Element analysis Under the MPC, crimes are defined in terms of a set of "elements of the offense," each of which must be proven to the finder of fact beyond a reasonable doubt. There are three types of elements: • conduct of a certain nature, •
attendant circumstances at the time of the conduct, or • the result of that conduct. The elements are those facts that: • are included in the definition of forbidden conduct as provided by the statute, or • establish the required culpability, or • negate an excuse or justification for such conduct, or • negate a defense under the statute of limitation, or • establish jurisdiction or venue. All but the last two categories are
material elements, and the prosecution must prove that the defendant had the required kind of culpability with respect to that element.
Mens rea or culpability One of the major innovations of the MPC is its use of standardized
mens rea terms (criminal mind, or in MPC terms, culpability) to determine levels of mental states, just as homicide is considered more severe if done intentionally rather than accidentally. These terms are (in descending order) "
purposely", "knowingly," "
recklessly", and "
negligently", with a fifth state of "
strict liability", which is highly disfavored. Each material element of every crime has an associated culpability state that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. •
Purposely. If the element involves the nature of the conduct or the result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in that conduct or cause the result. If the element involves attendant circumstances, he is aware of the circumstances or believes or hopes that they exist. •
Knowingly. If the element involves the nature of the conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that the circumstances exist. If the element involves a result, he is practically certain that the result will occur. Further, if the element involves knowledge of the existence of a particular fact, it is satisfied if he is aware of a high probability of the existence of that fact, unless he actually believes that it does not exist. •
Recklessly. A person
consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element exists or will result, such that its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe. •
Negligently. A person
should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element exists or will result, such that the failure to perceive it involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe. If an offense requires a specific kind of culpability, then any more severe culpability will suffice. Thus if an offense is defined in the form, "It is illegal to
knowingly do X," then it is illegal to do X knowingly or purposely (a more severe state), but not to do so recklessly or negligently (the two less severe states). Strict liability means that it is illegal to do something, regardless of one's mental state. If a statute provides only a single kind of culpability for a crime, that kind of culpability is assumed to apply to all elements. If no culpability is stated by statute, a minimum of recklessness is assumed to be required. The MPC declines to use the common terms "intentional" or "willful" in its specification of crimes, in part because of the complex interpretive history of these terms. However, it defines that any (non-MPC) statute in the jurisdiction's criminal code that uses the term "intentionally" shall mean "purposely," and any use of "willfully" shall mean "with knowledge." If a law makes an actor absolutely liable for an offense, MPC sections 2.05 and 1.04 state that the actor can only be guilty of what the MPC calls violations (essentially meaning
civil infractions), which only carry fines or other monetary penalties, and no jail time.
Unlawful acts explicitly set forth Another important feature is that under the MPC, any action not explicitly outlawed is legal. This concept follows the saying, "That which is not forbidden is allowed" as opposed to "That which is not allowed is forbidden." Legal scholars contrast the MPC's limits with laws passed by
Nazi Germany and the
Soviet Union, which allowed people to be punished for acts not specifically outlawed but similar to acts that were. The MPC provision has a prospective effect in that it applies to those acts which may be committed in the future. This is not the same as a retrospective effect of past acts which are protected by the rule against
ex post facto laws. Under the MPC,
ignorance of criminal law is not considered a valid defense, unless the legislature intended on making the
mistake of law a defense, the law is unknown to the actor and had not been published, or the actor is acting as a result of some official statement about the law. See sections 2.02(9) and 2.04.
Options for enacting jurisdictions Certain parts of the MPC contain multiple options, inviting
states to choose one. A particularly controversial topic was the proper place of the
death penalty in the MPC. However, the MPC explicitly states that the "[American Law] Institute took no position on the desirability of the death penalty." Note that no state is obliged to adopt any specific part of the MPC; see below. == Criticism ==