SAMPLE ASSIGNMENTS FOR CRIMINAL LAW
Please hit your browser's "REFRESH" button each time you visit this page to be certain you are viewing the most current version of this page.

Practicum #1: What is Rule of Law?

Things said about the concept: "a principle, guide or norm that decisions should be made by the application of known principles, sometimes called the supremacy of law" (West Encyclopedia of Law 1984). Frankly, that definition is a sham, and the idea of "supremacy of law" is overused.  This concept deserves better; so here goes. Rule of Law connotes Law with a capital L, and there's no such concept for that in the English language. Other cultures have words like Recht (German), Droit (French), Pravo (Russian), Derecho (Spanish), and Mishpat (Hebrew). The closest English equivalent would be "Right," a term that appears in the translation of some important philosophical works, like Hegel's Philosophy of Right. It denotes a vision of government based on ideal Law, and was, ironically, referred to quite extensively during Nazi Germany in the notion of a Rechtsstaat.  To be sure, the concept needs a non-fascist definition.

Definitions: (not necessarily in any order of preference, but good ones tend to be toward the top and worse ones tend to be toward the bottom):

• implementation of an ideal into all the workings of the law; the ideal being a sense of Justice in what is Good or Right (this is a nice workable definition, but it's also talking about a moral or ethical commitment as in the concept of the law behind the law, but the notion of all workings of law being idealistic is promising)
• means not being content with the law as laid down by an authoritative body, such as a legislature, but an attitude that the law is just and binding because it is sound in principle (this comes closest to describing a Rechtsstaat, and a disclaimer that the belief in the law being binding is not due to the influence of personalities, therefore excluding legitimacy, law behind the law, and other concepts)
• comes close to the same meaning as "due process," our ultimate value of what is good and right in our justice system (this is a typical American approach, but it simply uses the summa bona of a complex value system as an example
• comes close to the same meaning as "rights," i.e., respect for basic human rights. If a government has respect for these, it has Rule of Law (basic human rights is a good American and UN definition, not very workable one, but one that is both historically and sociologically sound)
• it means government by rules, not by men (this is usually called constitutionalism or constitutional democracy, and is again, an overused idea that simply refers to rational-legal authority replacing charismatic authority)
• it means the government is bound by the same rules as we are. It's accountable, and doesn't commit any crimes against its citizens (interesting notion, but the idea that not "every cop is a criminal" to quote an old Rolling Stones song is pretty much the idea of legitimacy, not rule of law)
• it means standardized justice. There's no discretion in the system. Different judges don't give different sentences for the same offense. (this is not any definition I would use, but I suppose there could be hard advocates of mandatory sentencing that think of rule of law this way)
• it simply means honesty in government, that we trust public officials (this is legitimacy or simply the idea of public trust)
• the legal system, and to some extent the whole government, is fair. The state acts as a disinterested arbiter (this is called the liberal theory of state)
• the government does not have any scandals or riots, and by this is meant that the revolutionary potential of the masses is kept in check by getting them to buy into a vision of the law as just. (interesting idea, go on...) Not only is there no corruption in the system, but nobody can buy justice or a special deal, and the government is able through the power of ideas to protect itself from espionage, domestic terrorism, revolution, riot, and acts of civil disobedience (very interesting, indeed, but this radical definition tends to devolve into the idea of an absence of chaos)
• it means once law, always law. The government doesn't short-circuit its own checks and balances, e.g., it doesn't toll the statute of limitations, it doesn't create any ex post facto laws, etc. (this gets into the topic of the limitations on Criminal Law; again, this is a definition that explains what something is not)

Practicum #2: Rewrite the law for LOITERING. Your job is to rewrite the statutory law for "loitering."

You should make the following 3 assumptions:
(1) You have been hired as the legal analyst or consultant for the state legislature and they have assured you that whatever you come up with will be enacted as long as it is constitutional and no longer vague.
(2) The present state statute has been declared "void for vagueness" and needs to be reworded. Find the present statute, read it, and assume it is void and in need of rewording.  Consult the textbook, other books, or lecture notes to find out what void for vagueness is.
(3) Finally, the legislature has given you another task.  While you are rewriting a general "loitering" law, you should also rewrite about PROSTITUTION as it should be legally described, AND/OR, you can pinpoint various street gang behaviors (hanging out, milling about, and so forth) that the legislature is also concerned about. Your choice.

