Introduction to American Law
The United States is a former English colony, and its laws were initially based on the common law of the parent nation. The states that were settled by Spain, France, and Mexico before joining the country developed civil-law systems, though they abandoned them afterward (Siegler , pp. 70-71). In common-law frameworks, judges interpret the laws passed by legislators and make decisions that are later used as precedents for future cases (Siegler, p. 70). Judges are expected to abide by these precedents in a principle that is known as stare decisis. With that said, the United States has diverged from the English procedure considerably over time with the intent of modernizing and simplifying it, particularly in matters of pleading (Friedman, p. 116). As such, nowadays, the two legal systems are considerably different in practice despite their shared underlying principles.
Laws are differentiated into a variety of categories that are separated by level, source, and intention. Neubauer and Meinhold distinguish national, state, and local law, constitutions, statutes, and administrative regulations, and case law, public and private law, civil and criminal law, and substantive and procedural law as different areas (p. 30). Federal law is recorded in the Constitution and statutes and regulations that are issued by the Congress and federal agencies. In some fields, it takes precedence over state law, but the latter is generally responsible for defining everything not covered by the broader legislation. States can delegate some of their lawmaking capabilities to counties, cities, and other entities and usually do so, generating the lowest level of local law. Private law governs interactions between individuals as opposed to the government for public regulation. Civil and criminal laws diverge in the nature of the harm (private or public). Lastly, substantive law refers to rights, while procedural law governs the enforcement of these rights.
The United States Constitution
The United States Constitution was drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1788 as an attempt to replace the ineffective Articles of Confederation. It is separated into seven articles, each of which deals with a specific aspect of government (Hurt, p. 37). Article I defines the legislative branch, and articles II and III outline the executive and judicial ones, respectively. Article IV explains the roles of the state in the broader national framework. Article V provides a procedure for the introduction of amendments to the Constitution. Article VI cements its position as the supreme law of the nation, positioned above that of the states. Lastly, Article VII is an instruction regarding the ratification of the document. The Constitution has also been amended twenty-seven times throughout the years, with the first ten amendments being known as the Bill of Rights.
The name comes from the history of the introduction of the ten amendments as well as their purpose. Most of the Anti-Federalist faction, as well as some Federalists, were concerned that the government would seize excessive power and restrict the freedoms of the people. Signorelli adds that the unchecked power of the English government and its abuses in America served as examples of such power and its misuse (p. 27). Acknowledging these arguments, North Carolina and Rhode Island refused to ratify the Constitution in its original form. To address these concerns, the parties involved developed a set of twelve articles, ten of which were passed. They include rights such as the freedom of speech and religion as well as the ability to request a trial by jury when criminally prosecuted. It should be noted that the Constitution cannot encompass the entirety of various rights that people have, and the Ninth Amendment addresses the issue.
Crimes, Requirements, and Defenses
Murder may be among the most popular varieties of crime due to its prevalence in popular culture. It can be used as a demonstration of the concepts of actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind) (Allen, p. 31). The defendant is convicted for murder if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they killed a person and that they intended to do so. There is also a distinction based on whether the act was spontaneous or premeditated, with the latter exacerbating the severity of the crime and the punishment. A well-known affirmative defense for murder (the introduction of additional factors that shift the case in the defendant’s favor) is the insanity plea. It establishes a lack of mens rea through the claim that the defendant’s mental illness prevented them from comprehending the nature of their actions.
A homicide where mens rea is absent or diminished, such as an accidental killing or a perceived home defense against an intruder that does not threaten the inhabitant’s life, is known as manslaughter. Punishments for it tend to be less severe than those for murder because of the extenuating circumstances. With that said, the defendant’s motivations are still crucial in determining the severity of the verdict, with specific prescriptions varying by state. Affirmative defenses that identify the homicide as warranted, most prominently the justified self-defense concept, can apply to mitigate the punishment or remove it entirely.
Both of the crimes above depend on mens rea to some degree, which means that they do not have strict liability. Under this concept, it becomes unnecessary to consider the presence or absence of mens rea when discussing the actus reus. Driving under the influence (DUI) offenses can serve as a demonstration of this concept, as it is only necessary to show that the defendant was intoxicated while driving for a conviction (Carter and Burke, p. 153). Strict liability generally only applies to minor crimes in the United States, as serious crimes typically involve an element of motivation. The distinction between murder and manslaughter serves as an example, as they are differentiated by the defendant’s mental state.
The next crime, theft, once again has both an actus reus and a mens rea, which means that there is no strict liability. It is the intentional deprivation of another person of their property without their consent. If the person accidentally takes another’s possessions without realizing it, learns of their mistake, and returns it, there is no crime. However, if, upon realization, they choose to keep the possession, the mens rea is established, and the offense becomes prosecutable. With that said, the intentional taking of another individual’s property and its return afterward can qualify as theft because both the actus and mens rea are established. As such, it is possible to form several affirmative defenses based on the defendant’s motivations for taking the object.
