Model Penal Code Vs Common Law Chart

The legal landscape is a complex tapestry woven from different threads of jurisprudence, and understanding the distinctions between legal systems is essential for anyone involved in law, whether as a practitioner, student, or simply an informed citizen. Among the most significant differentiations lies the contrast between the Model Penal Code (MPC) and common law, two distinct approaches to criminal law. This article seeks to provide a detailed comparison between these systems, highlighting their origins, characteristics, and the specific ways in which they address key aspects of criminal liability.

Origins and Philosophical Underpinnings

The common law system, originating in medieval England, is characterized by its reliance on judicial precedent. Stare decisis, the principle of adhering to previously decided cases, forms the cornerstone of this system. Over centuries, judges have shaped the law through their rulings, building a body of legal principles based on custom and tradition. This system is organic and evolutionary, adapting to societal changes through judicial interpretation.

In contrast, the Model Penal Code (MPC) is a statutory framework developed by the American Law Institute (ALI) in 1962. It was created to provide a modern, comprehensive, and uniform approach to criminal law. Unlike the common law's case-by-case evolution, the MPC offers a structured set of principles designed to promote consistency and clarity across jurisdictions. While not law itself, the MPC has served as a template for states to reform and codify their criminal laws.

The philosophical underpinnings also differ significantly. Common law, with its historical roots, often reflects the moral and social values of past eras. It tends to be pragmatic, focusing on practical solutions to specific problems. The MPC, on the other hand, embodies a more rational and systematic approach. It seeks to define criminal conduct precisely, ensuring that laws are fair, predictable, and consistent with modern principles of justice.

Core Principles and Definitions

Actus Reus

Both the MPC and common law require actus reus, or a prohibited act, as an essential element of a crime. However, their approaches to defining and interpreting this element diverge in several ways.

Common Law: Common law broadly defines actus reus to include voluntary bodily movements, omissions where a legal duty exists, and in some cases, possession. The emphasis is on the physical conduct of the defendant.

Model Penal Code: The MPC provides a more structured definition, focusing on the requirement of a "voluntary act." Section 2.01 of the MPC specifies that liability cannot be based on conduct that is not the product of the actor's volition. This includes reflexes, convulsions, bodily movements during unconsciousness or sleep, and conduct that is not a product of effort or determination by the actor. Additionally, the MPC acknowledges omissions as actus reus only when a duty to act is imposed by law.

Mens Rea

Mens rea, or the mental state of the defendant, is another critical element in determining criminal liability. The MPC and common law differ substantially in their categorization and definitions of the required mental states.

Common Law: Common law traditionally recognizes several levels of mens rea, including:

• Specific Intent: The defendant acts with a particular purpose or objective in mind.
• General Intent: The defendant intends to perform the prohibited act, but without a specific ulterior motive.
• Malice: The defendant acts with wickedness or a reckless disregard for the rights of others.
• Criminal Negligence: The defendant deviates substantially from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise, creating a risk of harm.

Model Penal Code: The MPC simplifies and standardizes the categories of mens rea to four distinct states of mind:

• Purpose: The defendant's conscious object is to engage in the prohibited conduct or to cause the prohibited result.
• Knowledge: The defendant is aware that it is practically certain that their conduct will cause the prohibited result.
• Recklessness: The defendant consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the prohibited result will occur.
• Negligence: The defendant should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the prohibited result will occur, and their failure to perceive this risk is a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise.

The MPC’s approach offers a clearer and more consistent framework, reducing ambiguity and promoting uniform application of the law.

Differences in Specific Crimes

Homicide

The definition and grading of homicide offenses illustrate significant differences between the MPC and common law approaches.

Common Law: Common law traditionally divides homicide into murder and manslaughter. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought can be express (intent to kill) or implied (intent to cause serious bodily harm, reckless indifference to human life, or intent to commit a felony that results in death). Manslaughter is further divided into voluntary manslaughter (intentional killing committed in the heat of passion) and involuntary manslaughter (unintentional killing resulting from criminal negligence).

Model Penal Code: The MPC categorizes homicide into murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide. Murder is defined as causing death purposely or knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Manslaughter includes reckless killings and killings committed under extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse. Negligent homicide involves causing death through criminal negligence. The MPC’s approach emphasizes the actor's state of mind and provides a more nuanced grading of homicide offenses.

Theft

Theft offenses also demonstrate differences in approach between the two systems.

Common Law: Common law distinguishes between several types of theft offenses, including larceny (taking and carrying away the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive them of it), embezzlement (fraudulent conversion of property by a person in lawful possession of it), and false pretenses (obtaining title to property by means of a false representation of fact).

Model Penal Code: The MPC consolidates these various theft offenses into a single offense called "theft," which encompasses obtaining property unlawfully. This simplification aims to eliminate the technical distinctions that often complicate common law theft cases. The MPC focuses on the actor's intent to deprive the owner of their property, regardless of the specific means used to accomplish this.

