Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Crim. Law 2-3

No description

Thaddeus Hoffmeister

on 15 January 2015

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Crim. Law 2-3

Professor Hoffmeister
Criminal Law
Class #2-3


Queen v. Dudley and Stephens
Dudley, Stephens, Brooks and Parker are stranded on a boat. Dudley and Stephens turn on Parker. After Parker's death, all 3 eat his remains. Dudley and Stephens are convicted of murder.

Is necessity a defense to homicide?

Why is this in the book?

Question #1 on pg 50.
U.S. v. Gementera
FACTS: Repeat offender received the following sentence for stealing mail
2 to 8 months incarceration
3 years supervised release
100 hours community service which included among other things holding a sign that says "I stole mail. This is my punisment"
People deserve the punishment
Backward looking
Assign punishment on a proportional basis
Justification lies in the useful purposes of punishment
Forward looking
General deterrence
Specific deterrence

Issue: Does this sentence violate the Sentence Reform Act?

ROL: Reasonably related to the crime
no greater deprivation than necessary
afford adequate deterrence
protect public from future crimes
help the D

D's arguments : This is humiliation and and not reasonably related to rehabilitation

Court: Comprehensive set of punishments that allows the D the opportunity to seek forgiveness and a contribution to society
Is the Digital Scarlet Letter constitutional?

How would the dissent in
address the Digital Scarlet Letter?
Appointments: mmiller2@udayton.edu

Courtroom Journals


Ewing v. CA
FACTS: D convicted of stealing 3 golf clubs. D had priors and thus was sentenced to 25 years to life
ISSUE: Does the 8th Amendment prohibit CA's 3 strike's law?
COURT: Sentence justified by the state's interest in incapacitating and deterring recidivist felons
DISSENT: Real issue look at the time
Why is this case in the book?
Question #1 on pg. 90
Full transcript