Kidnapping is a serious crime that is similar to murder in its relationship with the law. The actus reus is the act of forcibly taking someone and confining them against their will, and the mens rea is the intent of isolating them from the potential intervention (Samaha, p. 425). Strict liability does not apply for kidnapping because the defendant’s motivation is critical. Affirmative defenses such as the victim’s consent to the act or a relationship between the two parties and the intention to take them into custody apply alongside broadly applicable notions such as insanity.
Battery is a crime that is generally considered to be an unlawful use of force to harm another person or enter offensive contact, which includes sexual contact. The actus reus is the illegal application of force to another person that results in at least one of these outcomes, as opposed to lawful usage of force such as that permitted to the police. The mens rea is the intent to injure the person or achieve offensive contact. Strict liability does not apply because the intention is necessary for the offense to be criminal. Potential affirmative defenses include accusing the victim of being the aggressor and claiming that the act was consensual, as is the case in sports such as boxing.
Assault is notable in its similarity to battery, which often leads to the two being considered the same crime. According to Gardner and Anderson, the definition varies between states, but most use the common-law definition of assault as either a failed battery attempt or an intentional and overt threat of physical harm (p. 302). The mens rea constitutes the intent to hurt the person or intimidate them with the threat, depending on the type of assault. Strict liability does not apply, and the same affirmative defense considerations apply as with battery.
Drug possession can serve as another example of a crime with strict liability, as it only requires that drugs or paraphernalia be found on the defendant or in their items. Determination of whether the purpose of the possession is consumption or sale is made based on the quantity of drugs and the presence of specific equipment such as scales or packaging (Bergman and Berman, p. 275). Generally, the affirmative defense does not apply, and the most prominent tactic is to try to prove that the search was unlawful.
Blackmail is a crime that involves coercing a person with the threat of revealing some harmful information. Robinson and Cahill note that there is considerable variation in how various U.S. jurisdictions define the actus reus, with the ranges of criminal demands and special defenses varying in their width (p. 598). They are the result of the so-called “blackmail paradox,” which is the idea that combining the legal practices of threatening to expose unlawful practices and seeking benefits results in an illegal act. The mens rea is the intent to benefit from the threat, strict liability does not apply, and affirmative defense options depend on the jurisdiction.
Perjury, the provision of false testimony under oath or a substitute in the course of justice, will be the final crime discussed in this paper. The actus reus is the provision of false information, and the mens rea is intent to deceive the court. Confusion, failure to remember, or mistakes that result in the provision of false testimony do not qualify as perjury. As such, strict liability does not apply because the intention is critical to the definition of the crime. There are generally no affirmative defenses for perjury, but the nature of the crime enables a variety of other strategies, most of which revolve around disproving intention.
Conclusion
Throughout its existence, the American legal system has developed considerably, as various precedents and modifications accumulated to form an extensive framework. The federal government has created multiple agencies that assist the governance of the country and formulate regulations that become part of federal law. The individual states have also delegated powers to smaller units and contributed to the development of the other two levels of policy. As the needs of the United States have changed over time, legislation has expanded to accommodate them and end outdated systems. However, the Constitution has only been changed twenty-seven times, all of which have been amendments that added new provisions. This tendency indicates that the document has been successful in creating the foundation of a lasting government that is based on the positive values of the Founding Fathers.
The criminal justice system has also improved considerably, mostly as a result of its organic growth as the result of the adoption of a common-law system and stare decisis. As new types of crimes or arguments emerged, judges had to find solutions for them and did so, making it easier for others to decide on subsequent cases. However, the result may be somewhat overcomplicated, as lawyers and judges have to navigate numerous records of court proceedings to find precedent situations and determine whether they apply to the current case. With that said, this complexity may be considered a necessary part of the common-law approach and a benefit because of the flexibility that it provides compared to civil-law systems. Overall, the majority of the changes in the nation’s judiciary branch has been expansion, as is the case with its other legal provisions, which suggests that it is fundamentally sound.
Works Cited
- Allen, Michael. Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, 2017.
- Bergman, Paul, and Sara J. Berman. The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System. 15th ed., NOLO, 2018.
- Carter, Lief H., and Burke, Thomas F. Reason in Law. 9th ed., University of Chicago Press, 2016.
- Friedman, Lawrence M. A History of American Law. 4th ed., Oxford University Press, 2019.
- Gardner, Thomas J., and Anderson, Terry M. Criminal Law. 10th ed., Cengage Learning, 2009.
- Hurt, Avery Elizabeth. The United States Constitution. Cavendish Square, 2018.
- Neubauer, David W., and Stephen S. Meinhold. Judicial Process: Law, Courts, and Politics in the United States. Cengage Learning, 2015.
- Robinson, Paul H., and Michael T. Cahill. Aspen Treatise for Criminal Law. 2nd ed., Wolters Kluwer, 2017.
- Samaha, Joel. Criminal Law. Cengage Learning, 2016.
- Siegler, Mark V. An Economic History of the United States: Connecting the Present with the Past. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
- Signorelli, Walter P. Criminal Law, Procedure, and Evidence. CRC Press, 2017.