About Crimes

Elsewhere we have discussed the possibilities that JA’s death was the result of negligence, i.e., medical malpractice, or another tort or that it was simply a “natural occurrence."

I would have thought that the possibility that JA's death was a criminal act had no place in a civil litigation.  I do not know why it came up. This may be symptomatic of my naiveté. Yet some defendants introduced this issue as part of the discovery that has been allowed thus far (see Request 14).

In answer to Request 14, I denied it.

Since the defendants mentioned this and it is a matter of public record, I will address the matter by providing you with some of the criminal statutes of Illinois and a "primer" on crimes. All of this information is publicly available and links or endnotes are provided. It is possible that some of this information will assist a more experienced lawyer in deciding whether to help or not. Maybe someone will be generous enough to enlighten me as to what was on the minds of the defendants' attorneys.

For those of you interested in "playing" the defendants' game of possible crime, you can find the following:

A Criminal Act Checklist - this is a PDF file with checkboxes that you can use to keep track of whether the elements necessary to fulfill the statutory requirements for a crime are present. Links to the statutes are at the bottom of this page.

Since, as you will see, a motive for committing a crime is needed, I chose among the three that I thought would be most obvious to a sick care worker. One is JA's disability (he had polio as a child and used a walker), another is his age (he was a senior citizen) and the last is his religion (it was recorded in the chart that he was a Jew).

I have chosen religion with possible religion-based anti-Semitism as the motive. This is not speculation. It is part of a thought experiment for you if you want to "play" the defendants' game of possible crime.

The fact is, I do not know the religion of any of the persons involved in JA's sick care or who may have had a hand in his death, if anyone. I believe that Dr. Layfer is Jewish.

There are links to two pieces as background. One is a link to Christian on Jew violence, the other is a link to Muslim on Jew violence. I have not included a link to contemporary Jew on Jew violence. That is a bit tougher to find, though it must exist since, I suppose, there are Jewish criminals in Israel who are incarcerated for violence against other Jews. Also, I have not included links to resources on Hindu or Buddhist or Rastafarian or Zoroastrian or animist or Baha'i or whatever on Jew violence, even though a person or some persons involved may hold these (or other) beliefs. Simply consider the two links as examples. However, if anybody wants to provide me with links to "(another religion) on Jew" violence, please send them to me and I will add them if they are appropriate.

Lastly, I have included a short piece on some contemporary examples of where physicians and other sick care workers may have behaved in ways which some may think of as unexpected.

To the best of my knowledge, there is and has been no criminal action taken against any person or entity involved in JA's care and no person or entity has been investigated for criminal activity.

Crimes [i]

Acts or omissions that are in violation of law.

Each state in the United States, as well as the federal government, maintains a body of criminal laws…Most jurisdictions codify criminal statutes in a separate section in their laws…Generally, criminal laws are divided into several broad categories: offenses affecting public order, health, and morals; offenses involving trade, business, and professions; and offenses against the family. These categories often overlap…

Offenses Affecting Public Order, Health, and Morals

A number of acts are made criminal to preserve public order, health, and morals. Some of these laws are grounded in the common law but have undergone significant changes over the years...

Crime [ii]

Crime is antisocial conduct for which punishment may be imposed in the name of the state. Crimes can be classified according to their nature: violent personal crimes, such as murder and rape; property offenses, such as burglary and theft; and public welfare or moral infractions, such as gambling, intoxication, and promiscuous sexuality. Usually, those in the first group are thought to be more serious than those in the second and are therefore punished more severely.

Here is another definition of “crime”:

Main Entry: crime

Pronunciation: 'krIm

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French, from Latin crimen fault, accusation, crime

1 : conduct that is prohibited and has a specific punishment (as incarceration or fine) prescribed by public law —compare DELICT, TORT

2 : an offense against public law usually excluding a petty violation —see also FELONY, MISDEMEANOR

NOTE: Crimes in the common-law tradition were originally defined primarily by judicial decision. For the most part, common-law crimes are now codified. There is a general principle “nullum crimen sine lege,” that there can be no crime without a law. A crime generally consists of both conduct, known as the actus reus, and a concurrent state of mind, known as the mens rea.

3 : criminal activity

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

So in order to commit a crime, there has to be a criminal act or actus reus coupled with a criminal mindset, or mens rea. What are these things?

Actus reus

Main Entry: ac·tus re·us

Pronunciation: 'ak-t&s-'rE-&s, 'äk-tus-'rA-us

Function: noun

Etymology: New Latin, guilty deed

: the wrongful act that makes up the physical action of a crime —see also CRIME —compare MENS REA

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634), an English jurist, stated the principle from which the terms actus reus and mens rea are derived: actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means: "an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also guilty" [iii]

In the US, criminal liability results when the actus reus, i.e., the guilty act, is proved beyond a reasonable doubt and in combination with the mens rea, or guilty mind (to be discussed in the next section).

There are two basic ways in which an actus reus can occur:

1. The first is by commission, an overt act
2. The second is by omission, a failure to act

The law defining the crime will state what facts are needed to satisfy the actus reus requirements.

Mens rea

Main Entry: mens rea

Pronunciation: 'menz-'rE-&, -'rA-

Function: noun

Inflected Form: plural men·tes re·ae /'men-"tEz-'rE-"E, 'men-"tAs-'rA-"I/

Etymology: New Latin, literally, guilty mind

: a culpable mental state; especially : one involving intent or knowledge and forming an element of a criminal offense <murder contains a mens rea element> —compare ACTUS REUS

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Mens rea can be categorized into three general classes:

1. Intentional
2. Reckless
3. Criminally negligent

The three are distinguished by the intended outcome of the perpetrator:

1. For intention to commit a crime, the (alleged) criminal had foresight of the consequences and the intent for those consequences to occur.
2. For recklessness, the (alleged) criminal had foresight of the consequences and did not care if those consequences occurred or not.
3. For criminal negligence, the (alleged) criminal did not have foresight of the particular consequences, but a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would have.

The tests for mens rea are:

1. Subjective and
2. Objective

To prove:

1. The subjective test, the trier-of-fact, i.e., jury or judge, must be convinced that the defendant had the requisite state of mind
2. The objective test, the trier-of-fact must be convinced that a reasonable person would have possessed the requisite mental state under the same or similar circumstances

As mentioned, each jurisdiction has its own laws.

In Illinois, Criminal Offenses are codified in the Illinois Compiled Statues, Chapter 720, Criminal Code of 1961. Part B, Article 9 deals with the laws of homicide. 720 ILCS 5/9-1 addresses First Degree Murder, 720 ILCS 5/9-2 covers Second Degree Murder, 720 ILCS 5/9-3 encompasses Involuntary Manslaughter and Reckless Homicide and 720 ILCS 5/9-3.1 contains Concealment of a Homicidal Death.

An outline of Illinois Criminal Law is available here. It appears to be a useful overview. If you are asked for a password, just click "OK."

The crimes for which statutes are presented are:

• First Degree Murder

• Second Degree Murder

• Involuntary Manslaughter

• Concealment of a Homicidal Death

• Hate Crime

• Terrorism and Terrorist Acts