Top Law Schools

Posted in other thread, but would like to see if I get some responses here:


Two questions regarding Crim if anyone can please answer:

1) MPC test for insanity: "Appreciate" vs M'Naghten's "know". I still don't get the main difference.

2) In my notes I have this:
"The common law requires a bilateral approach to conspiracy: you need two or more people to agree to commit the crime to be a conspiracy. NOTE: common law is moving toward unilateral approach."

In two different parts I once imply that the bilateral approach is the majority common law approach, and in another I imply that that unilateral is. Does anyone know for sure which is which. I know MPC is unilateral. Need to know b/c for the exam we are only to discuss the majority approach whenever there is one.



Thanks

I guess people are going to sleep?

TheFutureLawyer wrote:Posted in other thread, but would like to see if I get some responses here:


Two questions regarding Crim if anyone can please answer:

1) MPC test for insanity: "Appreciate" vs M'Naghten's "know". I still don't get the main difference.

2) In my notes I have this:
"The common law requires a bilateral approach to conspiracy: you need two or more people to agree to commit the crime to be a conspiracy. NOTE: common law is moving toward unilateral approach."

In two different parts I once imply that the bilateral approach is the majority common law approach, and in another I imply that that unilateral is. Does anyone know for sure which is which. I know MPC is unilateral. Need to know b/c for the exam we are only to discuss the majority approach whenever there is one.

Thanks

Basically in my notes I have that although the common low does not recognize unilateral conspiracies, the modern trend is moving toward allowing conviction of one party, even under a bilateral requirement, if the other party can't be located or is acquitted by the jury in a separate trial. So I guess the crux of the matter is the majority rule is still to require two or more parties, with an exception growing. The minority rule is to recognize some form of "attempted conspiracy" for punishing a unilateral conspiracy.

hope this helps. i'm also in the midst of studying crim

fish tacos wrote:

TheFutureLawyer wrote:Posted in other thread, but would like to see if I get some responses here:


Two questions regarding Crim if anyone can please answer:

1) MPC test for insanity: "Appreciate" vs M'Naghten's "know". I still don't get the main difference.

2) In my notes I have this:
"The common law requires a bilateral approach to conspiracy: you need two or more people to agree to commit the crime to be a conspiracy. NOTE: common law is moving toward unilateral approach."

In two different parts I once imply that the bilateral approach is the majority common law approach, and in another I imply that that unilateral is. Does anyone know for sure which is which. I know MPC is unilateral. Need to know b/c for the exam we are only to discuss the majority approach whenever there is one.

Thanks

Basically in my notes I have that although the common low does not recognize unilateral conspiracies, the modern trend is moving toward allowing conviction of one party, even under a bilateral requirement, if the other party can't be located or is acquitted by the jury in a separate trial. So I guess the crux of the matter is the majority rule is still to require two or more parties, with an exception growing. The minority rule is to recognize some form of "attempted conspiracy" for punishing a unilateral conspiracy.

hope this helps. i'm also in the midst of studying crim

Thanks, it does. I doubt we'd get asked about anything that specific though, but yeah I needed to know that it was bilateral.

Do you get the diff between "appreciate" and "know"? That's another thing I'd like to know.

Please post any questions you have as well, it'd be nice to work out anything that might confuse me within the next 12 hrs.

Also have crim final tomorrow and the way I understand appreciate vs know is there's a difference between KNOWING something and being able to appreciate AKA comprehend the risks and threats that come with a certain action. using appreciate rather than knowing is to (from my notes) “convey a broader sense of understanding than simple cognition.”

Here are my class notes:

Clinicians are not necessarily that good at determining who is actually insane - see “ the odd don.” So what kind of tests do we use?

M’Naghten: Disease of the mind and either a) defendant does not know nature of the act he was doing or b) defendant does not know what he is doing is wrong. It says nothing about the ability to control one’s self - it is purely a cognitive test.

MPC: Disease of the mind and a) lacks the ability to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or b) was unable to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law. (more expansive, because you cannot appreciate, plus the irresistible urge prong)

US v. Lyons. 5th Ct. 1984.
Claims to require drugs, as an addict, and therefore cannot control his action. The majority drops the volitional prong of the Blake standard as essentially unverifiable. The dissent believes the volitional prong goes to moral blameworthiness, and that altering the test serves little purpose given the limited scale of the insanity defense.

Federal test: Severe mental disease or defect, unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Tighter in the sense that mental defect must be “severe,” more open than M’Naughtan in terms of the “appreciate” language This is largely motivated by the Hinckly assassination attempt.

---

So I am just as unclear on the difference as you guys I guess - the main difference our professor drew between M'Naughten and the MPC was the behavioural component. I have to read up on it some more, but my final isn't until the 22nd, so I've kind of been putting it off.