Feed on
Posts
Comments

Quite a few of the cases or problems in my criminal law class involve rape or sexual assault. The casebook I use has a different approach to teaching criminal law that doesn’t separate out these kinds of crimes from other kinds of crimes. There are disadvantages to this, largely because the law surrounding sexual violence has been the subject of sweeping reform that is connected to issues of race and sex equality in complicated ways. And society’s beliefs about what constitutes blameworthy sexual conduct are both in flux and not always connected with what the law says is blameworthy. Not treating sexual violence separately means that we often don’t have time to discuss the reforms and the continuing difficulty we have in defining crimes in this area. There are advantages, though, too. The cases and problems we have are accurate reflections of what the law right now is, and not separating sexual violence out as something different from other kinds of crimes can help us take it more seriously and to develop attitudes that treat victims and defendants the same way we would treat them for other kinds of crimes. This helps to get outside the “bad, old” ways of thinking to more effectively avoid engaging in the same harms that the reforms were targeted to solve.

In connection with that, I read an article today that was so thoughtful about some of the problems that we have in figuring out what sexual conduct ought to be criminal and why that I had to share it. Sarah Hepola in “The Alcohol Blackout,” published October 29 in Texas Monthly explores the role of excessive alcohol in helping to create the situations in which injuries because of sexual conduct occur. There are places that I might make different normative judgments than she does, but her treatment of room for disagreement in particular is especially important. I encourage you to read it.

Here it is. One giant podcast on general defenses:

and here is the downloadable version.

The sound isn’t fantastic. I tried to make it sound less like I was recording this in some sort of cave, but I’m not sure I was successful.

The Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion yesterday in an excessive force case, Mullenix v. Luna, essentially holding that unless “existing precedent placed the conclusion that [the officer] acted unreasonably in these circumstances ‘beyond debate,'” the officer would be immune from a suit for damages. The debate between the concurrence and single dissent is interesting, especially since Justice Sotomayor is the dissenter. As a former prosecutor, she tends to be pretty sympathetic to security issues.

Goetz on Turning Point with Frank MacKay

Inchoate crimes

also here.

and doctrines of imputation

and here.

This podcast includes not just all of the information we studied on homicide (the generic term for a crime that results in death), but also the next topic we will consider, causation. That means you may not be familiar with the topic at the end of the podcast; don’t worry. We’ll get to it.

And you can click here to open a new window. Right click or command click to download.

We have finished two more topics in criminal law.

The theories of punishment:

and right (or command) click here to download it.

Culpability:

and right (or command) click here to download it.

I have two podcasts ready for all of you for federal courts: the introductory material

Or download by right clicking: Intro

and justiciability

or: justiciability

Or maybe it does. We have covered two podcasts worth of material already in Criminal Law. Don’t worry, there won’t usually be a podcast for every week of class. It’s just the learning curve works to frontload a lot of important material.

Here is the introductory podcast:

Or right click this link to download it: Crim law intro

And here is the legality podcast:

And downloadable link: Legality

Here is the podcast on suing government actors.

And if you need to download it, here is that link.

I decided not to do one on the statutory control of interference by federal courts into state actions. That section is fairly straightforward and short. I didn’t think a podcast would add anything. I also didn’t include in the suing government actors podcast some of the substantive constitutional law we looked at in the section 1983 chapter. I actually have an old podcast covering that and some additional constitutional law from when I taught a class on constitutional litigation. If people really want that (even though it goes beyond what we learned), just let me know, and I’ll post it.

Happy reviewing!

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »