Podcasts about model penal code

Elements of a Crime: A crime generally has two components: the actus reus, the physical or external part, and the mens rea, the mental or internal feature. The actus reus generally includes a voluntary act that causes social harm. Causation links the voluntary act to the social harm. The requirement of a voluntary act is generally an implicit element of criminal statutes supported by common law. In exceptional cases, an omission (failure to act when there is a legal duty) can serve as the basis for criminal responsibility. A duty to act can arise from common law, statute, or contract. Most human acts are considered voluntary, with involuntary acts including reflexive actions, spasms, seizures, and movements during unconsciousness or sleep.Mens rea refers to criminal intent or a "guilty mind". It is the state of mind statutorily required to convict a defendant of a particular crime. The prosecution typically must prove mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt. The Model Penal Code (MPC) categorizes culpable mental states into four levels: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently.Concurrence (or contemporaneity) is the need to prove that the actus reus and mens rea occurred simultaneously, except in strict liability crimes. The single transaction principle allows a sequence of inevitably linked events to be viewed as one transaction, where mens rea formed at any point during the sequence can suffice.Classification of Crimes: Crimes can be classified in several ways, most commonly as felonies (punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year) and misdemeanors (lesser offenses usually punishable by a fine or incarceration for less than one year). Crimes are also categorized as inchoate offenses and strict liability offenses. At common law, there were nine major felonies and various misdemeanors.Inchoate Offenses: Inchoate offenses (attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy) involve steps taken toward committing another crime, even if the final harmful result does not occur. Attempt involves preparatory conduct that comes dangerously close to success (common law proximity test) or constitutes a substantial step strongly corroborative of criminal purpose (MPC substantial step test). Solicitation occurs when one intentionally entices another to commit a crime. Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, coupled with an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. The Pinkerton doctrine can hold a conspirator liable for foreseeable crimes committed by co-conspirators. The merger doctrine often prevents conviction for both an attempt or solicitation and the completed offense, but conspiracy typically does not merge. Renunciation or withdrawal may be a defense to inchoate offenses in some jurisdictions.Specific Crimes: Homicide is the unlawful killing of a human being, categorized into murder, manslaughter, and sometimes criminally negligent homicide. Murder is typically defined as unlawful killing with malice aforethought. US law for murder varies by jurisdiction, often with degrees of murder (first, second, sometimes third) and different classifications in the Model Penal Code (purposely/knowingly, reckless, negligent). Property crimes include larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, robbery, burglary, and arson, each involving different ways property rights are violated.Defenses to Criminal Liability: Defenses are broadly divided into justifications (admitting actus reus and mens rea but claiming the act was legally permissible) and excuses (conceding the act was wrongful but arguing the actor should not be held criminally responsible). Justification defenses include self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, necessity, and law enforcement privilege. Excuse defenses include insanity, intoxication, duress, entrapment, and mistake.The insanity defense concerns the defendant's state of mind, potentially negating mens rea, with various legal tests like the M'Naghten Rule, Durh

A justification defense claims that the defendant's conduct was lawful under the circumstances, while an excuse defense concedes the wrongfulness of the act but argues the defendant should not be held criminally responsible. An example of justification is self-defense; an example of excuse is insanity.The core elements of self-defense include an actual and reasonable belief that the use of force was necessary to prevent the imminent use of unlawful force by another. Deadly force is permissible only when the defendant reasonably believes they are facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.The majority rule (and the Model Penal Code approach) does not require retreat before using deadly force unless the defendant knows they can avoid the threat with complete safety. The minority rule, or "stand your ground" rule, permits individuals to meet deadly force with deadly force, even if retreat is safely possible, as long as they are in a place where they have a legal right to be.The defense of necessity allows a defendant to commit a crime to avoid a greater imminent harm when no adequate legal alternative is available. Two key limitations are that the defense is generally not available if the defendant caused the situation and is typically not a defense to homicide.The M'Naghten Rule states that a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if, due to a mental disease or defect, they did not know the nature and quality of their act, or if they did know it, they did not know it was wrong. The central focus of this test is the defendant's cognitive understanding of their actions and their wrongfulness.Voluntary intoxication, the result of the defendant's intentional consumption of intoxicants, may negate the specific intent required for certain crimes. Involuntary intoxication, which occurs through coercion, fraud, or mistake, is treated more like insanity and may be a defense to any crime if it negates the necessary mental state.Duress can be a valid defense if the defendant committed a crime under the threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to themselves or others, the threat would overcome the will of a person of ordinary firmness, and there was no reasonable opportunity to escape. It is generally not a defense to homicide.The subjective test for entrapment focuses on the predisposition of the defendant to commit the crime. If the defendant was already inclined to commit the crime and the government merely provided an opportunity, the defense of entrapment will likely fail, regardless of the government's conduct.The general rule is that mistake of law is not a defense; ignorance of the law is no excuse. One recognized exception is when the defendant reasonably relied on an official interpretation of the law by a public official responsible for interpreting or enforcing that law (entrapment by estoppel).Due process guarantees fundamental fairness in the criminal process, which includes the right of a defendant to present a defense. This means defendants must have the opportunity to introduce evidence, challenge the prosecution's case, and have their defenses properly considered by the court and jury.

Inchoate offenses are "incomplete" crimes that involve steps taken toward committing another crime, even if the final harmful result never occurs. The three main types discussed are attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy.The two primary elements required for attempt are the intent to commit a specific crime and an overt act that constitutes a substantial step toward its commission. The mental state requires a specific intent to achieve the prohibited result.The proximity test for attempt requires the defendant's actions to be dangerously close to the completion of the intended crime, while the Model Penal Code's substantial step test is more expansive, focusing on conduct strongly corroborative of criminal purpose.Solicitation occurs when a person entices, encourages, commands, or requests another person to engage in criminal conduct, with the intent that the crime be committed. The crime of solicitation is complete the moment the request is made with the requisite intent, regardless of whether the other person acts on it.The actus reus of conspiracy is the agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, often requiring an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. The mens rea includes both the intent to agree and the intent that the object of the agreement be achieved.Malice aforethought for murder can be established through intent to kill (express malice), intent to cause serious bodily harm resulting in death, depraved heart murder (extreme recklessness), and felony murder (killing during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony).Voluntary manslaughter involves an intentional killing committed in the heat of passion resulting from adequate provocation, without a cooling-off period. Involuntary manslaughter, on the other hand, involves an unintentional killing resulting from criminal negligence or during the commission of a misdemeanor or non-dangerous felony.At common law, battery is the unlawful application of force to another person resulting in bodily injury or offensive touching. Assault can be either an attempted battery or the intentional creation of a reasonable apprehension in the victim of imminent bodily harm.Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the tangible personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it. It differs from embezzlement, where the defendant initially possesses the property lawfully but then fraudulently converts it.Robbery is defined as the unlawful taking of personal property from the person or presence of another, by force or threat of immediate force, with the intent to permanently deprive. The use of violence or intimidation is the defining characteristic that elevates larceny to robbery.

This lecture covers the core principles of criminal law, focusing on the elements of a crime, crimes against persons and property, and inchoate offenses. Elements of a Crime: Actus Reus is the physical component of a crime, requiring a voluntary act or a legal duty to act. Involuntary acts do not satisfy actus reus. A failure to act can be criminal if there's a legal duty, such as by statute, contract, special relationship, voluntary assumption of care, or creation of peril. Mens Rea refers to the mental state of the defendant, categorized by the Model Penal Code as purpose (intent), knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. Purpose is a conscious objective to engage in prohibited conduct. Knowledge means awareness that conduct will cause a specific result. Recklessness is a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Negligence is the failure to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Causation must be established for crimes that require a specific result. Actual cause is when the harm would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's actions, while proximate cause means the defendant is legally responsible for foreseeable consequences. Crimes Against the Person: Homicide is the unlawful killing of a human being. Common Law Murder requires malice aforethought, including intent to kill, intent to inflict serious bodily harm, depraved heart disregard for human life, or felony murder. First-degree murder involves premeditation, while second-degree murder includes intentional but unpremeditated killings or deaths caused by an extreme disregard for life. Manslaughter includes voluntary manslaughter, a killing mitigated by adequate provocation, and involuntary manslaughter, an unintentional killing resulting from criminal negligence or during a non-dangerous unlawful act. Crimes Against Property: Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of another's tangible personal property with intent to permanently deprive. Robbery is larceny committed with force or threat of force. Burglary is the breaking and entering of a structure with the intent to commit a crime inside. Arson is the malicious burning of a building. Inchoate Offenses and Accomplice Liability: Attempt is taking a substantial step toward committing a crime with the intent to complete it. Solicitation is intentionally encouraging another to commit a crime with the intent that the crime be committed. Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime, plus an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. Accomplice liability extends criminal responsibility to those who aid or encourage the commission of a crime. This lecture serves as an introduction to substantive criminal law, which will be followed by a discussion of defenses to crimes and criminal procedure.

