Below find some aspects of the Dillon case that would contribute to a full discussion in response to the prompt. You’ll note that the primary focus of these extracts from the court ruling have to do with policy and the interests of public safety or purpose.
The prompt:
What is the court saying about Criminal Justice Policy in terms of the defendant’s challenge to his conviction? (Clue: Look for language dealing with policy or public purpose.)
Content from the court ruling in Dillon:
“One of the purposes of the criminal law is to protect society from those who intend to injure it. When it is established that the defendant intended to commit a specific crime and that in carrying out this intention he committed an act that caused harm or sufficient danger of harm, it is immaterial that for some collateral reason he could not complete the intended crime.” (People v. Camodeca (1959) 52 Cal.2d 142Links to an external site., 147 [338 P.2d 903].) Accordingly, the requisite overt act “need not be the last proximate or ultimate step towards commission of the substantive crime …. [¶] [4a] Applying criminal culpability to acts directly moving toward commission of crime … is an obvious safeguard to society because it makes it unnecessary for police to wait before intervening until the actor has done the substantive evil sought to be prevented. It allows such criminal conduct to be stopped or intercepted when it becomes clear what the actor’s intention is and when the acts done show that the perpetrator is actually putting his plan into action.” …As long as the trier of fact is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to commit a crime and was in the process of attempting to carry out that intent, no public purpose is served by drawing fine distinctions between those who have managed to satisfy some element of the offense and those who have not. fn. 1Links to an external site.[34 Cal.3d 454]…Public safety would be needlessly jeopardized if the police were required to refrain from interceding until absolutely certain in each case that the criminal would go through with his plan. The law of attempts eliminates precisely that burden once the subject has plainly demonstrated, by his actions, his intent presently to commit the crime.”
“We are satisfied that society is entitled to no lesser degree of protection when the charge is felony murder, involving as it does an attempt to commit a felony that by settled judicial definition must be “inherently dangerous to human life.” (See, e.g., People v. Williams (1965) 63 Cal.2d 452Links to an external site., 457 [47 Cal.Rptr. 7, 406 P.2d 647]…As long as the trier of fact is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to commit a crime and was in the process of attempting to carry out that intent, no public purpose is served by drawing fine distinctions between those who have managed to satisfy some element of the offense and those who have not. fn. 1Links to an external site.[34 Cal.3d 454]…Public safety would be needlessly jeopardized if the police were required to refrain from interceding until absolutely certain in each case that the criminal would go through with his plan. The law of attempts eliminates precisely that burden once the subject has plainly demonstrated, by his actions, his intent presently to commit the crime.”
“We further hold, however, that the penalty for first degree felony murder, like all statutory penalties, is subject to the constitutional prohibition against cruel or unusual punishments (Cal. Const., art. I, § 17), and in particular to the rule that a punishment is impermissible if it is grossly disproportionate to the offense as defined or as committed, and/or to the individual culpability of the offender. (In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410Links to an external site. [105 Cal.Rptr. 217, 503 P.2d 921].) Because such disproportion is manifest on the record before us — as it was to the triers of fact — we modify the judgment to punish this defendant as a second degree murderer. As modified, the judgment will be affirmed. [34 Cal.3d 451]”
WEEK 3 ASSIGNMENT
Research CLEAR, OSS, and Jeopardy Programs (See links below*) and, with respect to each, submit an assessment of them in terms of the 6 Policy Development Stages found in Section C of the below-attached document*. NOTE: It is fine if you do some speculating or take educated guesses as to some of the stages-just make certain that you offer commentary that is rational in the context of obtainable information and traditional policy-making considerations
*Feel free to do additional research re the 3 programs (even one additional source will likely enrich your understanding of the topic).
Some document below attached
CLEAR:
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2019/19-1066_misc_09-13-2019.pdfLinks to an external site.
OSS:
http://shq.lasdnews.net/pages/PageDetail.aspx?id=203Links to an external site.
Jeopardy (Note that this program is the 4th one addressed in the linked document-page 12 of the document):
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2005/05-2348_rpt_lapd_5-4-06.pdfLinks to an external site.
III. Read and know California Assembly Bill No. 526. (See link below*.)
AB 526:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB526