Book Review: Bad Acts and Guilty Minds

Title: Bad Acts and Guilty Minds--Conundrums of the Criminal Law
Author: Leo Katz
Pages: 351
Comments/Review: I am forcing myself to write book reviews so I can reprocess what I've read.

This book presents so many hypotheticals that once I got caught up in them, I hardly remembered what the point was. I was, however, convinced that I would become Duke Law Class of 2008's Hypo Girl after reading this book.

Let me review the purpose of each chapter for my own sake:

Chapter One: "Necessity, the Mother of Invention" discusses the shortcomings of having laws that are absolute, and gives examples of cases in which absolute laws would fail to provide a clear-cut decision.

Chapter Two: "Bad Acts" not only raises the issue of defining which acts are "bad," it also looks into what we would consider "acts."

Chapter Three: "Guilty Minds" examines the intentions of a criminal, and considers negligence and necessary risks. It also explores how badly we judge probability vis-à-vis risk.

Chapter Four: "The Root of All Evil" discusses causation.

Chapter Five: "The Company You Keep" addresses complicity and conspiracy.

Chapter Six: "The Crime That Never Was" deals with attempted crimes that have failed.

Instead of being thoughtful, I thought I would throw in some interesting studies/hypotheticals mentioned in the book.

A group of doctors was asked: "Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimate of the consequences of the programs is as follows: If program A is adopted, 200 lives will be saved. If program B is adopted, there is 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved, and 2/3 probability that no people will be saved. Which of the two programs do you favor?" The vast majority of the doctors, 72 percent of them, opted for program A.

Another group of doctors was given the same "cover story" as the first, but they were asked to choose among the following alternatives: "If program C is adopted, 400 people will die. If program D is adopted, there is 1/3 probability that nobody will die, and 2/3 probability that 600 people will die. Which of the two programs do you favor?" Only 22 percent of the doctors opted for C. The odd thing is that C is but a different way of phrasing A. If people's preferences among risks are so unreliable, is the notion of negligence workable?

Henri plans a trek through the desert. Alphonse, intending to kill Henri, puts poison into his canteen. Gaston also intends to kill Henri but has no idea what Alphonse has been up to. He punctures Henri's canteen, and Henri dies of thirst. Who has caused Henri's death? Was it Alphonse? Gaston? Both? Or neither?