I. Culpability

5. Mistake of Fact: If the act is an immoral one/wrong in itself (which is difficult to define) then the  enters on this act at his own peril. If it turns out to be a felony and he didn’t know, too bad. The  has the responsibility to be sure of facts before embarking on his course. Not really a defense.

• 
  This is similar to a negligence standard for the ..
  
• 
  The mistake is only a defense if it is reasonable. It must also negatives the existence of a state of mind that is essential to the commission of an offense or established a state of mind that is a defense. One cannot purposely, knowingly, or recklessly commit a crime by mistake (its an oxymoron).
  

Reasons for strict liability for violations of public welfare statutes:

• 
  Protection of social interests requires a high standard of care and attention on the part of those who follow certain pursuits (strict liability makes one more likely to take particular care, however if actor is already taking every reasonable care how can he take additional measures?)
  
• 
  Administrative efficiency – it is difficult to prove mental culpability, too much time would be spent on a petty case.
  

• 
  if one believes one’s conduct is lawful it is a defense if: (1) one relies on an official, but erroneous, statement of the law, (2) the statement of the law found in a statute, or decision, or grant of permission, or an official interpretation by a public official responsible for doing so (not a private attorney), and (3) the reliance was reasonable. This would be acting in a law-abiding fashion (no culpability).
  
• 
  it is a defense if the statute was not known to  and it was not published (no fair notice).
  

• the  always wants to argue a mistake of law (non-exculpatory)

• 
  the  always wants to argue a mistake of fact (always exculpatory, goes to a jury to determine if the mistake was reasonable).
  

II. Proportionality: the meaning of this is fuzzy, it’s also complicated because it’s a constitutional issue (8^th Amendment).

• 
  Some say the punishment should fit the crime
  
• 
  Others say the punishment should fit the person, however this is not allowed by the MPC because culpability punishes people for what they did in the past and not what they may do in the future (it would also violate equal protection)
  
• 
  Another option is that punishment ought to be proportionate to other offense, thus more serious offenses would be punished the same as other serious offenses
  

• 
  Grading of offenses (Robbery 1: with a loaded gun, Robbery 2, etc.), this is a distinction made upfront where the prosecutor determines what the  will be charged with. You need to do break the crime into degrees if you have legislative control of sentencing (determinate sentencing: this only looks at the crime and not the person); grading solves the problem of unjust uniformity.
  
• 
  One definition of the offense (homicide), here the proportionality is determined in the back-end with the judge controlling sentencing (this is indeterminate sentencing: this looks at personal characteristics)
  
• 
  Justice Scalia feels the 8^th Amendment has no proportionality guarantee and thus this principle is merely an invitation to imposition of judge’s subjective values. The majority rule seems to be that the 8^th only forbids extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime (with legislatures able to determine most sentencing).