Talk:Model Penal Code

references / or
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)
 * 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)
 * 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
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)

bad link to Google cache
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)