Introduction to Criminal Law Source: Lecture 4: Criminal Law: Core Principles and Liability Main Themes: Distinguishing criminal law from civil law Purposes of criminal law Sources of criminal law Elements of a crime Classification of crimes Key Ideas and Facts: 1. Criminal Law vs. Civil Law Purpose: Criminal law addresses offenses against society, while civil law handles disputes between private parties. Burden of Proof: Criminal law requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," while civil law uses a "preponderance of the evidence" standard. Example: A physical assault can lead to both criminal prosecution for battery (societal harm) and a civil lawsuit for damages (individual harm). 2. Purposes of Criminal Law Deterrence: Discouraging future crime through punishment (specific and general). "Stringent laws against drunk driving serve as a general deterrent, warning others of the consequences, while the penalties imposed on repeat offenders act as specific deterrence." Retribution: Punishing offenders proportionally to the crime ("just deserts"). "A person convicted of premeditated murder might face life imprisonment or the death penalty." Rehabilitation: Reforming offenders through programs addressing underlying causes of criminal behavior. "Programs like drug treatment courts and vocational training aim to reintegrate offenders into society as productive members." Public Safety: Protecting society by incapacitating dangerous individuals and preventing future harm. 3. Sources of Criminal Law Statutory Law: Written laws enacted by legislative bodies, like the Model Penal Code. "Statutory law allows for clear, uniform rules that adapt to evolving societal norms and emerging crimes, such as cybercrime." Common Law: Law developed through judicial decisions over time, filling gaps and interpreting statutes. 4. Elements of a Crime Actus Reus (Guilty Act): Voluntary physical act or unlawful omission. Omissions require a legal duty to act. "A parent's failure to provide food to their child may constitute criminal neglect." Mens Rea (Guilty Mind): Mental state at the time of the act, including intent, recklessness, negligence, or strict liability. Concurrence: Actus reus and mens rea must coincide. Causation: The link between the defendant's actions and the harm. Includes factual causation ("but for" test) and proximate causation (foreseeable consequence). 5. Classification of Crimes Felonies: Serious offenses punishable by more than one year imprisonment or death. "Felonies often involve significant harm to individuals or society, and convictions carry long-term consequences such as loss of voting rights or eligibility for certain jobs." Misdemeanors: Less severe offenses punishable by less than one year or fines. Inchoate Offenses: Incomplete crimes showing criminal intent, such as attempt, conspiracy, and solicitation. "Understanding inchoate offenses highlights the preventative role of criminal law in addressing criminal intent before harm occurs." Conclusion: The lecture provides a comprehensive overview of the foundational principles of criminal law. It establishes a framework for understanding how crimes are defined, prosecuted, and punished, emphasizing the balance between societal order and individual rights. This foundation is crucial for further exploration of criminal liability and defenses in subsequent lectures. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Introduction to Criminal Law Source: Excerpts from "Criminal Law - Lecture" Main Themes: Defining Criminal Law: This lecture establishes the foundation of criminal law, exploring its purpose, scope, and core principles. It differentiates criminal law from civil law, highlights sources of criminal law, and classifies crimes based on severity. Elements of a Crime: The lecture emphasizes the two fundamental elements necessary to establish criminal liability: actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind). Understanding these concepts is crucial for analyzing criminal cases. Application of Criminal Law: Through hypothetical scenarios and landmark case law, the lecture demonstrates how legal principles are applied in real-world situations. This includes analyzing the role of intent, recklessness, and defenses in determining criminal responsibility. Most Important Ideas/Facts: 1. Purpose of Criminal Law: Deterrence: Discouraging individuals from engaging in criminal behavior (specific and general deterrence). Punishment: Imposing penalties on those who commit crimes. Rehabilitation: Helping offenders reintegrate into society as law-abiding citizens. Societal Order: Upholding public safety and reinforcing shared moral values. Quote: "The purpose of criminal law is fourfold: to deter individuals from engaging in undesirable conduct, to punish offenders, to rehabilitate those found guilty, and to maintain societal order." 2. Criminal Law vs. Civil Law: Focus: Criminal law addresses offenses against the state/society, while civil law focuses on disputes between private parties. Purpose: Criminal law aims to punish and deter, whereas civil law seeks to resolve disputes and compensate the injured party. Burden of Proof: "Beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases, "preponderance of the evidence" in civil cases. Remedies: Criminal law - imprisonment, fines, community service; Civil law - monetary compensation, specific performance. 3. Sources of Criminal Law: Statutes: Laws enacted by legislative bodies (e.g., Model Penal Code). Common Law: Legal principles derived from judicial decisions over time, creating precedents. 4. Classification of Crimes: Felonies: Serious crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than a year or death (e.g., murder, arson). Misdemeanors: Less serious offenses punishable by less than a year in jail or fines (e.g., petty theft). Infractions: Minor violations usually resulting in fines (e.g., traffic violations). 5. Elements of a Crime: Actus Reus (Guilty Act): The physical, voluntary act of committing a crime. Mens Rea (Guilty Mind): The mental state (intent, knowledge, recklessness) accompanying the prohibited act. 6. Key Case Law: MPC Vs. Smith: Introduced the concept of foreseeability in criminal liability, expanding culpability. People Vs. Newton: Highlighted the importance of voluntariness in establishing actus reus. 7. Strict Liability Offenses: Crimes where mens rea is not required for conviction, only the act itself (e.g., statutory rape). Looking Ahead: The next lecture will explore criminal liability and defenses in greater detail, including: Justifications (e.g., self-defense) Excuses (e.g., insanity) Causation (factual and proximate) Discussion Point: "If someone acts under an irresistible impulse due to a mental disorder, should they be punished in the same way as someone who commits the same act with full awareness and control?" Overall, this lecture provides a comprehensive overview of the fundamentals of criminal law, setting the stage for a deeper exploration of more complex concepts in the following sessions. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Session 2: Criminal Defenses Objective: To explore the various defenses that can be used in criminal cases and understand how they are applied in practice. Key Topics: Justification Defenses: Self-Defense: The right to protect oneself from imminent harm. Example: Use of reasonable force to defend against an attacker. Defense of Others: Similar principles as self-defense but applied to protecting others. Defense of Property: Limits on the use of force to protect property. Excuse Defenses: Insanity: A mental disorder that prevents the defendant from understanding the wrongfulness of their actions. Discussion of the M'Naghten Rule and Model Penal Code standards. Duress: When a defendant commits a crime due to coercion or threat of harm. Intoxication: Voluntary vs. involuntary intoxication and their impact on mens rea. Procedural Defenses: Entrapment: When law enforcement induces a person to commit a crime they would not otherwise have committed. Statute of Limitations: Time limits on prosecuting certain crimes. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Pugin v Garland. In this case, the court considered this issue: Is Virginia's offense of accessory after the fact to a felony an “offense relating to obstruction of justice” under the Immigration and Nationality Act? The case was decided on June 22, 2023. The Supreme Court held that Virginia's offense of accessory after the fact to a felony is an offense “relating to” obstruction of justice under the Immigration and Nationality Act's definition of an “aggravated felony.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. An offense can be categorized as “relating to obstruction of justice” under §1101(a)(43)(S) without a requirement for an ongoing investigation or proceeding. This understanding is supported by dictionary definitions, federal and state laws, and the Model Penal Code. Obstruction of justice can occur even if no formal investigation or proceeding is active. The phrase “relating to” in the statute further broadens its applicability, ensuring it encompasses offenses connected to obstruction of justice, irrespective of a pending investigation. Even if certain provisions might require a pending investigation or proceeding, §1101(a)(43)(S) has a more expansive definition. Historical interpretations do not mandate a pending investigation for obstruction of justice. The rule of lenity, which favors defendants in ambiguous criminal laws, does not apply because traditional interpretation tools clearly defined the statute's intent. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the majority opinion in full but concurred separately to note that when Congress inserted the phrase “offense relating to obstruction of justice” into §1101(a)(43)(S), it might well have been referencing a specific and previously designated category of offenses of obstruction, many of which do not have a pending-proceeding requirement. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Neil Gorsuch and Elena Kagan joined, arguing that the Court “subverts” the commonly understood meaning of “obstruction of justice.” The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Preparing for the July Bar Exam: Level Up Day, Study Strategies, and Personal Insights In this session, Jackson, Tracey, and June discuss the critical 60-day period leading up to the July Bar Exam, emphasizing a steady and strategic approach. They introduce 'Level Up Day' on June 15th, featuring personalized one-hour sessions with a focus on specific areas of study. The hosts answer various student queries, including study progress, use of mind maps, and best practices for mastering the Bar Exam content. Additionally, a successful February UBE student shares his inspiring journey from repeated failure to passing the Bar Exam using their techniques. The episode wraps up with a 'pub crawl' metaphor to explain the flexible schedule for 'Level Up Day' and encouragement for students to tailor their preparations to their needs. 00:00 Introduction and Greetings 00:09 Post-Memorial Day Bar Exam Reality Check 00:49 Student Questions and Tools 01:15 Introducing Level Up Day 05:37 Coaching and Preparation Strategies 11:27 Study Progress and Exam Strategy 15:50 Student Success Story 22:00 Addressing Student Questions 24:43 Common Law vs. Model Penal Code 28:56 Using Mind Maps Effectively 31:58 Level Up: A Pub Crawl for Bar Exam Prep 37:02 Conclusion and Next Steps Video Episode 470 Featured in this Episode: Level Up June 15 BarMaps® From Celebration Bar Review Calming The Chaos™ Mindset Coaching Order PhotoReading For The Bar Exam™ New Multistate Nutshell Videos™ Do Something Different! FREE Webinar Free Consultation with Jackson  

1. Justifications: Self-Defense, Defense of Others, Defense of Property. Justifications are defenses where the defendant admits to committing the act but claims it was justified under the circumstances. These defenses acknowledge that, while the act was technically criminal, it was necessary in the context. Self-Defense. Definition and Elements: Self-defense is the right to prevent suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence. The key elements include a reasonable belief of an imminent threat of unlawful force and the use of a proportionate amount of force in response. Reasonable Belief: The belief of threat must be both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable. This means that the defendant must actually believe in the necessity of self-defense, and this belief must be one that a reasonable person would hold under the same circumstances. Proportionality: The force used in self-defense must be proportionate to the threat. Deadly force can only be used if the person reasonably believes that their life or that of another is in imminent danger. Defense of Others. Definition and Elements: This defense is similar to self-defense but is used to justify the use of force to protect another person. The defender must reasonably believe that the person they are defending is under an immediate threat of harm. Limits to the Defense: The same principles of reasonable belief and proportionality apply. The defender cannot use more force than is necessary and reasonable to protect the other person. Defense of Property. Definition and Elements: This defense allows individuals to use reasonable force to protect their property from theft, destruction, or trespass. Restrictions: Generally, the use of deadly force to protect property alone is not justified. The circumstances must indicate that the force was necessary to prevent a serious crime or protect human life. 2. Excuses: Insanity, Intoxication, Infancy, Duress, Mistake of Fact or Law. Excuse defenses argue that the defendant should not be held fully responsible due to a personal condition or circumstance at the time of the crime. Insanity. Legal Insanity: This is a defense based on the idea that, at the time of the crime, the defendant was suffering from a severe mental illness and was unable to understand the nature of their actions or distinguish right from wrong. Tests for Insanity: Different jurisdictions use different tests for insanity, including the M'Naghten Rule (focusing on the defendant's ability to understand the nature of the act), the Irresistible Impulse Test (inability to control actions), and the Model Penal Code's substantial capacity test. Intoxication. Voluntary Intoxication: Generally, voluntary intoxication is not a defense to most crimes. However, if a specific intent is an element of the crime, and the intoxication prevents the formation of such intent, it may be a valid defense. Involuntary Intoxication: If the intoxication is involuntary, it can be a defense if it prevents the defendant from having the requisite mental state for the crime. Infancy. Definition and Application: This defense is based on the age of the defendant. Children under a certain age (usually 7 or 10) are presumed incapable of committing a crime as they cannot form the necessary mens rea. Duress. Definition and Elements: Duress is a defense where the defendant argues that they committed the crime because they were threatened with immediate harm to themselves or others. It must be shown that the threat was of such severity that a reasonable person would have succumbed to it. Mistake of Fact or Law. Mistake of Fact: This defense applies when the defendant makes an honest and reasonable mistake about a factual matter, leading them to believe their actions were not criminal. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Brad Meryhew, chair of the Washington State Sex Offender Policy Board, said he wants to clear the air regarding a research document by an outside agency that was brought up by Cathy Dahlquist, a former state legislator, at the board's Sept. 21 meeting. The document is a summary put together by the SOPB's data scientist of a draft Model Penal Code document from the American Law Institute, a Philadelphia-based research and advocacy group of judges, lawyers and legal scholars. The MPC concludes that community notification actually undermines public safety, recommending that sex offender registries be reserved for law enforcement and not be made available to the public. The institute reasons that notifications and registries make it more difficult for offenders to re-integrate into the community. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/washington-in-focus/support

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! Today, as part of our "Listen and Learn" series, we're discussing Criminal Law -- specifically, the four mental states of criminal intent under the Model Penal Code.  In this episode, we discuss: The definitions of each of the states of criminal intent: purpose, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence Analyzing several hypos that illustrate intent under the Model Penal Code Resources: “Listen and Learn” series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) The Brainy Bar Bank: Streamlining Bar Study (https://barexamtoolbox.com/brainy-bar-bank/) Podcast Episode 70: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Criminal Law and Procedure (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-70-tackling-a-california-bar-exam-essay-criminal-law-and-procedure/) Podcast Episode 79: Tackling an MEE Criminal Law/Procedure and Evidence Essay (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-79-tackling-an-mee-criminal-law-procedure-and-evidence-essay/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-218-listen-and-learn-intent-under-the-model-penal-code-criminal-law/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

In this episode listen as Kiley and Susan Wright from NCSF talk Sexual Freedom, FOSTA, Consent and all things NCSF. Susan Wright founded the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom in 1997, and serves as Executive Director. She currently chairs the Consent Counts Committee that worked with the American Law Institute to revise the Model Penal Code on Sexual Assault to create Section 213:10 Explicit Prior Permission for consent to kink. She also chaired NCSF's successful DSM Revision Project which helped result in the consensual paraphilias being separated from the Paraphilic Disorders in the DSM-5 (2013). Susan's research focuses on discrimination and violence against people who practice consensual non-monogamy and kink, with 18 papers published in professional journals. www.ncsfreedom.org There's still time to grab your tickets to some of the hottest Swinger parties in the nation visit my website for more info https://sexyswingerchic.net/Sponsor Links:https://swingersociety.net/https://www.go3fun.co/ad/TK10098https://promescent.com/kileyFor more info on Sexual Freedom Organization's:https://www.woodhullfoundation.org/https://ncsfreedom.org/ Podcasts I talk about:The Swing Nation https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-swing-nation-a-sex-positive-swingers-podcast/id1582945782Front Porch Swingers https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/front-porch-swingers/id1437745759Open Love 101: John and Jackie Melfi https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-openlove101-show/id1475117736Make sure you add my new Instagram https://www.instagram.com/Sexyswingerchic91

Indefinite imprisonment or indeterminate imprisonment is the imposition of a sentence by imprisonment with no definite period of time set during sentencing. It was imposed by certain nations in the past, before the drafting of the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT). The length of an indefinite imprisonment was determined during imprisonment based on the inmate's conduct. The inmate could have been returned to society or be kept in prison for life. In theory, an indefinite prison sentence could be very short, or it could be a life sentence if no decision is made after sentencing to lift the term. In many cases, either a minimum term is imposed or the maximum that can be served is the maximum allowable by law in the jurisdiction for the particular offense. Rationale. The main reason for imposing indefinite (as opposed to fixed) sentences is to protect the community. An offender can then be kept behind bars until it is determined the offender would not pose any danger to society. In some places, indefinite sentences have been around for a long time. In other jurisdictions, they have been introduced more recently. United States. Some US states have various forms of indefinite sentencing, and many have effective indeterminate sentencing with evaluation-based parole. The US federal prison system does not allow parole for any crimes committed after 1987. Therefore, a sentence of life imprisonment means that the prisoner will be incarcerated for life without parole. Indeterminate sentencing existed in every U.S. state from the 1930s to the mid-1970s. The Model Penal Code, developed in the 1950s, focused on offenders' treatment needs rather than on retribution. Generous amounts of good conduct time could be awarded by prison officials. By the mid-1970s, indeterminate sentencing was under attack, as arguments were made that racial and other invidious biases influenced officials; that rehabilitative treatment programs were ineffective; and that broad, standardless discretion denied constitutional due process and permitted undue leniency that undermined the deterrent effects of sanctions. Federal supervised release is also sometimes cited as an example of indeterminate sentencing. Canada. In Canada, an inmate classified as a dangerous offender can be given an indefinite prison sentence. That means the offender is at risk for causing a "serious personal injury." United Kingdom. England and Wales. Imprisonment for public protection was a form of indefinite sentence that was used in England and Wales from 2005 until 2012, in addition to the traditional life sentence. The imprisonment for public protection sentence was abolished in 2012, but offenders already serving that sentence remained in prison. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Theft is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. The word theft is also used as a synonym or informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as larceny, robbery, embezzlement, extortion, blackmail, or receiving stolen property. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny, while in others, theft is defined more narrowly. Someone who carries out an act of theft may be described as a "thief" (plural: thieves). Theft is the name of a statutory offense in California, Canada, England and Wales, Hong Kong, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and the Australian states of South Australia and Victoria. Elements. The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping, or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and the intent to permanently deprive the owner or rightful possessor of that property or its use. For example, if X goes to a restaurant and, by mistake, takes Y's scarf instead of her own, she has physically deprived Y of the use of the property (which is the actus reus) but the mistake prevents X from forming the mens rea (for example, because she believes that she is the owner, she is not dishonest and does not intend to deprive the "owner" of it) so no crime has been committed at this point. But if she realizes the mistake when she gets home and could return the scarf to Y, she will steal the scarf if she dishonestly keeps it (theft by finding). Note that there may be civil liability for the torts of trespass to chattels or conversion in either eventuality. By jurisdiction. The following are the countries with the most cases of theft, as well as the respective rates per 100,000 people, according to the United Nations in 2018. United States. In the United States, crimes must be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which they occurred. Although federal and state jurisdiction may overlap, even when a criminal act violates both state and federal law, in most cases only the most serious offenses are prosecuted at the federal level. The federal government has criminalized certain narrow categories of theft that directly affect federal agencies or interstate commerce. The Model Penal Code, promulgated by the American Law Institute to help state legislatures update and standardize their laws, includes categories of theft by unlawful taking or by unlawfully disposing of property, theft by deception (fraud), theft by extortion, theft by failure to take measures to return lost or mislaid or mistakenly delivered property, theft by receipt of stolen property, theft by failing to make agreed disposition of received funds, and theft of services. Although many U.S. states have retained larceny as the primary offense, some have now adopted theft provisions. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

- In this week's episode of The Krypt we are learning about new federal laws defining consent and decriminalizing BDSM from Susan Wright, the head of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom. https://ncsfreedom.org- Recorded: 3/20/2022 / Published: 10/14/2022- Text in your questions to 865-268-4005 or visit the Krypt at https://kuldrinskrypt.com. - Rules to Love By: (https://inclusionwoodworks.com)1: Safe, sane, consensual, and informed2: KNKI: Knowledge, No Intolerance, Kindness, Integrity3: “Submission is not about authority and it's not about obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect.” -Wm. Paul Young- “New Federal Consent Laws with Susan Wright-S04E27”Important Links:The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom: https://ncsfreedom.org/2021/07/15/consent-counts-2/ The American Law Institute: http://www.thealiadviser.org/sexual-assault/ The Evolution of the Model Penal Code “Consent” Definition: https://www.thealiadviser.org/sexual-assault/evolution-of-model-penal-code-consent-definition/ Check out Susan's first visit to our podcast: https://KuldrinsKrypt.com/221 Consent, as it is practiced in the BDSM communities, is accurately reflected in Section 213.10 of the MPC, with “Explicit Prior Permission” preventing criminal prosecution of activities that are truly consensual and do not result in serious injury. Permission is “explicit” when it is personally given, orally or by written agreement, along with:(a) specifying that the actor may ignore the other party's expressions of unwillingness or other absence of consent;(b) identifying the specific forms and extent of force, restraint, or threats that are permitted; and(c) stipulating the specific words or gestures that will withdraw the permission.Dick Cunningham has been assisting in the revision of the Model Penal Code on Sexual Assault as part of NCSF's Consent Counts project, helping to establish this legal framework that acknowledges the use of safewords, protecting those who use them properly, and equipping prosecution for when they are violated or when serious harm is done. Survivors who are sexually assaulted during kink activities also may now be covered by “rape shield” laws, meaning that their prior sexual behavior with others generally can't be used as evidence, reducing exposure to possible stigma attached to kink activities. “Without this change, BDSM practices, even when consensual, might still be violating the law,” says Susan Wright, Spokesperson for NCSF. “In fact, there is not a single appellate court decision in the U.S. that has accepted consent as a defense in an assault or abuse prosecution arising from BDSM conduct. This case law has established that using nipple clamps or dripping hot wax on someone constitutes ‘serious bodily injury,' when in reality, these are relatively mild activities.” Section 213.10 may be cited in opinions and briefs in cases involving BDSM activities, even in states where the legislature has not adopted the MPC on Sexual Assault. Needs explanation: the new MPC on Sexual Assault includes a general definition of consent for sexual activity, in which consent may be inferred from behavior—both action and inaction—in the context of all the circumstances. Neither verbal nor physical resistance is required to establish that consent is lacking, however, consent is ineffective when given by a person who is incompetent to consent or under circumstances precluding the free exercise of consent. Explicit Prior PermissionImportant Links:Full show notes: https://kuldrinskrypt.com/427National Suicide Hotline: 1-800-273-8255NCSF Kink Aware Professionals: https://www.kapprofessionals.org/https://kuldrinskrypt.com/silentcommunication https://KuldrinsKrypt.com/survey https://kuldrinskrypt.com/TeePublic Show Producers:Become a show producer: https://KuldrinsKrypt.com/Patreon Make a one-time donation: https://KuldrinsKrypt.com/PayPal Snail mail a donation or gift:Kuldrin Entertainment, LLC257 N. Calderwood Rd. #168Alcoa, TN 37701- Benefactor ($2,000/month): - Pro Producer ($100/month): Buffalo_Max92- Master Producer ($50/month): - Executive Producer ($25/month) ShadowyFox, JunicornsAngel, Johnny Ferrell, Haru Webb, Rei Webb, and Anomalous Mats- Sr. Producers ($10/month): Trouble113, RoxieBear, ThatPlace: Oklahoma City, Alexandria, babylove&T-Rex, SortOutTheKinks, Master Gabriel, Knot_the_Daddy, Atsila, Daddy Steve, Sir Pent, KJ, AuthorMistressBlackrose, UpstateScCouple, Crystal Force, Cali, PerfectlyThick, Odie & Ceci, Cap'n J, Saviy, AK-47, Mr. Byond, CurtainCall, SubmissiveKay, and TrinityFae- Producers ($5/month): Kainsin, Hadea, Sir&Kitten, Raven, MBRpoodle, LylacWine, Baddogbad, Arctic Foxglove, Katnipmeow, WyldThyme&Deacon Sean, CheeryQuery, Ropestuff2, Rabbit, Just_Call_Me_Ash, Sir Wolf ArchAngel, Subx13, CourtsDom, Gator, Gizmo, JJ, Jon Shaw, TheCheshyre, Ben, TinkerBratTN, Brittany, Sekhmets_Shadow, Beatrix Kiddo, Solstice, FetishArtist, Frozen Moron, SirBNice, Kitten399, Katiee, and Koitsukihime(AD)- Jr. Producers ($1/month): K-2SO, Morgana13, Brodie, The Gabbing Girl Time Podcast, Lexa, Ashley, and MegVendors I know, like, trust, and use: (None of these are paid sponsors of the podcast.)- http://bdsmcontracts.org Coupon code: kuldrin20 for a 20% discount on all purchases.- http://whippingstripes.com - My personal maker of most things leather and paracord impact toys.- https://www.etsy.com/shop/TorridTimber - Fine fetish furniture and accessories- https://www.etsy.com/shop/TheCraftyHedonist - Tink's Toys Fb Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2350280868612699 Fetlife Profile: https://fetlife.com/users/9885653?sp=3 *coupon for listeners (first purchase only) TinksToys13- Dark Delights Shops: https://darkdelightsshop.com/ (Watch my product review of them: https://kuldrinskrypt.com/DarkDelightsShop)-Split PeachesContact info:Email: MasterKuldrin@gmail.comFetlife Group: https://fetlife.com/groups/159275Twitter: @MasterKuldrin https://twitter.com/MasterKuldrinPatreon: kuldrinskrypt https://www.patreon.com/KuldrinsKrypt