Defenses

The MPC and common law also diverge in their treatment of criminal defenses.

Common Law: Common law defenses often rely on traditional principles and case law. These include defenses such as self-defense, defense of others, necessity, duress, and insanity. The specific requirements and limitations of these defenses vary depending on the jurisdiction and the particular circumstances of the case.

Model Penal Code: The MPC provides a more structured and comprehensive approach to defenses. It codifies defenses such as self-defense, defense of others, necessity, duress, and insanity, and it sets forth specific criteria for each defense. For example, the MPC's definition of insanity, known as the "substantial capacity" test, differs from the traditional M'Naghten rule used in many common law jurisdictions. The MPC also includes a defense of diminished capacity, which allows a defendant to argue that their mental condition, while not amounting to insanity, impaired their ability to form the required mens rea for the offense.

Key Differences: A Summary Chart

Advantages and Disadvantages

Common Law

Advantages:

• Flexibility: Common law can adapt to changing social norms and new factual situations through judicial interpretation.
• Practicality: Common law is often grounded in real-world scenarios, providing practical solutions to specific problems.
• Historical Depth: Common law benefits from centuries of accumulated wisdom and experience.

Disadvantages:

• Uncertainty: Reliance on judicial precedent can create uncertainty, as the law may be unclear or inconsistent.
• Complexity: The vast body of case law can be difficult to navigate and understand.
• Inconsistency: Different jurisdictions may interpret common law principles differently, leading to variations in legal outcomes.

Model Penal Code

Advantages:

• Clarity: The MPC provides clear and precise definitions of criminal offenses and defenses.
• Consistency: The MPC promotes uniformity across jurisdictions by providing a standardized framework for criminal law.
• Rationality: The MPC is based on rational principles of justice, ensuring that laws are fair and predictable.

Disadvantages:

• Rigidity: The MPC's statutory framework may be less flexible than common law in adapting to new situations.
• Abstraction: The MPC's focus on abstract principles may sometimes lead to outcomes that seem detached from real-world concerns.
• Adoption Challenges: Not all states have fully adopted the MPC, leading to continued variations in criminal law across the United States.

Impact and Influence

The Model Penal Code has had a profound impact on criminal law reform in the United States. Many states have adopted significant portions of the MPC, incorporating its principles into their criminal codes. The MPC's influence can be seen in the definitions of offenses, the grading of crimes, and the codification of defenses. It has also shaped the way courts and legal scholars think about criminal law.

Common law continues to play a vital role in jurisdictions that have not fully adopted the MPC. Even in states that have codified their criminal laws, common law principles often provide context and guidance for interpreting statutory provisions. The common law's historical depth and its emphasis on practical solutions make it a valuable source of legal authority.

Examples in Practice

To further illustrate the differences between the Model Penal Code and common law, consider the following examples:

Example 1: Self-Defense

Common Law: In a common law jurisdiction, the rules governing self-defense might be derived from a series of court decisions. Generally, a person is justified in using force, including deadly force, if they reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger of unlawful bodily harm or death. The amount of force used must be proportionate to the threat. Some jurisdictions also impose a duty to retreat before using deadly force, if it is safe to do so.

Model Penal Code: Section 3.04 of the MPC provides a more detailed and structured approach to self-defense. It states that the use of force is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect themselves against unlawful force by another person. The MPC also addresses the use of deadly force, specifying that it is justifiable only when the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect themselves against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, or forcible sexual intercourse. The MPC generally rejects the duty to retreat, except in certain circumstances.

Example 2: Felony Murder

Common Law: The felony murder rule holds that a person is guilty of murder if a death occurs during the commission of a felony, even if the person did not intend to cause the death. The rationale behind this rule is that the commission of a felony demonstrates a reckless disregard for human life.

Model Penal Code: The MPC significantly restricts the scope of the felony murder rule. Section 210.2(1)(b) provides that a person is guilty of murder if they are engaged in the commission of a felony and recklessly cause the death of another person under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. This requires a higher degree of culpability than the common law rule, focusing on the actor's mental state rather than simply the commission of the felony.

The Future of Criminal Law

The ongoing debate between the Model Penal Code and common law approaches reflects fundamental tensions in the philosophy of criminal justice. Proponents of the MPC argue that its clarity, consistency, and rationality promote fairness and predictability in the application of the law. Supporters of common law emphasize its flexibility, practicality, and historical depth.

In practice, many jurisdictions blend elements of both systems, adopting some features of the MPC while retaining traditional common law principles. The future of criminal law likely lies in finding a balance between these competing values, creating a legal framework that is both just and effective.

Conclusion

Understanding the differences between the Model Penal Code and common law is crucial for anyone studying or practicing criminal law. While both systems aim to define and punish criminal conduct, they do so from different perspectives and with different priorities. The MPC offers a structured, comprehensive, and uniform approach, while common law relies on judicial precedent and adapts to societal changes through case law. By recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of each system, we can work towards a more just and effective criminal justice system.