Reference no: EM133371795

Discuss an aspect of the topics of the course so far from a critical point of view. Here's food for thought.

1. Is American Criminal Law too broad in scope and penalty-heavy? What's the evidence for your position or hypotheses? How does your evidence rank on the Evidence Hierarchy or Pyramid?

2. What considerations should society weigh (and how much) in figuring out how to draw the line between a civil wrong, compensable mostly in money damages (which can be millions and ruinous to the defendant) and criminal liability? Does the nature of the consequences of a criminal conviction matter?

3. What technical changes could one make to limit or expand the scope of American criminal law? What is the effect of adding a specific intent requirement to the elements that have to be proven to be guilty of an offense in terms of the scope or size of the criminal law or criminal justice systems? If you were a legislator what changes might be considered?

4. What about voluntary drug and alcohol intoxication? Related to the readings what intent changes would one make to crimes to reduce or change the scope, size or sweep of the criminal law/criminal justice system(s)?

5. Be technical. Be critical and be in-depth. Challenge your assumptions and support your positions or hypotheses with evidence. Is there a role for the Evidence Pyramid or Hierarchy? Be a devil's advocate.