U.S. law interprets consensual kink activities as harmful, criminal acts. This makes prosecuting sexual assault cases within the context of BDSM difficult. How can you prove non-consensual sex occurred if kink isn't considered sex in the eyes of the law, it's assault? The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom/NCSF worked along with the American Law Institute to establish a legal definition of consent in kink. They just unveiled the New Model Penal Code on Sexual Assault: Affirmative Defense of Explicit Prior Permission for use of force and restraint with sexual contact. On ep 185 of American Sex Podcast, the NCSF's Susan Wright & BebeBlueEyes explain how this gives legal power to sexual assault survivors, how it'll be adopted state-by-state, about the new consent model EPP/Explicit Prior Permission & why implementing it as community standard is integral to changing case law, what you can do to help, how the NCSF can assist you with criminal sexual assault cases involving consensual kink, and more. If you're kinky this is a MUST LISTEN--you need to know how the legal definition of consent is changing.      Guest Bio – Susan Wright, M.A Susan Wright, M.A., (she/her) founded the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom in 1997, and currently serves as Executive Director. In addition, she serves on the advocacy and community advisory committees for AASECT, the APA's Division 44: Task Force on Consensual Non-monogamy, Kink Clinician Guidelines, and the Diverse Sexualities Research Education Institute. She chaired the successful DSM-5 Revision Project which helped result in the consensual paraphilias being separated from the APA's Paraphilic Disorders in 2013. She currently chairs the Consent Counts Committee that worked with the American Law Institute on the new Model Penal Code on Sexual Assault to create Section 213:10: Affirmative Defense of Explicit Prior Permission for use of force and restraint with sexual contact. Her research for NCSF focuses on discrimination and violence against alt-sex practitioners; consent practices and attitudes; and the mental and physical health of alt-sex practitioners, with papers published in journals including the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Psychology & Sexuality, Journal of Trauma and Dissociation, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Archives of Sexual Behavior, Journal of Sexual Medicine, Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, International Journal of Social Psychiatry, and Journal of Homosexuality. Guest Bio – BebeBlueEyes Bebe is a Poly, Het, very active, giggle bottom, service topping ‘s type'.  Since 2009, Bebe has been serving the broader kink & poly communities, presenting classes related to her passion, the ever-evolving topic of Consent. During covid, Bebe started the Submissive Safe Call, an online discussion group to keep ‘s types' connected. She founded StL PolyHarmonic, a local group for kinky & polyamorous persons.  In 2020, Bebe was humbled & honored to be chosen by Leather Leadership Conference for their Servant Leadership award! She s currently serving her 7th year on the Board of Directors of National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSFreedom.org). She is mother of a TNG kinkster, an IT Professional, Avid Foodie & Music Lover, and Debauchery Explorer! She's also an ICASA certified Sexual Assault Victim Advocate for the State of IL!  Her passions are service to the community, education, and personal responsibility through empowerment.   Episode 185 Links NCSF Website www.ncsfreedom.org NCSF Facebook http://facebook.com/NCSFreedom NCSF Twitter http://twitter.com/NCSF NCSF Instagram http://instagram.com/nationalcoalitionsexualfreedom EPP/Explicit Prior Permission video & Resources https://ncsfreedom.org/key-programs-2/consent-counts/ EPP/Explicit Prior Permission Best Practices with Consent to Kink https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.216/9xj.1d5.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Best-Practices-for-Consent-to-Kink.pdf The state of the Law with consent in BDSM https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.216/9xj.1d5.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Consent-and-BDSM-The-State-of-the-Law.pdf NCSF Incident Reporting & Response https://ncsfreedom.org/incident-reporting-and-response-form/ The Vi Johnson Liberation Award & nominee info https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzg227E5yrA Race Kink Discussion Series TUES 3/29/22 http://raceandkink.com (tickets are income-based + include a recording if you can't attend live) Sunny Megatron TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@sunnymegatron Ken's charity DnD game Mondays 4pm-7pm PT https://www.twitch.tv/thunderpantsacademy American Sex Podcast Discord Community http://bit.ly/discordasp American Sex Podcast Patreon http://patreon.com/americansex Kink Academy Online BDSM Learning Library http://bit.ly/kinkacademy Sunny's Free Kink Negotiation & Scene Planning Mini-Workbook https://sunnymegatron.gumroad.com/l/negotiationwb   Episode 185 Sponsor & Affiliate Discount Codes/Links *by using our links & codes you can help support our work while saving a few bucks too—win/win! 65% off Beducated's yearly pass (discount locked in for LIFE!) http://beducate.me/sunny and use code SUNNY 30-day free trial of Dipsea Stories when you use code SUNNY http://dipseastories.com/sunny 15% off AND free shipping when you go to http://LikeAKitten.com/sunny OR enter code SUNNY at checkout Get up to 2 free months of podcasting service with Libsyn using this link https://signup.libsyn.com/?promo_code=SUNNY or use code SUNNY Hot & Healthy Erotic Humiliation recorded class https://gum.co/humiliationclass Prostate Play for Beginners (recorded class) from Sugar Baltimore https://www.sugartheshop.com/prostate-milking-for-beginners.html Sunny & Ken's classes on Kink Academy http://bit.ly/kinkacademyelectric & http://bit.ly/kinkacademyhumiliation 10% off American Sex Podcast & Sunny Megatron merch with code SUNNY (t-shirts, mugs, phone cases & more) http://bit.ly/sunnyshirts 15% off your order at Lovehoney when you use this link http://bit.ly/lovehoney15 This link can be a little wonky and does not keep tracking cookies. If the discount does not show up in your cart (or disappears after you shop around on the site), access the site with that link again. Your items will still be in your cart & the discount will appear) 15% off everything at Lelo.com with code SUNNY 10% off everything (with minor restrictions) online from woman-owned, feminist, trans & queer-friendly Early To Bed http://bit.ly/sunnyetb with code SUNNY 10% off everything from Fun Factory using this link http://bit.ly/sunnyfunfactory and the code SUNNY at checkout 15% off most items from Stockroom https://bit.ly/sunnystockroom15 with code SUNNY _______________________________________________________________ --Submit your BDSM & sex advice questions by email to americansexpodcast@gmail.com --To support American Sex podcast, please visit http://patreon.com/americansex (plus you'll get all episodes early, secret episodes, bonus stories from guests, on-air shout-outs, stuff in the mail & more!) --Get friendly with us on Twitter at @AmericanSexPod or visit sunnymegatron.com or americansexpodcast.com --Join our mailing list by visiting http://sunnymegatron.com/newsletter Sunny & Ken, xo!

An inchoate offense, preliminary crime, inchoate crime or incomplete crime is a crime of preparing for or seeking to commit another crime. The most common example of an inchoate offense is "attempt". "Inchoate offense" has been defined as the following: "Conduct deemed criminal without actual harm being done, provided that the harm that would have occurred is one the law tries to prevent." Intent. Every inchoate crime or offense must have the mens rea of intent or of recklessness, typically intent. Absent a specific law, an inchoate offense requires that the defendant have the specific intent to commit the underlying crime. For example, for a defendant to be guilty of the inchoate crime of solicitation of murder, he or she must have intended for a person to die. Attempt, conspiracy, and solicitation all require mens rea. On the other hand, committing an offense under the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act merely requires "knowing", that is, recklessness. Facilitation also requires "believing", yet another way of saying reckless. Intent may be distinguished from recklessness and criminal negligence as a higher mens rea. Proof of intent. Specific intent may be inferred from circumstances. It may be proven by the doctrine of "dangerous proximity", while the Model Penal Code requires a "substantial step in a course of conduct". Merger doctrine. The doctrine of merger has been abandoned in many jurisdictions in cases involving a conspiracy, allowing an accused to be convicted of both conspiracy and the principal offense. However, an accused cannot be convicted of either attempt or solicitation and the principal offense. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

This week we welcomed back Susan Wright from the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF). We discussed and answered questions about the revised Model Penal Code on Sexual Assault and how it provides a legal framework for kink and BDSM.  Read more about the revised MPC NCSF's website Contact Susan at susan@ncsfreedom.org  Thanks for listening! If you enjoyed this one, you'd probably like episode 107 in which we talked to Susan about SESTA/FOSTA and consent. Buy our porn on ManyVids Read our newest blog posts Check out our sponsors for this week, Lulexy and Terrible Toyshop. You can find The Stinger here! Keep us on the air by donating a buck or two to our Patreon! You can listen to an ad-free version of the show a week early, and you'll have access to our Discord server. We post a lot of fun bonus content, including monthly photosets, silly and/or kinky videos, and movie reviews. If you'd rather make a one time donation, you can do so at PayPal.me/OCPLLC. Find us on Twitter and Instagram: @ocpkink More by PODCAST JUKEBOX:Queers Next Door | Being ThereWill Sean Podcast? | The Goth Librarian PodcastDrinks with God | ProudToBeKinky | NO LOVE LOST Tags: Kink, BDSM, Fetish, Fantasy, Sex, Education, Positive, DIY, Punk, Nerds, consent, sexual, assault, law, freedom, ncsf

Ho-Ho-Ho! It's that time of year when we recap all the things that have affected our sexual freedom. The National Coalition of Sexual Freedom founder, Susan Wright is back for our Christmas tradition. What did you miss this year? There is a bunch of things that could enter into our lives as kinksters. Here are a few… Stealthing, Model Penal Code update, Consent Survey, New Resources, Consent Policy Model for Groups, Diversity Inclusion, Metamour Day, and the Coalition Partner Meeting! All this and an organization that protects your interests and lobbies for governmental change. NCSF is one of the most important allies for people in the alt-sex world. https://www.kinkycast.com/archive/2021-archive/413---ncsf-christmas-showho.html