SAMPLE LOITERING STATUTE:  14-204.1 Loitering for the purpose of engaging in prostitution.
    (a) For the purposes of this section, "public place" means any street, sidewalk, bridge, alley or alleyway, plaza, park, driveway, parking lot or transportation facility, or the doorways and entrance ways to any building which fronts on any of those places, or a motor vehicle in on any of those places.
    (b) If a person remains or wanders about in a public place, and
        (1) Repeatedly beckons to, stops, or attempts to stop passerbys, or repeatedly attempts to engage passerbys in conversation, or\
        (2) Repeatedly stops or attempts to stop motor vehicles, or
        (3) Repeatedly interferes with the free passage of other persons.
For the purpose of violating any subdivision of GS 14-204 or 14-177, that person is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor (1979 c. 873, s 133, 1994 Ex. Sess c. 24, 14(c). [Source: NC Statutes]

  PRACTICUM #3
"Who do you prosecute and why?"

This is an assignment that requires reading the lecture notes before trying to do it. You already possess knowledge of the principles of criminal liability, responsibility, and culpability, and now, you are to demonstrate your ability at applying the principles of complicity, accomplice liability, and the laws of attempt, conspiracy, and solicitation.

There are a number of different correct answers to this assignment. Feel free to exercise your creative freedom by making as many additional assumptions as you need to construct or complete your answer; i.e., regarding what additional circumstances you would need to know in order to decide whether to prosecute or not. HERE'S THE ASSIGNMENT:

PRACTICUM: For each of the following cast of characters, indicate whether the criminal justice system should prosecute them as accomplices under the circumstances and why; if not, what additional circumstances would be necessary for prosecution?

Scenario: An estranged husband finds out his wife is sleeping with another man, so he buys a gun and takes a taxi over to that man's apartment where he waits outside and shoots his wife 3-4 times in the back while she comes out. She lays there and bleeds to death while the husband runs over to a friend's house to hide from police.

Cast of Characters:
(1) the manufacturer of the murder weapon
(2) the merchant who sold the murder weapon to the husband
(3) the taxi driver who drove the man to the apartment complex
(4) third parties in the apartment complex who may have seen the husband waiting
(5) the other man the wife was seeing
(6) third parties in the apartment complex who failed to call the police or an ambulance
(7) the police who didn't provide protection
(8) the ambulance service that eventually showed up
(9) the apartment complex where the crime took place
(10) the friend who concealed the husband from the police

Let's take an example: #1, for instance. You might want to prosecute the gun manufacturer for a variety of reasons. You might charge them with facilitation or solicitation (see Lecture #4 for definitions of these terms), but as a corporation, the principle of complicity you would use be the doctrine of respondant superior. There's also some case law for accomplice liability if you assume the particular gun in question was made or purchased for criminal purposes (think of the tobacco manufacturer lawsuits as a model). But getting back to solicitation (see Lecture #5), you might want to examine the advertisements of the gun manufacturer to see if there's any kind of inducement (suppose the ads for the gun said something like "Blow your troubles away"). Other possible factors that would support prosecution might be whether or not the town had a gun buy-back program (which might even make the town liable) or community sentiment.

As you can see from the example, there's a whole lot of ways to think or use legal reasoning to make even the most remote parties (society is responsible) appear liable under some of the concepts relating to complicity. Use your imagination if you have to. Err on the side of prosecuting everybody. Don't just blow off this assignment by saying you wouldn't prosecute anybody but the shooter. I'm interested in seeing how well you can stretch your thinking processes and still remain consistent with the spirit if not the letter of the law regarding accomplice liability and inchoate offenses.

PRACTICUM #4:  Indicate (1) whether each defense BELOW  is an "Excuse" or "Justification" (using the definitions provided in your textbook or the lecture notes; (2) rank, from 1-10, each defense in terms of how well you think, in your opinion, it would be a successful defense in court (in terms of being consistent with the principles and accepted doctrines of defenses to crime provided in your textbook or Lecture#6 -- with 10 being a most successful defense and 1 being a least successful defense); (3) indicate in a sentence or fragments of sentences what principle(s), doctrine(s), standard(s), or test(s) are most consistent with and most relevant to each defense (don't just name as many principles as you can in hopes one of them is right) as well as providing a reason for your ranking.

