Sample Questions for Optional Review Final

Some of these questions pertain to material we didn’t cover this semester. They are included merely to give you a sense of the kinds of questions that may be asked.

1. What is the connection between strict liability and the rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse?

(A) In both cases, the element of mens rea is required for criminal responsibility.

(B) In both cases, one can be guilty in the absence of a morally wicked intention.

(C) Both apply only in cases of malum prohibitum.

(D) Both apply on in cases of inner wickedness.

2. What was the position of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education concerning the “separate but equal” rule established in the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

(A) The Court endorsed Harlan’s Plessy dissent, clearly affirming that all forms of racial segregation and discrimination are unconstitutional, regardless of the equality of inequality of results.

(B) The Court did not overturn the Plessy “separate but equal” rule, but instead it asserted that, in education at least, separate facilities are never in fact equal, citing sociological data.

(C) The Court reaffirmed Plessy and ruled that segregation in education could continue as long as the quality of the educational facilities available to the two races was made equal.

(D) The Court avoided the issue entirely and decided the case on narrow, technical grounds, that had no effect on the legality of segregation.

3. According to the Court’s reasoning in U. S. v. Leon, what is the primary purpose of the exclusionary rule?

(A) To ensure that only the guilty, and not the innocent, are punished.

(B) To prevent the justice system from being “contaminated” by improper searches, even when these searches are carried out by police officers who believe them to be based on valid and reasonable warrants.

(C) To deter intentional misconduct on the part of the police and other officers of the state in the area of searches and seizures.

(D) To conform U. S. practice to the well-established principles of international law.

4. If we apply Scanlon’s autonomy argument of the speech to the question of obscenity, what would be the result?

(A) It is unlikely that it would be protected, since the discussion of philosophical and religious questions does not require obscene expression.

(B) It would be protected, since any attempt to regulate what the public can read or see on the grounds of its effect on their minds and characters would amount to improper thought control.

(C) It would probably not be protected, since on Scanlon’s theory, the government may regulate speech to prevent harm to others.

(D) Obscenity would be protected, since Scanlon’s theory demands an absolute ban on any regulation of speech with respect to its content.

5. Why did the Supreme Court rule, in Collins v. Smith, that the direct emotional harm caused by the display of certain symbols is not great enough to override the freedom of speech?

(A) Because the state may not interfere with the marketplace of ideas on the grounds that certain ideas are false or immoral, or offensive to certain groups.

(B) Because it is impossible to quantify the exact amount of the pain inflicted by such symbols.

(C) Because no amount of harm, of any kind, is capable of outweighing the overriding interest of the state in the free dissemination of information.

(D) Because society benefits from the vigorous debate and discussion that results from such offensive displays.

6. What was the difference between the legal basis for a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade and in Planned Parenthood v. Casey?

(A) Right to privacy in Roe, and a right to liberty in Casey

(B) Right to liberty in Roe, and a right to privacy in Casey.

(C) No difference -- an appeal to privacy only in both cases.

(D) Casey rejected the constitutional right to abortion created in Roe.