Mens rea (Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a necessary element of many crimes. The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, for example, "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law. Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes. Moreover, when a person intends a harm, but because of bad aim or other cause, the intent is transferred from an intended victim to an unintended victim, the case is considered to be a matter of transferred intent.: In civil law, it is usually not necessary to prove a subjective mental element to establish liability for breach of contract or tort, for example. But if a tort is intentionally committed or a contract is intentionally breached, such intent may increase the scope of liability and the damages payable to the plaintiff. In some jurisdictions, the terms mens rea and actus reus have been replaced by alternative terminology. Levels of mens rea. Under the traditional common law, the guilt or innocence of a person relied upon whether he had committed the crime (actus reus), and whether he intended to commit the crime (mens rea). However, many modern penal codes have created levels of mens rea called modes of culpability, which depend on the surrounding elements of the crime: the conduct, the circumstances, and the result, or what the Model Penal Code calls CAR (conduct, attendant circumstances, result). The definition of a crime is thus constructed using only these elements rather than the colorful language of mens rea: Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. — 18 U.S.C. § 1111 (traditional common law). A person commits an offense if he: (1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual. — portion of Texas Penal Code § 19·02 (modern offense element). The traditional common law definitions and the modern definitions approach the crime from different angles. In the common law approach, the definition includes: 1. actus reus: unlawful killing of a human being. 2. mens rea: malice aforethought. Modern criminal law approaches the analysis somewhat differently. Using a framework from the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, homicide is a "results" offense in that it forbids any "purposeful" or "knowing" conduct that causes, and therefore results in the death of another human being. "Purposeful" in this sense means the actor possessed a conscious purpose or objective that the result (for example, the death of another human being) be achieved. "Knowing" means that the actor was aware or practically certain that a death would result but had no purpose or desire that it occur. Many states still adhere to older terminology, relying on the terms "intentional" to cover both types of mens rea: "purposeful" and "knowing." Thus, the actus reus and mens rea of homicide in a modern criminal statute can be considered as follows: 1. actus reus: any conduct resulting in the death of another individual. 2. mens rea: purposeful intent or knowledge that the conduct would result in the death. In the modern approach, attendant circumstances sometimes replace traditional concepts of mens rea, indicating the level of culpability as well as other circumstances. For example, the crime of theft of government property would include as an attendant circumstance that the property belong to the government, instead of requiring that the accused have actual awareness that the property belongs to the government --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Responsibility for criminal law and criminal justice in the United States is shared between the states and the federal government. Sources of law. The federal government and all the states rely on the following. Common law. Common law is law developed by judges through legal opinions, as opposed to statutes adopted through the legislative process or regulations issued by the executive branch. A common law crime is thus a crime which was originally defined by judges. Common law crimes no longer exist at the federal level, because of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v Hudson and Goodwin, (1812). The validity of common law crimes varies at the state level. Although most states have abolished common law crimes, some have enacted "reception" statutes recognizing common law crimes when no similar statutory crime exists. Statutes. All 50 states have their own penal codes. Therefore, for any particular crime somewhere, it would be necessary to look it up in that jurisdiction. However, statutes derive from the common law. For example, if a state's murder statute does not define "human being," that state's courts will rely on the common-law definition. State vs. federal. The states, since they possess the police power, have the most general power to pass criminal laws in the United States. The federal government, since it can only exercise those powers granted to it by the Constitution, can only pass criminal laws which are related to the powers granted to Congress. For example, drug crimes, which comprise a large percentage of federal criminal cases, are subject to federal control because drugs are a commodity for which there is an interstate market, thus making controlled substances subject to regulation by Congress in the Controlled Substances Act which was passed under the authority of the Commerce Clause. Gonzales v Raich affirmed Congress's power to regulate drug possession under the Controlled Substances Act under the powers granted to it by the Commerce Clause. Model Penal Code. The Model Penal Code ("MPC") was created by the American Law Institute ("ALI") in 1962. In other areas of law, the ALI created Restatements of Law, usually referred to just as Restatements. For example, there is a Restatement of Contracts and a Restatement of Torts. The MPC is their equivalent for criminal law. Many states have wholly or largely adopted the MPC. Others have implemented it in part, and still others have not adopted any portion of it. However, even in jurisdictions where it has not been adopted, the MPC is often cited as persuasive authority in the same way that Restatements are in other areas of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

**WARNING: YOU MUST BE 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO ENJOY THIS CONTENT**  On this episode, we talk to Lady Steele regarding the changes to the Model Penal Code (MPC) and the potential changes to BDSM and the law.  Before you think you're 100% protected, listen to this!  Also, check out kinkyintroverts.com/writings if you don't have a FetLife account so you can read more on what Lady Steele has to say on the topic.Lady Steele is a femme lesbian Alpha leather slave. She is an international presenter and resides in Atlanta where she is the only out, open, and practicing attorney in the southeast that specializes in the issues that are unique to the BDSM and ENM communities. She is the founder of the Center of Learning and School of Success (C.L.A.S.S.), the Worthless Bastards (Cigar) Club (W.B.C. – Atlanta), and The Leather Coterie (T.L.C.). She proudly leads the West Inclusive Georgia Socials (WINGS) group. She held the position of Social Coordinator for NLA – Atlanta during its last incarnation in Atlanta. She continues to give back to the community as co-producer of the SEPE title contest, Board Support for the Leather Leadership Conference, Treasurer of the Anafiel House, and through multiple appearances on several podcasts. Lady Steele is also a proud member of Onyx Pearls - Southern Leather. ·         Check out our website at kinkyintroverts.com  ·         You can also find us on Spotify, Stitcher, iTunes, Castbox, Google Podcasts, iHeartRadio, Podbay, Listen Notes, and more.  ·         Primary podcast: Kinky Introverts - BDSM at Home  ·         Mini podcast: Kinky Introverts - Screams, Moans, and Train Shots  ·         Email us at kinkyintroverts@gmail.com  ·         Or leave us a voicemail at *67-203-807-KINK (5465)  ·         Our socials are FetLife, Twitter, Instagram, and Reddit  ·         Creative Commons Music by Jason Shaw on Audionautix.com Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/kinkyintroverts)

[3:10] Simpson v. U.S. Att'y Gen., No. 19-11156 (11th Cir. Aug. 4, 2021) Fla. Stat. § 790.23(1)(a); felon in possession; INA § 237(a)(2)(C); ammunition; divisibility; categorical and modified categorical approach; jury instructions  [10:11] Maie v. Garland, No. 19-73099 (9th Cir. Aug. 2, 2021) CIMT; theft; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 708-833(1); Model Penal Code; deprive; Matter of Diaz-Lizarraga; Matter of Burbano [18:03] Gilbertson v. Garland, No. 20-2355 (8th Cir. Aug. 2, 2021) particularly serious crimes; withholding of removal; Matter of G-G-S-; mental health; Shazi v. Wilkinson; drug trafficking; Matter of Y-L-; Los Zetas; Mexico [23:09] Rosales-Reyes v. Garland, No. 20-2417 (8th Cir. Aug. 4, 2021)  asylum; particular social group; drug cartels; CAT; relocation; Mexico [26:05] Nolasco v. Garland, No. 20-1034 (4th Cir. Aug. 2, 2021) Particular social groups; asylum; asylum; socially distinct; CAT protection; former gang membership; Matter of M-E-V-G-; Matter of W-G-R-; El Salvador [30:21] Vasquez-Rodriguez v. Garland, No. 19-71445 (9th Cir. Aug. 5, 2021) 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); issue exhaustion; futility; Matter of E-A-G-; particular social group; imputed gang membership; CAT; safe relocation; El Salvador.  [41:57] Romero v. Garland, No. 17-70534 (9th Cir. Aug. 2, 2021)  false claim to citizenship; INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii); burdens of proof; admission [48:17] Parada-Orellana v. Garland, No. 19-60645 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2021)  Motions to reopen; INA § 240A(b); non-LPR cancellation of removal; hardship; jurisdiction; INA § 242(a)(2)(B); in absentia order *Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.www.kktplaw.com/Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwisewww.docketwise.com/immigration-review"Modern immigration software & case management"*About your host: https://www.kktplaw.com/attorney/gregg-kevin-a/*More episodes at: https://www.kktplaw.com/immigration-review-podcast/*Featured in the top 15 of Immigration Podcast in the U.S.! https://blog.feedspot.com/immigration_podcasts/DISCLAIMER: Immigration Review® is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide specific legal advice. Rather, the Immigration Review® podcast offers general information and insights regarding recent immigration cases from publicly available sources. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the podcast host. The Immigration Review® podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. MUSIC CREDITS: "Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/immigrationreview)

July 15, 2021—The American Law Institute (ALI) has approved the revised Model Penal Code on Sexual Assault, which decriminalizes BDSM activities in connection with sexual penetration, oral sex or sexual contact.Dick Cunningham, NCSF's Legal Counsel and member of the ALI, says, “The Model Penal Code on Sexual Assault (including unwanted or injurious contact), approved by the prestigious American Law Institute at its June meeting, is a milestone in the law's understanding of BDSM and a major advance in the treatment of consent as the central element by which sexual contact is to be judged. The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom has been deeply involved in the ALI process for over 6 years and is recognized in the ALI's report for its many contributions. https://www.kinkycast.com/archive/2021-archive/se---susan-wright---ncsf--.html

If something is deemed so obscene and unacceptable that it’s not allowed to be read aloud or shown on the floor of the Indiana Senate, why would it be perfectly acceptable to show to children in a classroom setting? It may seem like a silly, hypothetical question, but it’s exactly what happened in the Indiana Statehouse on Wednesday afternoon, February 10, as a legislative aide emerged from the Senate chambers to speak with urgency to those awaiting their chance to testify in support of Indiana Senate Bill 288. “You realize that you can’t read this material aloud, right? It would be offensive to many of the Senators, and these proceedings are being live-streamed. You don’t know who might be watching - there could be students watching somewhere.” Checkmate. Thank you for making the point for us. You see, the materials in question were provided to the Senators by those advocating for SB288, which would repeal the Obscenity Exemptions in the state of Indiana for K-12 schools, as well as public libraries. The materials provided were taken straight from textbooks and homework assignments in Indiana school systems, and were provided as examples to the legislators. But, to the legislators, they were too obscene to even be mentioned in the official record. So, how does it make any sense that these materials are deemed acceptable for grade school students? It all goes back to the late 1970s, when Indiana legislators passed the Obscenity Exemptions bill that essentially gave a free pass to the pornography industry to pump their filth straight into the school systems. Today, we see it manifested in multiple forms under the guise of Comprehensive Sexual Education (CSE), Health Education and Anti-bullying and “Inclusiveness” programs. In all of these examples, graphic sexual imagery is not only used, it is promoted in a grotesque way. Make no mistake, there is a battle raging across the nation right now, and one of the major battlefronts is in the Indiana Statehouse. If SB 288 is passed, it will mark the first time that a state has repealed the Obscenity Exemptions put in place so many decades ago by the pornography industry and their cronies in the American Law Institute through the Model Penal Code. If you’re in Indiana, this is a time to get involved and to make your voice heard. Make the phone call, send the email, show up in-person when this bill makes its way to the House of Representatives. If we can’t fight for our children, what will we ever fight for? MENTIONS ON THE SHOW FEARLESS NEWSLETTER WITH LEGISLATOR INFORMATION https://conta.cc/2Zczton OBSCENITY DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW - THREE PRONGED MILLER TEST https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity TO LEARN MORE OR TO SUPPORT THIS SHOW VISIT www.fearlessfeatures.org TO LEARN MORE ABOUT PURPLE FOR PARENTS VISIT purpleforparentsindiana.com/contact/

Exams, mountain biking, secret bridges, the Model Penal Code, pickles. This episode has it all!

