
probation, and supervision (at the public’s expense).
Classification of Crimes
Now, most states define crimes statutorily, which means by written law or statute. All federal crimes are
also statutory. Common law definitions are still useful to make or understand statutes. Under the common
law, crimes were classified in two ways: mala in se crimes and mala prohibida crimes. It is pretty easy to
distinguish between the two. Mala in se crimes are offenses that are intrinsically bad. So, we know that
rape is a crime that is always bad regardless of politics or lobbying. On the other hand, mala prohibita
crimes are bad only because the law says they are bad. Look at the examples listed. Is it really bad to
carry a gun onto an airplane? Just the mere act of carrying a gun through the airport is a crime, though.
But for the law telling you it is a violation of the law, there is nothing truly bad about simply carrying that
gun. It is illegal to do so only because we have laws that say it is prohibited, unlike rape or murder.
Many states today classify crimes based on the harm to society. The statutes often indicate how groups
of crimes or offenses are clustered. Crimes can also be classified based on type of crime. We can cluster
them by crimes against persons, such as rape, kidnapping, or murder; crimes against property, such as
burglary, arson, and larceny; and crimes against the government, such as treason or perjury. Even within
like types of crimes, we can further classify crimes. Generally, crimes are classified as either felonies or
misdemeanors. Felonies are generally punishable by more than one year in prison. A misdemeanor is
generally punishable by less than one year in jail.
Components of Criminal Offenses
There are four general components for criminal offenses and liability. The first is a bad or wrongful act
(the actus reus). Second, the person committing the offense must have a guilty mind (or mens rea). There
must be intent to do the bad act, and there must be causation. The defendant must have caused the bad
act to happen.
First let’s explore the wrongful or bad act, or actus reus. An example is battery, defined as the harmful or
offensive touching of another without that person’s permission. The bad act must be voluntary. Take this
hypothetical: “Melissa is sitting next to John when she experiences an epileptic seizure. She
unintentionally kicks John repeatedly.” Is this a battery? Can you think of other examples of non-voluntary
actions? (Hint: your textbook contains some examples.) Sometimes a bad act is actually a failure to act,
such as not filing your income tax returns, not registering with Selective Service, or not feeding an infant
in your care. In some instances, the bad act is possession, such as having drugs on one’s person.
The second requirement of a criminal offense is a guilty mind. The offender must have the mens rea at
the time the crime was committed in order to be liable for it. If your coworker takes home your laptop
thinking it is hers, does she have the mens rea for theft? Note, however, that mala in se crimes must have
intent; malum prohibita crimes may have intent (like a drug possession) but do not have to have criminal
intent (like some traffic offenses).
Intent
Now let’s turn to intent. For specific intent crimes, the defendant must have intended to do the act
knowing or intending to commit a crime. Let’s look at theft. To be convicted of theft, most theft laws not
only require that you take something from someone else, but that you had the specific intent to deprive
that person of his property permanently. So, for instance, if you took your neighbor’s Porsche, to be
convicted of theft, the government must prove that you intended to deprive the person of it permanently. If
you only intended to take it for a spin and return it to your neighbor’s garage, then you didn’t commit the
crime of theft (though, possibly joyriding).
Likewise, to be convicted of burglary, government has to prove you broke into your neighbor’s house
intending to steal something. If you only intended to break in to watch HBO and take a nap, you’d be
guilty of the crime of breaking and entering, and not burglary. Other ways of approaching intent include
determining whether the criminal act was committed purposely (conscious desire to produce the result) or
knowingly (aware that harm is likely to occur, but does not specifically intend for the consequences of the
act) or recklessly (disregard for the welfare of others, knowingly creating a significant or unjustifiable risk)
or negligently (unconsciously creating risk).
Causation
The last component is causation. Causation means defendant’s bad act caused the resulting offense. In a
battery, for example, defendant’s actions would have caused a harmful or offensive touching. Let’s look at
an example. A defendant sets fire to the tree in his yard. The tree is touching his neighbor’s house, and
the house burns down. Defendant’s actions caused the house to burn down, even though indirectly.
However, defendants tend to only be liable to reasonably foreseeable consequences.
As you continue through the rest of this module, take another look at the Commonwealth v. Berggren
case in your textbook. This case illustrates the legal principle that an accused is only responsible for the
reasonable and foreseeable consequences of her actions. After looking at the case, see if you can
explain the difference between factual and legal causation based on the facts within the case.