CRM/LAW C144 Lecture Notes - Lecture 7: Milgram Experiment, Ex Post Facto Law, Pentagon Papers
26 Apr 2017
School
Department
Course
Professor
Document Summary
I(cid:374) a (cid:272)ase like this, he"s looki(cid:374)g at te(cid:374) (cid:455)ears i(cid:374) priso(cid:374: because of this reason, he deserves to have the mens rea. State v. guminga requirement instead of the strict liability. If you required mens rea in malum prohibitum, it would be too easy to bring that up as a defense. Therefore, strict liability: shifting the burden to the defendant to know, practicality argument. Marie: violate city welfare laws in canada, efforts to be compliant are relevant for issues of punishment, not guilt, arizona mining. People v. marrero (p. 304: corrections officer, possessed a loaded firearm, believed that he was exempt under the statute. Not guilty because kidnapping requires intent: specific intent crime, malum prohibitum, strict liability of gun crime. State v. woods (p. 313: blanket act, no adultery, defendant claimed mistake of law, but court said no defense, the law is presuming that everyone knows it, that"s a legal fi(cid:272)tio(cid:374)
