Talk:Model Penal Code

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

references / or[edit]

This article contains very few references. It also makes some claims which vague at best and possibly inaccurate. For example it states: Another important feature is that under the MPC, any action not explicitly outlawed is legal." I'm not a legal expert, but I'm sure pretty the US constitution had requirement (ex-post-facto clause), so any proposed code intended to be implemented in the US would have to have this "feature", making it rather unimportant.

I've added a "refimprove" template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.88.223 (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen nothing inaccurate here and I am an expert. The article could be better sourced however. Perhaps a zealous law student will someday add attributions. The MPC provision for proscriptive acts does not apply to retrospective acts protected by the rule against ex post facto laws. I'll add a sentence to refer individuals to that separate article. A better understanding of how ex post facto laws will show that the claim by the author of that section is neither vague nor inaccurate, but perhaps technical and demanding of further study to those unfamiliar with how the American rule works. Gx872op (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google search reveals this document :http://www.law.upenn.edu/fac/phrobins/intromodpencode.pdf, which I assume to be reputable source because the authors are lawyers themselves on top of being hosted by upenn (it also has sources itself). It would probably be of use to anyone trying to add references to this page (I found one just by looking quickly at the paper).Albert Cruz 05:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

I've moved the section in "Key Features" comparing the MPC to British law to its own "Criticism" section. Neither that nor the defense I raised are completely NPOV, though, and both could use citations. The argument being raised is that in the UK, a jury can vary the scope of a law to meet "social standards," while the response is that "bright line" rules should be used as much as possible to prevent oppressive, arbitrary enforcement and a resulting chilling effect on behavior. Even so, US law is far from a set of "bright lines," as juries are known to effectively practice jury nullification of laws -- a vagueness that contracts the scope of the law. The US also has some laws taking into account "the reasonable man," wherever he's hiding, and the Supreme Court's famously vague "I know it when I see it" definition of pornography. If we get into more of a discussion on the vagueness issue we should distinguish between vagueness that shrinks or expands the range of outlawed behavior. --Kris Schnee 15:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bad link to Google cache[edit]

The external link on the bottom of the page, "Can the MPC save the states..." is a search link into Googles cache. It uses a hardwired IP address and assumes that the cache entry is still valid, which it is not. I'd fix it, but I don't know what to replace it with. Branciforte3241 20:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]