Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Model Penal Code

What is the Moral Penal Code? According to http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Model+Penal+Code:
The Model Penal Code (MPC) is one of the most important developments in American law, and perhaps the most important influence on American Criminal Law since it was completed in 1962. Conceived as a way to standardize and organize the often-fragmentary criminal codes enacted by the states, the MPC has influenced a large majority of states to change their laws. Although some provisions of the MPC are now considered outdated, and the code fails to address many important recent criminal law issues, its impact could still be felt as the country entered the twenty-first century.
Members of the American Law Institute (ALI), a group of judges, lawyers, and legal scholars whose purpose is to clarify and improve the law, began working on the Model Penal Code in 1952. The group had abandoned two previous attempts to create a model criminal code. The third attempt took ten years, and the ALI produced numerous drafts, reports, and revisions.
Herbert Wechsler, a Columbia Law School professor, served as the chief reporter, or principal drafter. From 1953 to 1962, ALI council members examined, considered, and debated the work of Wechsler, his staff, and his advisors in a total of 31 drafts. Finally, in 1962, the MPC was completed and published.
As I discussed in an earlier post Kinsey had a lot to do with helping change the model penal codes in the U.S. What I have found doing more research is he also influenced model penal codes across the world. What I didn't clearly know is the role the Rockefeller foundation had in funding to get the penal codes implemented. I knew they were responsible for funding Kinsey's dog and pony show. It makes me wonder why? What did they have to gain by these laws changing? They certainly didn't make tougher laws at the time. They became more lax and the sexual offender laws were reduced since Kinsey made the determination from his "research" that every male is a sexual offender and a deviant. I found an article that discusses the role Kinsey played http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/A%20Nation%20Deceived.pdf

  Kinsey’s pseudo science brought major changes in public policy and American law. He testified before legislatures advocating the removal of almost all criminal sex laws. Morris Ernst, an American Civil Liberties lawyer, designed a legal strategy to overturn America’s Judeo-Christian ethics’ sex laws. Ernst stated “virtually every page of the Kinsey report touches on some section of the legal code…”
 With funding by the Rockefeller foundation, bar associations formed committees to study laws on sexual behavior. In 1955 the new Model Penal Code replaced the Common Law view of sex crimes. This new code eventually aided in reducing the penalties for abortion, rape, desertion, seduction, alienation of affection, wife and child battery, adultery, prostitution, soliciting for masturbation, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, sodomy, “unfit” parentage, public sexual exhibition, obscenity and the list goes on.
In 1957 the Supreme Court relaxed the legal definition of obscenity. This case was handled by Ernst. In 1961, Illinois was the first state to repeal its sodomy statute. In 1973, Dr. Mary Calderone (a Kinseyan) was cited in the Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion. Also in 1973 homosexuality was removed from the list of psycho pathologies by the American Psychiatric Association.
I added the last paragraph because it supports Kinsey's role in the movement to normalize pedophilia. I am going to do research into Dr. Mary Calderone and see what role she has played if any in trying to normalize pedophilia. Rosie

A Giant Leap Forward - The Model Penal Code (MPC) of 1962

The Official Draft of the Model Penal Code (MPC) was adopted by the American Law Institute (ALI) in May of 1962. For an excellent 18-page summary explanation of the MPC, see Professors Paul H. Robinson and Markus Dubber's An Introduction to the Model Penal Code, The ALI also issued official Commentaries explaining the MPC. In 2002, Professor Dubber wrote a handy 486-page Turning Point Series book, Criminal Law: Model Penal Code,  published by the Foundation Press; it contains many useful explanations as well as the text of the Model Penal Code. In it, Professor Dubber makes the point that the MPC's "goal was to transfer the power to make criminal law from the common-law making judiciary to the statute-law making legislature,"  i.e., common law crimes would not be a part of an MPC jurisdiction's crimes unless the legislature drafted them into law.. MPC Section 1.05(1) provides: ""No conduct constitutes an offense unless it is a crime or violation under this Code or another statute of this State." See also Section 1.03 (a) TPC

We might visualize the MPC as the centerpost in construction of modern penal codes. The MPC was not offered as a uniform law to be enacted en toto. Instead, it was proffered by the ALI as a model which could be used in whole or part by states whose legislatures were revising their penal codes. Although many parts of the MPC have been adopted by states, it has never been adopted en toto by any state. You will see references to the MPC in many of the cases in your casebook. Even though the federal law of crimes has not yet been revised to reflect the MPC approach, many federal judges consult it as a reference and refer to it in their opinions when trying to sort out legal issues. The MPC played a major role in the 1974 revised Texas Penal Code. Any law school course on the subject of criminal law that omits discussion of the MPC robs the students of basic understanding of the law of crimes and defenses. [When adopting new criminal codes, a wide variety of states have been influenced by the MPC; among those states embracing its approach and in some cases even using some of its exact language are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinios, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, NorthDakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylavnia, Utah, Washington, West Virginia,  and Wisconsin. Some jurisdictions have thumbed their nose at the MPC. The California Legislature seems content with its old penal law just as Congress does with the federal "criminal code." Wikipedia reports that in 1971 the Idaho Legislature enacted a completely revised criminal code based on the Model Penal Code; however, in 1972, the legislature repealed the new code and reenacted the old criminal code.] 

Although modern students tend to take the MPC for granted, those of us familiar with the pre-MPC approach to crimes and defenses saw firsthand the remarkable impact the MPC had on crimes and defenses, as well as sentencing practices. In structure is was composed of four parts, i.e., Part I General Provisions (divided into a series of Articles, further divided into Sections; here the MPC discussed and defined subjects such as act, omission and possession; mental states (purposely, knowingly, recklessly and negligently); causation; mistake; ignorance; complicity; intoxication; duress; acting under superior military orders; entrapment, necessity; public duty; self-defense; defense of another; defense of property; use of force in law enforcement; use of force by parents, teachers, guardians, doctors, prison officials and others with a special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others; mental disease or defect excluding responsibility (what we call "insanity"); evidence of mental disease or defect to negate state of mind (what we call "diminished capacity"), immaturity (what we call "infancy"); inchoate crimes (solicitation, conspiracy and attempt) Part II Definition of Specific Crimes (also divided into a series of Articles with Sections; here the code dealt with offenses involving danger to the person, e.g., criminal homicide, assault; reckless endangerment; terroristic threats; kidnapping, sexual offenses; offenses against property, e.g., arson, criminal mischief, burglary, criminal trespass, robbery, theft, forgery, fraudulent practices, commercial bribery; offenses against the family, e.g., bigamy, polygamy, incest, abortion, endangering child welfare; offenses against public administration, e.g., official bribery, perjury,obstructing government operations, escapes, abuse of office; offenses against public order and decency, e.g., riot, disorderly conduct, public indecency,

No comments:

Post a Comment