Here's an example of how to do this assignment:

[The defense to rank is, e.g.:] Nutritional Defect Syndrome, claims that certain dietary habits, food preferences, and nutritional imbalances caused the crime. [You would ideally write, e.g.:] Excuse, rank of 7. It denies the body did the crime (actus reus); most consistent with the doctrine of lesser-of-two-evils in the case of cannibalism; also with the principle of necessity; ranked high because it's fairly easy to find nutritional experts who would support this defense.

OK, start ranking:

Adopted Child Syndrome, claims a "sleeper effect" in that knowledge of being adopted leads to an unpredictable episode of violence later in life, "snapping" or "going postal", for example.

 American Dream Syndrome, claims cultural influence of wanting to get ahead, to do well financially and economically causes crime.

 Arbitrary Abuse of Power Syndrome, claims behavior due to dealing with bureaucrats and insensitive bosses all day at work.

 Black Rage Syndrome, claims that deep anger over racial injustice either in the present or long in the past (like slavery) serves as catalyst or trigger for episodic violence.

 Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, or Yuppie Disease, claims impairment of daily activities, body aches, photophobia, and crime are due to life being too easy these days.

 Computer Addiction, a claim that point-and-shoot, action, computer games like Doom and Quake cause teenage violence.

Everybody Does It Syndrome, a claim that everyone has done something wrong at some time in their life.

Holocaust Survivor Syndrome, claims to explain a deep distrust of governments and government officials, thereby justifying resisting arrest and other acts of resistance to authorities.

Meek-Mate Syndrome, a claim that one's wife or husband is so psychologically abusive that by calling names, ridiculing in public, and forcing to sleep on the floor that it causes one to lash out violently.

Mother Lion Defense, seeks to justify mother 's violent reactions taken to protect her children.

Munchausen-By-Proxy Syndrome. A condition that causes somebody to falsify or cause harm to another because of a pathological need for attention by authorities, a desire to strike back at the system for some perceived wrong, or to bask in the glory of nurturing professionals.

Parental Abuse Syndrome, a claim that years of emotional, physical or sexual abuse by a parent on a child causes loss of control over later behavior.

The Pornography-Made-Me-Do-It Syndrome, a claim that exposure to hardcore pornography produced a warped perception of the world or that the criminal behavior was presumably acting under influence of pornography at the time.

Repressed or Recovered Memory Syndrome, a claim that certain traumatic memories are triggered years later, such as sexual abuse by a teacher or priest as a child caused criminal behavior in adulthood.

Ritual Abuse (Satanic Cult) Syndrome, a claim that physical or psychological brainwashing took place and the person had no choice but to follow the orders of the cult leader.

Rock and Roll Defense, alleges that subliminal messages in rock , or in some cases rap, music, were the cause of conduct, as in the music of the Beatles, Judas Priest, and Tupac Shukir.

Stockholm Syndrome, a claim that being held hostage by charismatic terrorists, for example, forces the victims to come over to hostage-taker's side and assist them in completing their crime.

SuperJock Syndrome, a claim that athletes, especially superstars, are presumably prone to incredible acts of violence when frustrated.

Twinkie Defense, a claim that certain junk foods, like Twinkies, cause a kind of "sugar rush" that makes a person go completely out of control.

 PRACTICUM #5: WHAT CRIME IS IT?

Instructions: In the space provided under each of the following situations, identify (by name of offense) the crime that should be charged in each situation, for federal and most state jurisdictions. Your answer should be in the form of one (1) word (or phrase), like "false pretenses" which is either right or wrong, although in some cases, there may be two separate charges, like rape and extortion. If the charge involves a degree of some kind, like "2nd degree robbery", you are required to answer with the exact degree of the criminal charge; that is, "robbery" would not be a correct answer for a "2nd degree robbery" situation. It's not necessary for you to write anything other than the name of the correct criminal charge. Do not assume any additional circumstances beyond the facts given. You do not have the option of leaving any answer space blank, nor in deciding not to charge the defendant with anything. In cases where you think there is an insufficiency of facts to support a criminal charge, you must err on the side of charging the person with the closest offense that fits the facts. Charge only the person identified as "the defendant" in each situation, and no one else.

Example:

#0 (Sample situation): The defendant was attempting to build a birdhouse in his 8' x 10' homemade shed he used as a workshop in his back yard. He accidentally hit his thumb with a hammer, shouted out some expletives, exited the structure, and set fire to it, burning it to the ground. Neighbors called the police and fire department about the blaze and a man who seemed to be cursing his burning shed. The fire department determined that the fire was deliberately set.

#0 (Sample answer): Second (2nd) Degree Arson

#1: The defendant, who worked in a cubicle at XYZ corporation, was the constant target of homosexual advances made towards him by another man who worked in the cubicle next to him. In a rage and frenzy one day, the defendant grabbed the man and choked him to death.

#2: The defendant broke into his ex-girlfriends apartment while she was asleep in bed. He then threatened to kill her if she did not agree to one last romp in bed. A brief argument ensued, in which the girl finally gave in and they had "rough sex" together. They promised never to see one another again, and the defendant left quietly.

#3: The defendant was an older fraternity brother who, after each new pledge was finally inducted into the fraternity, was in the habit of getting at least one of them stinking drunk until they passed out. While in their unconscious condition, the defendant would then take them to a tattoo parlor where he had a rather demeaning, large picture of a man and a sheep having sex tattooed on the chest of the younger frat brother.

#4: The defendant climbed over the fence of a junk yard while it was closed and removed an alternator part he needed for his 1963 Chevy Corvair. He told police that he planned to pay the junk yard owners once they reopened, but that he needed to fix his car right away.

#5: The defendant pitched a pup tent on the beach one night and was arrested by police when he awoke the next morning. The portion of the beach he camped on was owned by a private country club which has posted at least two "Private Beach" signs. He told police that lots of other people had camped at his spot before.

#6: The defendant was a famous baseball player having lunch one day in a restaurant. He was spotted by a man at the bar who came over, interrupted the defendant's lunch, and insisted on an autograph. After an exchange of words, the man from the bar ended up on the floor with a broken jaw.

#7: A witness and a victim state that the defendant kicked the victim while the victim was on a bike, told the victim to get off the bike, and then took the bike and pedaled off.

#8: The defendant ordered gas pumped into his car, which he refused to pay for. He then threatened the gas station owner and drove off.

#9: The defendant took a bucket of coins left unattended in a casino. The owner, spotting this, gave chase and shouted an alarm. In running and before being apprehended, the defendant collided with three women, knocking one down.

#10: After giving an automobile dealer a false address, the defendant took a 2002 Firebird for a test drive and did not return the car.

#11: The defendant stole civil service exams for police promotions and sold copies of the exams with the answers.

#12: The defendant grabbed a woman and transported her to an ATM machine where he forced her to withdraw money and turn it over to him.

#13: The defendant walked into a fast-food restaurant and handed the cashier a note saying "Give me all your money". The clerk then put $180 in a bag. The defendant took the money and ran out of the restaurant.

#14: The defendant threw a brick through a jewelry store window and with a long stick was able to hook watches and rings worth more than $500.

#15: The defendant was a well-dressed woman looking at merchandise in a shopping store. After she left without purchasing anything, a store clerk observed that only six items were on the shelf where seven items had been previously.

#16: The defendant used their computer word-processor to create an official-looking school transcript saying they have a doctoral degree in Criminology from University of the Americas, a distance education school, they say, in order to be considered for a job as college professor at XYZ university.

#17: The defendant obtains her sister's checkbook (same last name) and writes a check for more than the amount of the checking account balance, getting it cashed at a local grocery store, after buying a nominal amount of groceries.

#18: The defendant works as a cashier at her place of business and is also responsible for the "petty cash" fund to be used by certain employees (but not her) for miscellaneous, small expenses. One day the defendant takes $40 from the fund and purchases a sweater with it she saw on sale at a store that night. She planned to return the money on her next payday.

#19: The defendant works as an Sergeant in the military. One of the privates under his charge sneaked a civilian girlfriend onto base who "partied" with enlisted men over a three-day period. When the defendant discovered this, he threatened to expose the private unless the girlfriend agreed to have sexual intercourse with him. After a week of unusual, bizarre sex acts between the Sergeant and the girl, she left the base, and two weeks later, decided to complain about the defendant.

#20: The defendant was an honor student who solicited other honor students to give her copies of their best term papers and told them she was putting together a booklet for sale to other students at the college and that contributors would receive a percentage of the sales revenue. After receiving about 60 such term papers, the defendant created a commercial web site for them that started reaping profits, but before she could distribute the profits to the contributors, she graduated and did not bother keeping in contact with the contributors.