In this episode, I explain the four levels of MPC Intent: Purposeful, Knowingly, Recklessly and Negligently and provide context for understanding their differences. Some Key Takeaways are...1. One is purposeful when it is their goal to accomplish the harm2. One acts knowingly when it is not their goal but they are pretty darn certain their conduct will cause the harm.3. One acts recklessly when they are personally aware of a risk that their conduct will cause the harm.4. One acts negligently when they may not be aware their conduct will cause the harm but a reasonable person would be aware of such an occurance.

Joyce Short is frequently called "The Consent Crusader." She's a sexual assault survivor and a TEDx Talk and Presenter. She's the author of several books on sexual assault. Her most recent release, "Your Consent - The Key to Conquering Sexual Assault," helped create rape-law bills in two states, and counting. It provides a meaningful solution to the issues raised by #MeToo... and it's currently available on Amazon. Joyce on Sexual Assault Sexual assault is a bi-partisan crime in desperate need of a bi-partisan solution. It can happen to anyone… rich and famous or indigent, Republican or Democrat, vulnerable or sophisticated, male or female, young or old! It happened to me. In fact, I survived three distinct types of sexual assault – all three covered by Model Penal Code – by force, by duress and by deception. My struggle to recover lead me to research what actually constitutes rape and sexual assault across the US and in various places around the world. I’ve learned a great deal about what motivates people to be kind or cruel. Through many years of effort, I finally figured out what I needed to know in order to heal myself from sexual assault’s defilement. I determined to pass that knowledge along for others who were victimized. And I launched my efforts to conquer sexual assault by fighting for desperately needed laws on “consent,” the critical key that’s missing throughout our nation. This show is broadcast live on Thursday's at 7PM ET on W4WN Radio – The Women 4 Women Network (www.w4wn.com) part of Talk 4 Radio (http://www.talk4radio.com/) on the Talk 4 Media Network (http://www.talk4media.com/).

The death penalty in the United States, both new convictions and executions, has declined through recent decades. In this episode, we explore the history of the death penalty and the various factors that are contributing to this decline. Death penalty expert and author of End of Its Rope: How Killing the Death Penalty Can Revive Criminal Justice, Brandon Garrett, talks about this history and the revealing details of his data collection on the demise of capital punishment. We are also joined by ALI’s past President Roberta Cooper Ramo and former Judge Christine Durham, who discuss ALI’s removal of the Death Penalty from the Model Penal Code, perhaps one of the earliest indications of the future of capital punishment. The History of the U.S. Death Penalty [04:00] ALI and the decision to remove the death penalty from the Model Penal Code [24:00] Reasons for the death penalty’s decline [43:00] Race and the death penalty [46:00] The future of the death penalty

In this episode, I provide a short discussion that defines and distinguishes the MPC four levels of intent; Purposefully, Knowingly, Recklessly and Negligently

