NCJ Number
161050
Journal
Criminal Law Bulletin Volume: 32 Issue: 1 Dated: (January-February 1996) Pages: 25-48
Date Published
1996
Length
24 pages
Annotation
The author criticizes the Model Penal Code's treatment of conditional purpose which equates conditional purpose with its nonconditional counterpart.
Abstract
The Model Penal Code outlines four criminal intent categories: purpose, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. It establishes lengthy and specific requirements to prove criminal attempt but defines conspiracy very broadly. Further, it punishes people who solicit others to commit crimes for them. Attempt, conspiracy, and solicitation are treated as crimes of the same grade and degree as the most serious offense attempted, thus ensuring that punishment for inchoate crime is the same as if the crime had been completed. The Model Penal Code does not take probabilities into account and instead treats all threats as equal. This undermines the whole idea behind the division of criminal intent into the four categories and subverts the traditional concept of criminal law by punishing thought instead of action. The author recommends that the Model Penal Code be changed to take probability of occurrence into consideration. 68 footnotes