<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: good help - great series
Review: I think that the "Examples and Explanations" series is the best for exam preparation - this particular book relies a lot on the Model Penal Code. Since my CrimLaw professor doesn't really use the MPC, it hasn't been as useful as it could have been - but it's still helpful.
Rating: 
Summary: Seems Great, but really isn't
Review: If you absolutely have no idea what's going on in Crim, or you attend a 3rd tier school, go ahead and get this book. If you want clarity in subjects you've learned (which is the point of this book) or if you're a fan of Glannon, DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK!!This book is very well organized. It's chapters are categorized with clarity. A law student usually looks at the table of contents and briefly skims the pages to say "ah this book is good." And in this case, yes, it would seem good. Upon closer examination, we realize it isn't. Let us not forget the sole purpose of this book: To help us UNDERSTAND the material already in our case books, not to regurgitate it. All this book does is repeat in different words what we have read in class, and are struggling to understand. This book does not EXPLAIN the rules it sets forth. If you know books by the brilliant Joseph Glannon from the same Examples & Explanaions series, you know that he'll tell you a rule, explain it with clarity, and give you a real easy made-up hypothetical in which that rule would apply. Not this book, it's explanations of the books are cited to Cases that we READ!! Let's think about this: If we can't understand the case and thus we turn to this book to seek an explanation, how does it help to rearticulate what we don't understand? Secondly,
Criminal law is difficult because it involves both common law and the model penal code. I don't think these authors know the difference, or don't realize students would get confused if they mixed up terms that would differentiate the two types. For example on pages 255-258, this book attempts to compare common law v. model penal code and their respective levels of culpability. The four specific terms from the MPC are Purpose, Knowledge, Reckless, Negligent. On page 255, they attribute two of these specific words (not inaccurate but confusing) to the common law, yet on page 258 they don't even use the word "knowledge" to describe MPC instead use "purpose" generally and "belief" What's the big idea?! Last rant: as an example of confusion check out page 265 bottom of the page. "If he attempts to do something that he thinks is a crime but is not, then he is not guilty of attempt. Thus, legal impossibility is not a true defense..." What?! the first sentence would suggest that it IS a defense, but do they try to explain this apparent contradiction? nope. I plan to return this book to amazon after I finish typing this.
Rating:
Summary: Seems Great, but really isn't
Review: If you absolutely have no idea what's going on in Crim, or you attend a 3rd tier school, go ahead and get this book. If you want clarity in subjects you've learned (which is the point of this book) or if you're a fan of Glannon, DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK!! This book is very well organized. It's chapters are categorized with clarity. A law student usually looks at the table of contents and briefly skims the pages to say "ah this book is good." And in this case, yes, it would seem good. Upon closer examination, we realize it isn't. Let us not forget the sole purpose of this book: To help us UNDERSTAND the material already in our case books, not to regurgitate it. All this book does is repeat in different words what we have read in class, and are struggling to understand. This book does not EXPLAIN the rules it sets forth. If you know books by the brilliant Joseph Glannon from the same Examples & Explanaions series, you know that he'll tell you a rule, explain it with clarity, and give you a real easy made-up hypothetical in which that rule would apply. Not this book, it's explanations of the books are cited to Cases that we READ!! Let's think about this: If we can't understand the case and thus we turn to this book to seek an explanation, how does it help to rearticulate what we don't understand? Secondly,
Criminal law is difficult because it involves both common law and the model penal code. I don't think these authors know the difference, or don't realize students would get confused if they mixed up terms that would differentiate the two types. For example on pages 255-258, this book attempts to compare common law v. model penal code and their respective levels of culpability. The four specific terms from the MPC are Purpose, Knowledge, Reckless, Negligent. On page 255, they attribute two of these specific words (not inaccurate but confusing) to the common law, yet on page 258 they don't even use the word "knowledge" to describe MPC instead use "purpose" generally and "belief" What's the big idea?! Last rant: as an example of confusion check out page 265 bottom of the page. "If he attempts to do something that he thinks is a crime but is not, then he is not guilty of attempt. Thus, legal impossibility is not a true defense..." What?! the first sentence would suggest that it IS a defense, but do they try to explain this apparent contradiction? nope. I plan to return this book to amazon after I finish typing this.
Rating: 
Summary: Response from a student at a 3rd tier school who can read...
Review: In response to the reviewer that gave this book just one star: Refer to page 265. Yes, the explanation on legal impossibility is confusing. It does say, "If he attempts to do something that he thinks is a crime but is not, then he is not guilty of attempt. Thus, legal impossibility is not a true defense under the MPC." Directly after, the book clarifies, stating "Rather, the prosecutor must prove that there is a criminal statute punishing what the defendant intended to accomplish." If you can read enough to determine context, which students at even lowly third tier schools can do, then this book is helpful. I give it three stars only because it is not as concise as other E&E's that I have used and because it devotes entirely too much space to commentary on how confusing criminal law is where it should be explaining the law. After all, we wouldn't be reading the book if we thought criminal law was easy to understand.
Rating:
Summary: Response from a student at a 3rd tier school who can read...
Review: In response to the reviewer that gave this book just one star: Refer to page 265. Yes, the explanation on legal impossibility is confusing. It does say, "If he attempts to do something that he thinks is a crime but is not, then he is not guilty of attempt. Thus, legal impossibility is not a true defense under the MPC." Directly after, the book clarifies, stating "Rather, the prosecutor must prove that there is a criminal statute punishing what the defendant intended to accomplish." If you can read enough to determine context, which students at even lowly third tier schools can do, then this book is helpful. I give it three stars only because it is not as concise as other E&E's that I have used and because it devotes entirely too much space to commentary on how confusing criminal law is where it should be explaining the law. After all, we wouldn't be reading the book if we thought criminal law was easy to understand.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent.
Review: This book was extrodinarily helpful in breaking down complex subjects into understandable pieces of information. Great buy.
<< 1 >>
| 