Join Laura Dunn and Mike Domitrz as they discuss justice, the #MeToo Movement, and advocating for survivors. Both Dunn and Domitrz have extensive experience working with educational systems for working to reduce sexual violence for students. * You are invited to join our community and conversations about each episode on FaceBook at https://www.facebook.com/MutuallyAmazingPodcast and join us on Twitter @CenterRespect or visit our website at http://www.MutuallyAmazingPodcast.com**   Laura Dunn BIO: Laura L. Dunn, Esq., advances victims' rights through legislative and policy efforts, as well as direct representation of survivors in campus, criminal and civil systems.  As a nationally-recognized victim-turned-victims’ rights attorney and social entrepreneur, her work has been featured by National Public Radio, PEOPLE Magazine, Forbes, the National Law Journal, the New York Times, and many more.   While a law student, Dunn contributed to the 2011 and 2014 Title IX guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education. She also worked with Congress to pass the 2013 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act and its federal regulations. For this advocacy, Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy have publicly recognized Dunn. Upon graduation from Maryland Law, she founded the survivor-led and DC-based legal organization, SurvJustice. It is still the only national nonprofit representing victims of campus sexual violence in hearings across the country and is currently the lead plaintiff in a pending federal lawsuit against the Drumpf administration over Title IX.   As an attorney, Dunn is now a published legal scholar, an adjunct law professor, a member of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence and its Criminal Justice Section's Task Force on College Due Process, a liaison to the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code on Sexual Assault and its Student Sexual Misconduct Project, an accomplished litigator who helped win the first-ever recognition of a federal victim-advocate privilege, and an expert legal consultant on various campus sexual assault lawsuits. She is currently a practicing attorney through the Fierberg National Law Group.   For her work, Dunn has received a 2015 Echoing Green Global Fellowship, the 2016 Benjamin Cardin Public Service Award, the 2017 Special Courage Award from the U.S. Department of Justice's Office for Victims of Crime, and a 2018 TED Fellowship, along with other honors and recognitions over the years. 8.9Laura Lynette Dunn   WEBSITES:  http://www.lauraldunnesq.com/ www.survjustice.org    Book Recommendation:  “I Have the Right To: A High School Survivor's Story of Sexual Assault, Justice, and Hope” by Chessy Prout   READ THE TRANSCRIPT BELOW (or download the pdf):   **IMPORTANT: This podcast episode was transcribed by a 3rd party service and so errors can occur throughout the following pages:   Mike:                       Welcome to the Respect Podcast. I'm your host, Mike Domitrz, from mikespeaks.com, where we help organizations of all sizes, educational institutions, and the U.S. military create a culture of respect. Respect is exactly what we discuss on this show, so let's get started. Mike:                       This week's guest is Laura Dunn, and her track record is amazing. I want to give you a little bit of background on Laura. She advances victims rights through legislative and policy efforts, as well as direct representation of survivors in campus, criminal, and civil systems. Mike:                       As a nationally recognized victim turned victim rights attorney and social entrepreneur, her work's been featured on NPR, National Public Radio, People Magazine, Forbes, The National Blog Journal, The New York Times, and many more. Mike:                       Some of this I'm going to save for our discussion because she's done so much, and the bio here, it's incredible, but as a highlight, for example, she's obviously an attorney now, representing cases with SURVJUSTICE, S-U-R-V-J-U-S-T-I-C-E. They are the only national non-profit representing victims of campus sexual violence in hearings across country, and currently the lead plaintiff in a pending federal lawsuit against the current administration over Title IX. Mike:                       Her work has received awards and recognitions, including the 2015 Echoing Green Global Fellowship, the 2016 Benjamin Cardin Public Service Award, the 2017 Special Courage Award for the U.S. Department of Justice's Office for Victims of Crime, and the 2018 TED Fellowship, so thank you so much for joining us, Laura. Laura:                     Thanks for having me on. Mike:                       Absolutely, and to get right into it here, you know, the show's all about respect. How did you come to the place where you are today, doing the work you're doing? Laura:                     That's a great question. Unfortunately, like too many people, I had a negative experience in college. I had two men that I knew and trusted from being on the same sports team with me, and they made a decision to sexually harm me when I had been drinking and was unable to either consent or defend myself, so because of this unfortunate experience with sexual violence, I became an advocate first in trying to fight for myself, but I realized that I was fighting for many more. It is now my career. Laura:                     I did found SURVJUSTICE. I'm no longer there, I've moved on and transitioned. I'm at the Fierberg National Law Group, where I continue to do litigation, not just for sexual assault survivors, but all survivors of campus crime, including gun violence and hazing. Mike:                       Oh, okay, and so there, when you say representing survivors, for those who aren't aware, so survivor on campus comes forward, they file a complaint, at what point is there a need for someone to reach out to an attorney such as yourself to be represented? Laura:                     It's a wonderful question. I think there's a very big norm in our society that if you're accused of something, you right away get an attorney, get advice, and you're very cautious and careful. There is this belief that if you're a victim, that you can just access the process, and it'll work perfectly, and you'll be fine. Unfortunately, so many survivors find out that systems that are meant to protect them don't always do that, so campuses aren't always acting in the best interest of students who are victimized. Law enforcement, campus security, other organizations sometimes try to push away survivors and their voices, so it's fully fine to make that initial report and to go and right away try to get organizations and institutions to support you if that's their role, but if you're skeptical that that will occur, if you're already getting signs that there isn't support, I would actually contact an attorney or an advocate immediately because the moment you start making a complaint, things can either go really well, or unfortunately, sometimes in the cases I see, they go really poorly from square one. Mike:                       Yeah, and when we're traveling the world talking about this, we always tell [inaudible 00:03:53], in reaching out to a local advocate, a local crisis center, who has been down this road with other survivors, who knows the possibilities of support that are available to you, and when somebody's showing red flags in that system, the troubles there, is helpful to at least help you understand that, no, that's not okay, what they just said to you, or what they just asked you, and you do deserve to be represented and supported. I think it's wonderful. I think a lot of times people think, 'Oh, a student goes forward, the system failed them, nothing they can do.' For them to hear from you, no, there's people like you out there, who are saying, "We can represent you, we can fight for you because you deserve that." Laura:                     Absolutely, and we see so many cases where if we had gotten involved a little earlier ... I would say this all the time at SURVJUSTICE, if someone had just called us first, it would be a different game. If you're in a situation where you're not getting academic support, there's no safety measured, they're encouraging you to take a medical leave, get off campus, you definitely need to be making a call. Laura:                     Advocates can be very helpful, but sometimes real action is needed. Attorneys and advocated alike can offer confidentiality and privilege, which is very important to protect your privacy, and getting information about your rights, and then starting to advance them. Mike:                       Yeah, and you and I know that due to the media coverage of Title IX, a lot of people go, "Well, why is this necessary? I mean, Title IX is tilted to survivors, and if they come forward, everybody's going to believe them, and the system's going to protect them. I mean, this whole Title IX thing, that's all it does. In fact, it's slanted against people who are accused." These are the comments we hear in the media all the time. Mike:                       Can you explain the reality of actually how this works on many campuses? There are campuses where it's wonderful, and it's supportive, but this is not always the case. Laura:                     Yeah, I definitely think it's important to recognize that in the last decade there's been a shift, right. Back in 2010, the Center for Public Integrity, National Public Radio, really exposed campus sexual assault for the first time through an investigative series, and showed the opposite of all the comments you were just saying, that actually victims weren't being supported, weren't being believed, and even if the rare case, where someone was like, "Yes, you were in fact harmed. We're going to give the consequence to the person who harmed you," it was meaningless. It was writing essays about how not to rape someone, and that was the only consequence. It was watching videos, again, from student orientation, for a second time, or having a summer suspension. Laura:                     Really, the media dialogue, at first, was exposing how survivors are mistreated. There's obviously been a backlash, people who represent those who are accused saying, "This is unfair," and in my opinion, I'm obviously a victim's rights attorney, so you can obviously say that I'm biased towards my side, I think people just aren't used to what accountability looks like. Accountability does mean someone is found responsible through an appropriate process for sexual violence, and they're not being favored and catered to, and allowed to continue threatening, or otherwise harassing someone in the interim. Laura:                     You know, there's a lot of accusations on both sides, and really, it's important to remember what Title IX is. It is a federal civil right that protects any person, not just men, not just women, any person from discrimination on the basis of sex, and that includes in the form of sexual harassment and sexual violence. This is on the campus level, and at the civil level, you can also go to court and force it. Laura:                     That's very different than the criminal level, which has a whole different process enshrined in the constitution. The campus and civil level are lower level means of legal advocacy, and of course, can give meaningful results to survivors, such as academic accommodations and support, but at the end of the day, are trying to make sure someone who is harmed by sexual violence can continue to access their education on campus free from any hostility created by someone who's accused of perpetrating against them until there has been an ultimate finding whether or not that did occur. Laura:                     I hope that answered your question. Mike:                       Absolutely. Mike:                       Often people are saying, "Hey, why isn't this" ... There's been a few states that have tried to, and one that did put it through, that have tried to say, "This should all be criminal, this should not be dealt with by schools. This should only be dealt with by the court systems and the judicial system." Many of us who know this work knows that that could highly deter survivors from coming forward in the first place. Can you explain what the problem is with that, with this idea that the moment a campus knows about a case, it should all be handed over to the police, to the judicial system of the authorities outside of the campus environment? Laura:                     Yeah. What I always do, even in going into legal settings such as the American Bar Association Taskforce I've been on, or the American Law Institute, when we were debating different polices and procedures to put forward on a national level, even with attorneys, they say, "Okay, we need to back up. Let's not even think about sexual assault, let's just think of a physical assault." Laura:                     You're a student, you're physically assaulted by another student. Let's say you're drunk at a bar, so you get punched. You, of course, can go to the police, but that's not your only option. You can also sue the person in civil court that just punched you. You can also just go to the campus level and say, "I want them removed because they're an unsafe student, and they're going to impede my access to education," or you could do all three. That's true of many scenarios. Laura:                     Any type of crime, not just sexual crimes, allow you to go campus, criminal, or civil. You can pick, you can choose, you can do one after another, you can do them all at the same time. We have more than one legal remedy for harm in our society, and that's on purpose because there are many different ways that people can advance their rights and interests. They don't only have to rely on police, and of course, we know that the criminal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, which is very different than the civil and campus standard of preponderance of the evidence. It is a different burden, it is a different ballgame, and that's because criminal is removing someone from society, imprisoning them often, fines in some places depending on the type of violence, potentially even death, so very serious consequences call for very serious due process and highly protective measures. Laura:                     On the campus, you don't have a right to be in college. You don't. It's privilege. A college can choose you, or not choose you. You have no rights to get in. Once you are in, your rights are limited to stay there, especially if you have, in fact, violated any of their policies and procedures on students. Laura:                     So, we're at a very different level with the lower standard of proof, and again, it's very important hat survivors have different options; campus, criminal, and civil, because they might need different things. One survivor may need all those damages from a civil case to get medical treatment in the future. Another one may want to keep the campus safe, and have that person removed for a criminal process from society. Another person may say, "You know what, I just need to continue my access to education," so they need to go elsewhere. Laura:                     Lots of different options, lots of different remedies. There is no one size fits all, and there is not just one option for survivors. Mike:                       I'm so glad you brought up the different standards because this is so important. I think a lot of people forget that the campus has the right of who they want to have on their campus, and so often people go, "You can't convict them." It's not whether they can convict them, it's whether they have the right to say, "I don't want that student as part of our community. We have that right, and whether we're a public or private institution, we actually have that right because we accepted them in. They had to apply to get in, they were not forced to us. We get to choose." Laura:                     You can be removed for underage drinking on college campus, right. Mike:                       Right. That's right. Laura:                     [inaudible 00:10:57] over something that I would consider a less serious than committing sexual harassment or assault against someone. Mike:                       Do you think- PART 1 OF 3 ENDS [00:11:04] Laura:                     ... serious in committing sexual harassment or assaulting someone. Mike:                       Do you think the push back that's happening, that people try to argue this is going to too far of an extreme now, do you think this is out of a fear that adults look back and go, "Well I could have been kicked out for this," or, "I could have been in this?" So there's a subconscious level of I'm gonna push back because this goes against what I did back in the day. This would force me to look in the mirror and go, "I didn't always do everything right according to these standards." And are you saying that I'm this person, this perpetrator or whatever? Well I'm not, so this is crazy. This is going extreme. Is that what's happening? Laura:                     I think there are three main drivers of this idea that there's a frenzy on campus and it's unfair to accuse. I think one driver is very much political, president Obama of course advanced title nine, listened to a bunch of student activism that was going on all across the country. There's tons of rallies, tons of protests, and tons of timeline complaints. We went from 30 to 300. So there was a big demand. The president, at that time, listened. And of course in certain circles he's not very popular and there has been a backlash within America with the new president. And so some of it is destroying that legacy, undoing everything that he has done. A different driver- Mike:                       Can we pause? I wanna pause on that one, because I think it's so important. You remember when the first 30 were listed? When it came out in the news that here were the first, I don't even know if it was 30. It might have been like 19, but here ... I think it might actually be higher like 50 or 60, I just remember the first list of universities that were listed and people were like, "Oh my gosh, you are one of the 60," and those of us in the field were like, "Give this another six months to a year, because you're gonna see a lot of schools pop up on there." Because people don't realize what a problem this was. What they saw was the first list of people of offenses and the universities that were named, and what those ... Can you believe them? And I was sitting there going, "Yeah, but we're way too small list right now. This list should be way more comprehensive," because what it means is that somebody on that campus had support to come forward and file this in some way or form. Laura:                     Yes. Mike:                       I don't think schools should go, "Oh, no. We've been named." It should be, "What do we need to do to improve." Laura:                     Yeah, possibly. It was definitely a way to shame schools into having to deal with it, and the positive is that many schools embraced when there were complaints and said, "We need to do better. We need to do more." Amherst is one of those schools. There's several others. SUNY, that school system. A lot of them were proactive as a result and said, "Well, it's coming out. We might as well take ownership and try to change that narrative by accountability for ourselves, and pushing the envelope for how to be the most progressive school with the best policies and procedures and prevention effort." Laura:                     So definitely, I think, a good thing. We talked about the list. It's all colleges. There were K through 12 and over 80 school districts were on the list last I knew. So it's not just campuses. Unfortunately this is a K through 12 issue. Laura:                     But I wanna finish talking about two of the drivers [inaudible 00:13:59]. Mike:                       Absolutely, yes. Laura:                     One of them is absolutely what you mentioned. I wouldn't frame it as I'm worried that sounds like me, as much as I don't really believe what sexual assault is. A lot of people want sexual assault to be the most violent of, and most egregious of the actions in a sexual setting. So physically abusing and raping someone, and they don't wanna think of it as, "I ignored the no," or they were too drunk to consent. They don't want it to be anything lower than the most egregious standard. Because yeah, it may be conduct that they themselves have engaged in because we, unfortunately, live in a rape culture where there are narratives that sexual aggression is okay, that pushing someone into certain sexual activity, whether they're sober, whether they're aware or not, whether they're comfortable or not doesn't matter. And all that rape culture really does allow people to perpetrate a variety of offenses, whether they be criminal all the through or just misconduct at a campus level does really matter, I think, at the end of the day because someone's harmed. Laura:                     So there is a little bit of that. I think it's rooted in the lack of understanding of what sexual violence really is, and when acknowledge that it's not just no means no, it's only yes means yes. That's really how we start protecting society, and that's why so many campuses have affirmative consent standards. Laura:                     The other, which is somewhat related, is a lot of people think women lie. And that is the narrative I see most prominently pushed. I have no problem with people who are due process advocates. You want a fair process? So do I. I'm a lawyer. I care about it being done right. We don't, of course, want anyone falsely accused. I just think that's very rare, and unfortunately a lot of those advocates think it's very, very common because they don't believe that women tell the truth about their experiences. Laura:                     And a lot of that is grounded in really old narratives that, quite frankly, I don't understand how they haven't gone out of fashion. A lot of them are regret sex. Well, we've had the sexual revolution. We're pretty comfortable with consent. We understand that most people are having sex before marriage. It's not really this shame factor. Slut shaming is not as much of a factor to deter people from being truthful, and there's a lot of other related narratives that contribute to rape culture in society that these people have bought and sold, and are selling now publicly saying, "These are lies. These are untruths," and as a result we can't take any victim seriously and they want us just going back to the day where no one believes the survivor when they speak forward. Laura:                     I don't think that's gonna happen, but definitely there's a cultural war happening, and thankfully the MeToo movement is pushing for others to keep believing survivors and realize this is a relevant problem. The norm is survivors not getting justice. It's not false accusations. Mike:                       Yeah, when I'm in front of audience, when people bring up false, one this that I'll do is I say, "Okay. Could everybody in the room raise their hand, not to identify themselves, but if you know a survivor of sexual assault. If you just know a survivor, raise your hands," and the far majority of the room raises their hands. "Keep your hands up if you know multiple." The far majority know multiple. Okay, great. Mike:                       I mean, typically we're talking 80%, 75, 80%. Okay, "How many of you know someone actually accused and you guarantee know it was a false report?" Now I'm not gonna get into whether the ... because that might not even be right, what you think is a false report. And they actually went to prosecution, all the worst nightmare you think happens, happened, and they're in jail. The worst case. What you think happens in false report, maybe one out of hundreds of people in the room will raise their hand and say, "I think that's a case I know of," but you want us to talk about that one injustice more than the hundreds of injustices of everybody having their hands in the room. Mike:                       And so we try to show them why. If we only have an hour to talk about reducing sexual violence, or two hours, or three hours, the students, we're gonna focus on survivors and we're not gonna focus that time on the one. That doesn't mean that false reports aren't horrible. As you said they are, but we have limited time for education. So in my work, what I focus on, that's what I'm focus on. I'll say to somebody, "If you're worried about the false reports maybe you could do that work," but I'm not gonna take the time of education for reducing sexual violence for that time. Mike:                       And it's because it's so important people realize that pushback is so unfair. Well this one false report, therefore we can't talk about the 999 cases that take place. So I'm so glad you brought that up. Mike:                       You also brought up rape culture, and this is one that people get very defensive about, angry about at times. An argument that I'll hear is, "I was never raised to think rape was okay. How dare you tell me I've been raised in a rape culture. When a rape case happens everyone's appalled. Everyone would want to kill the person if it was someone they love, therefore we do not live in a rape culture. How can you say we live in a rape culture?" What's your response to that? Laura:                     I actually normally do a very brief activity, that maybe takes a most three minutes with people, I say, "Okay. Just give me all the words that you know for women who are sexually active." You hear slut, whore, skank, all these negative terms. "Give me all the words you know for men who are sexually active," player, positive, he's the man. Anything that's a thumbs up. They're doing well, so it's positive. Women are negative, men are positive. And I said, "Okay. Give me some slang for sex." Screw, nail, bang, hitting it, beating it, all terms of violence. And these are words that the audience provides me. I just give them the prompt, and I say, "You have just, with your own words and choices with these prompts, shown me rape culture." Men can be sexually active. Laura:                     Sex is often described as violent, and women are the ones who pay the price for that and are demeaned as a result. That is rape culture. So I, personally, wasn't raised doing room-sized classes and things like that, but when I saw that activity when I was an undergrad student I was like, "Yeah, rape culture is real because I just gave those words without any other connotation," and I realized it is within our language. It's within our norms. Mike:                       Yes, definitely. And you brought me to movement, and you've been very active from the start of the MeToo movement, and yet there's controversy around the MeToo movement. It wasn't at first. It was interesting, and I've talked about this in my work, that at first some of the cases were so blatantly extreme that the whole world was, "Yes." We were united. This was a movement that needed to speak out until a couple cases came forward of celebrities that didn't seem as blatantly obvious sexual violence. Seem like more the norm of people going out and having a good time, and then the regret defense is used in that and suddenly we saw backlash. Mike:                       The most common one was the comedian ... Oh, my gosh. I'm having a brain freeze right now, Aziz Ansari, there we go. And that was one where he didn't defend, but other people defended the situation. So let's talk about one the co-oping of the MeToo movement early on, because that's an important discussion that often gets forgotten, and then the strength though of the current MeToo movement and then the backlash. So let's start with ... I don't think a lot of people realize there was a co-op that began this, and so you, Ana, speak to that? Laura:                     Yeah, and correct me if I'm misunderstanding you in any way. A lot of people timed the MeToo movement to The New York Times breaking the story about Harvey Weinstein- Mike:                       Exactly. Laura:                     ... very differently because there was a whole campus movement. There was a whole military movement, and then there was a workplace movement. So I see a continuation. MeToo was the hashtag for the worker division, but this has been a movement that's been going on for a while if you'd been paying attention. And in all of these movements have had their day in the sun and everyone's like, "Yes. We agree. It's wrong on campus. It's wrong in the military. It's wrong in the workplace," and all of them have seen the inevitable backlash. I don't wanna sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I do live in DC. There are conservative ... PART 2 OF 3 ENDS [00:22:04] Laura:                     I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I do live in D.C. There are conservative think tanks. This is a topic that national attention is being given to, to change the narrative, to push certain policies throughout our country. I do think tactically there has been attacks by conservative groups, saying, "This is not a good narrative for a lot of our political positions and views. We really need to co-opt it, and push it, and so- Mike:                       Can we pause there, 'cause I can hear some people thinking, "Hey, I'm outside of the D.C. world. I don't understand what you're referring to there. What do you mean think tanks are conspiring? Laura:                     Yeah, just different think tanks. People are literally paid to sit around and create campaigns and efforts to change public opinion and therefore ultimately be able to push certain policies. Heritage Group is one of them. There are several others. If you're not familiar, you can just Google it and look up conservative and/or liberal think tanks. They exist out there. Mike:                       What we're saying here, just so I understand correctly, is a think tank is thinking, "If I make this an issue, if we make the need to movement a bad movement, that will gain our followers into political. They're more likely to come out and vote. They're more likely to be active ... that group's followers, so let's use this issue. Let's fight against it, 'cause it will draw people into our way of voting." Is that the overall idea there? Laura:                     Yeah, that's definitely of the idea and you can kind of see it with the Safe Campus Acts that was put forward not all that long ago into Congress. That act was backed by Greek organizations, fraternities and sororities. It literally ... more so fraternities than sororities, to be honest ... so it was a PAC. It was a group, a group that was influencing Congress and politicians to advance their own interest, which was not to have schools take any action against them, to allow them to be able to stay on campus, keep having parties no matter what crimes were reported there or being investigated. There are groups that do have incentives. Fraternities often do have a lot of connections to political offices and place a lot of their members there, so there is, unfortunately a relationship. Laura:                     It's very sad to say, but right now Stephen Miller, who's in the White House advising President Drumpf, has been outspoken in his backlash against Title IX, against efforts on campus sexual assaults. A lot of that narrative is pro-men and women are liars and that kind of narrative which appeals, unfortunately, to some conservative groups. Mike:                       Understand. So MeToo today ... Where do you feel it's at? Where do you see it going? Laura:                     Yeah, I think MeToo has been very powerful in having survivors kind of come out in the numbers. We always knew, right? People have debated and been skeptical of statistics. You can't be skeptical when almost everyone on your Facebook page is saying, "Me, too. Here's my experience." I always knew this was a big issue. I always knew the statistics. Even I was shocked one day going on Facebook when the MeToo hashtag was really popular how many friends I still hadn't known had had these experiences, and from any level, from being harassed on the street all the way through being assaulted or having childhood experiences with this issue. It's been great in showing this is a real problem. It affects way more people than you think it does. Laura:                     Injustice is the norm, often because powerful individuals go out of their way to create scenarios where they can perpetrate with impunity, such as looking at the Weinstein cases. He was so powerful in Hollywood. He held the keys to the kingdom if you wanted to be famous. A lot of people knew. It was an open secret. Same with Bill Cosby ... That had been going on with decades. Laura:                     We see a lot of power and privilege being associated. MeToo is on tenuous footing because it has to move into action, in my opinion. It's fine to have awareness. That's step one. A lot of people have been using MeToo to out people publicly. I think that's been important for some of these cases, but really we do have legal systems for a reason. It's not just about publicly shaming people, because sometimes you can be sued for defamation. You really have to be thoughtful and careful and know what the legal risks are. Laura:                     Ideally, it's to change our systems, to make them more effective. We shouldn't have open secrets and perpetrators allowed to continue with impunity and that requires tactical, political, legal change at every level ... campus, in our courthouses, criminal and civil alike. Mike:                       You created SurvJustice to help have a source, a place people could go and get that support. We were talking earlier the campus example of reaching out. How does somebody do that? What's the best way to contact SurvJustice? If you're listening right now and you're a survivor and you're thinking, "Hey, I wanna talk with someone. I wanna know my options," what's the best way to do that? Laura:                     Absolutely. SurvJustice is spelled a little uniquely. It is S as in Sam, U as in umbrella, R as in Reagan, V as in vase, Justice, and that's one word ... SurvJustice. You can go to the websites ... just SurvJustice.org, or obviously also on Twitter and Facebook and Instagram. There's many ways to reach out. Again, SurvJustice is the only national non-profit representing victims in campus hearings across the country, having transitioned on and now with the Fierberg Law Group, I am exclusively working on civil cases. When it has gone to the next level, when damages and recovery are really the only options for survivors, that action is being taken on by myself and my team. Laura:                     There are, of course, other lawyers all across the country that specialize in Title IX, in sexual harassment, sexual discrimination and sexual assault cases. There are many resources out there. I am proud to have founded SurvJustice. I think it's a good first stop if you're not really sure where to go and what kind of sources you need. They'll route you there if they can't assist you. Mike:                       We'll have that website on the show notes absolutely. We'll also have your website, which is lauraldunnesq.com, so people can find you, reach out to you, which is so important. You also are a proponent of teaching sexual respect. How do you do that through your work? Laura:                     It's built right into the vision of SurvJustice. A lot of people think of mission where you're trying to accomplish. Envision is where are you trying to go? If the world is perfect, what does it look like? Laura:                     Sexual respect is the norm in my vision, because really if we just make sexual respect a norm in interactions, I think a lot of these issues melt away. There may always be sexual violence, but I don't believe acquaintance rape has to be such a norm if we treat one another with sexual respect. It's about making sure your partner's comfortable. It's making sure that you are not being aggressive in pursuing sex at any means to any ends and you're really rejecting that in our culture and calling other people out to say, "It's really important that you treat everyone dignity and respect." It's not about romance. You can just be having fun, but at the end of the day, consent is important and not just in the way you interact with others, but the way, of course, people interact with you. You wanna feel respected and cared for in those interactions and safe. Laura:                     I often do trainings. I don't just talk about response, which is, of course, my specialty as a lawyer, but how response has to be full circle with prevention. We have to give these right messages of, "This is how we should behave. This is what we should be doing," and we've got to back that up with serious responses. When someone breaks that norm that we're creating, there has to be a consequence. We can't allow there to be impunity. We have to make sure sexual respect is accorded by all our institutions. Mike:                       That's awesome. Laura, what was a book that you think can benefit people? If they're listening, going, "Hey, I would love to dive into a book on this," what would be a book you recommend? Laura:                     Oh, there's so many. I have a really big library on this topic. I'll just say what I'm reading right now, which is "I Have the Right To," which is by Chessy Prout. I will have full disclosure here. She is a former client of mine. She had a very high-profile high school prep case in what which she as a freshman was targeted by an 18-year-old senior boy for a senior salute, which meant taking her to an isolated place on campus and trying to get as much from her sexually as possible, and he ended up raping her. Laura:                     There was a criminal trial with a partial conviction. He wasn't convicted on every offense, but on some of them. She really was attacked and defamed in the media as a minor, as a minor survivor, and so SurvJustice came in. We protected her privacy. We spoke to the media to keep her privacy moving forward. Laura:                     As a result of having that conviction at the end, she went forward, sued the school, and this story really talks about her experience through this struggle and against such a powerful institution, but of course also gives messages of, "How can this not be the case? What could we have done and what can we create moving forward where sexual respect is the norm, where we actually have institutions that know how to respond and don't support perpetrators?" Really, in her case, her school is fundraising for the person accused to support his defense, so really, again, shedding light on what survivors go through and also calling out how we can change moving forward. I hope people check out that book, "I Have the Right To." It's also a hash tag and on Twitter and social media. Mike:                       She's been all over national media. She is an example like millions of survivors out there with their strength and their courage in sharing thing with the world. You just shared so much brilliance with us and expertise. Thank you so much, Laura, for joining us. Laura:                     Absolutely. Thank you for having me on and thanks for all the work you do. Mike:                       Oh, our pleasure. Mike:                       Thank you for joining us for this episode of The Respect podcast, which was sponsored by the Date Safe Project at datesafeproject.org. Remember, you can always find me at Mikespeaks.com. PART 3 OF 3 ENDS [00:31:30]  

