Harvard Law School has published more than a century’s worth of its exams for anyone who’d like to prove to themselves that taking law school exams for 127 straight years would suck. The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog observes that property exams have become undeniably easier in the last century-plus. I wondered the same for Criminal Law. Presented for your evaluation, from 1872’s Criminal Law exam:
- What is necessary to constitute the crime of treason?
- What is necessary to constitute the plea of not guilty?
- What is the difference between larceny from the person and robbery?
- What is a felony? What a misdemeanor?
Meanwhile, the first question to 1995’s Criminal Law exam (presented after a two-page hypothetical situation that you can read in riveting detail here):
- Should D be prosecuted for rape? If he is prosecuted for rape, to what extent and in what respects is his mental capacity relevant to his guilt or innocence?
- With respect to B’s death, is D plausibly liable for any form of homicide?
- For what crimes, if any, is the waiter in the bar or the owner of the bar plausibly liable?
- With respect to the events that took place in July, of what crimes, if any, is D liable?
I’m going with the WSJ Law Blog on this one. I’m going back to 1872 and getting my fancy Ivy League J.D. — heck, tuition was less than $150 a year back then!