#21: The defendant is the 89-year old mother of twelve sons, three of which recently got out of prison for burglary sentences. Almost as soon as these three sons are back home, new, expensive furniture and other fancy appliances start to stockpile in the mother's home.

#22: The defendant and two accomplices grab two late-night window shoppers off the street and into a dark alley. They then take all the money and valuables that the victims have.

#23: The defendant is rather sophisticated at computer systems. He sends an email to a friend of his that owes him money, saying "I hope you pay up soon, or else your next email message is going to contain something you don't want. It won't even matter if you don't open the file".

#24: The defendant solicits buy-in money (stock options) for an Internet start-up company at 500 shares for a par value of $5 each, promising that the value will go up to at least $50 a share once the company goes public. Several people invest in the start-up, but the company never goes public.

#25: The defendant is a flood victim, who in order to receive more federal assistance, claims to have had more damaged assets (a chicken coop, a greenhouse growing expensive orchids, etc.) than they actually had.

Deep Thought Question:

As we have seen, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between specific and general intent, both in terms of what a particular statute requires and whether the evidence supports that requirement. What exactly is the significance of the distinction between specific and general intent? What effect does that distinction have with respect to proof of matters such as conspiracy, attempt, sex crimes, and extortions? What is the rationale for maintaining for such a distinction? What arguments are there for abandoning it?

"REPORT CARD" TEMPLATE
(A guide to the document each student creates and turns in over each reading assignment to satisfy the writing assignment)

Give a letter grade score (either A, B, or C) across seven categories of evaluation (see rubric) with a short commentary explaining any B or C scores. Do not give all A grades.  Then, immediately under your scores, include a paragraph or two (250 words minimum - by doing enough of these, they will add up to eight pages of writing) providing grammatically correct commentary which fully explains and justifies your overall evaluation as well as demonstrates what you've learned or understood from reading the material.  A sample appears below, but please remember it's a sample and you should come up with your own version.

To: instructor
From: name of student (use full name as enrolled in course)
Assignment: be sure to name the lecture note you're evaluating (e.g., Asymmetric War lecture)

        1. B --- the writing used too many weasel words...
        2. A
        3. B --- a chart or diagram would have helped my understanding...
        4. A
        5. B --- there should have been more coverage of the current crisis in Iran...
        6. A
        7. C --- this lecture was useless to me as I don't really care about anything asymmetric... 
        Comments:  I give this lecture note a B+ overall because it's informative, even though some of the material is confusing and over my head.  It seems to go into theoretical or definitional matters too deeply.  The author convincingly says that certain things are important, like as one line reads "IPsec protocol can subsume VPN privileges" but I'm not all that interested in the techno-geek details as well as theoretical debates over the definition of asymmetric warfare.  I expected or would have preferred to learn about which countries were attacking us with computers and what can be done about it.  Don't get me wrong; the lecture note was useful in other ways. It helped me understand the full scope of the problem, such as the fact I learned that 50 countries have advanced cyberwarfare units.  It would have been helpful to have some images or pictures in some places to better understand some ideas.  My biggest critique, however, is that the reading was lengthy and a chore to read.  I think it also lacked a "voice" or strong author opinion in some places because they seemed to skirt away on some issues or sit on the fence.  One thing I've learned from this and other readings is that without considering the personal element, one can easily get bogged down in a bunch of relativism where anything goes theoretically.  I clicked on and followed some of the web links in the reading, and the one I found most interesting led to the Council on Foreign Relations.  I might also mention that the link to Korean Hacker Quarterly is broken and doesn't work.  I tried searching for where that website might have gone, but couldn't find anything.  In terms of suggested printed resources in the bibliography, I think the book entitled "Crusaders, Criminals, and Crazies" looks the most interesting to me for possibly read later on.  I think this lecture ought to be required reading for this course and others.  I certainly could have used it when I was working on a term paper in a class I had last semester....
    Another thing I learned from this lecture was...[second paragraph optional]       

This has been an illustration of how easy it is to do the writing assignments by demonstrating reading comprehension.

Last updated: July 08, 2006
Not an official webpage of APSU, copyright restrictions apply, see Megalinks in Criminal Justice
O'Connor, T.  (Date of Last Update at bottom of page). In Part of web cited (Windows name for file at top of browser), MegaLinks in Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/rest of URL accessed on today's date.