The enactment of lengthy no-parole sentences and the atrophy of other statutory early release mechanisms has placed unusual demands on the clemency mechanism in recent years, notably in the federal system. Similarly, an increase in the number and severity of collateral penalties has made pardon the only way most people with a criminal record can pay their debt to society. As Enlightenment philosophers recognized, clemency was never intended to substitute for a well-functioning legal system. With all due respect to Alexander Hamilton, in today’s world it is questionable whether a politician is “a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of the government” than a court. -- The American Law Institute recently approved a revision of the sentencing articles of the Model Penal Code, the first such revision in 60 years. The revised MPC includes provisions intended to reduce the need for executiveclemency, in two ways. First, the MPC provides authority for courts to reduce prison sentences in situations where circumstances have fundamentally changed. Second, the MPC proposes a comprehensive scheme for managing the collateral consequences of conviction that makes courts the primary source of relief. Former U.S. Pardon Attorney Margaret Love, currently the Executive Director of the Collateral Consequences Resource Center, will discuss the merits and potential consequences of these proposed MPC reforms. -- Featuring: Margaret Love, Law Office of Margaret Love. Moderator: John Malcolm, Director, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.

Josh and Jessica review “self defense” under Common Law and the Model Penal Code in analyzing whether Han Solo was legally justified in shooting Greedo first in the original Star Wars (Episode IV).Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/thelegalgeeks)