|
Attempt in criminal law is an offense that occurs when a person comes dangerously close to carrying out a criminal act, and intends to commit the act, but does not in fact commit it. The person may have carried out all the necessary steps (or thought they had) but still failed, or the attempt may have been abandoned or prevented at a late stage. The attempt must have gone beyond mere planning or preparation, and is distinct from other inchoate offenses such as conspiracy to commit a crime or solicitation of a crime. There are many specific crimes of attempt, such as attempted murder, which may vary by jurisdiction. Punishment is often less severe than would be the case if the attempted crime had been carried out. Abandonment of the attempt may constitute a not guilty defence, depending partly on the extent to which the attempt was abandoned freely and voluntarily. Early common law did not punish attempts; the law of attempt was not recognised by common law until the case of b. Rex v. Scofield in 1784.〔(Chapter 7: Attempt, Conspiracy, and Solicitation ) Lippman's Contemporary Criminal Law, Student Study Site, Copyright 2008 SAGE.〕 The essence of the crime of attempt in legal terms is that the defendant has failed to commit the ''actus reus'' (the Latin term for the "guilty act") of the full offense, but has the direct and specific intent to commit that full offense. The normal rule for establishing criminal liability is to prove an ''actus reus'' accompanied by a ''mens rea'' ("guilty mind") at the relevant time (see concurrence and strict liability offenses as the exception to the rule). ==The ''actus reus'' (guilty act) of attempted crime== Whether the ''actus reus'' of an attempt has occurred is a question of fact for the jury to decide after having heard the judge's instructions regarding the law. The common law precedent is used to distinguish between acts that were merely preparatory and those sufficiently ''proximate'' or connected to the crime. However, sometimes it is hard to draw the line between those acts which were merely preparatory, and those that went and executing a plan, will always go through a series of steps to arrive at the intended conclusion. Some aspects of the execution of the act will be too ''remote'' or removed from the full offense. Examples are watching the intended victim over a period of time to establish the routines and traveling to a store to buy necessary tools and equipment. But the closer to the reality of committing the offense the potential wrongdoer moves, the greater the social danger they become. This is a critical issue for the police who need to know when they can intervene to avert the threatened harm by arresting the person. This is a difficult policy area. On the one hand, the state wishes to be able to protect its citizens from harm. This requires an arrest at the earliest possible time. But, most states recognise a principle of individual liberty that only those people who actually choose to break the law should be arrested. Since the potential wrongdoer could change their mind at any point before the crime is committed, the state should wait until the last possible minute to ensure that the intention is going to be realized. England and Wales In English law, an attempt is defined as 'doing an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence' according to the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.〔"Herring: Criminal Law"〕 "The test of proximity was that the defendant must have ...crossed the rubicon, burnt his boats, or reached a point of no return".〔''DPP v Stonehouse'' () 2 All ER 909 per Lord Diplock.〕 So the defendant has reached that part of the series of acts, which if not interrupted, frustrated, or abandoned, would inevitably result in the commission of the intended offence.〔''Stephen's Digest of the Criminal Law''.〕 But section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 defines the ''actus reus'' as that is "...more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence," that allowed liability to attach slightly earlier in the sequence of acts. Subsequent ratio decidendi have abandoned the more formal common law ''last step test'', leaving it to the jury to decide.〔See ''R v Jones (KH)'' () 1 WLR 1057.〕 A defendant who changes their mind after the act is sufficiently proximate, is still guilty of an attempt although the change of heart could be reflected in the sentencing. However, there is some uncertainty as to what exactly 'more than merely preparatory' means. It is upon the discretion of the judges and the jury to decide. Major criticism was attracted after the judgement in R v Geddes, where the court acquitted the defendant who was trying to kidnap a young boy, stating that he had not gone far enough, and his acts were 'merely preparatory'.〔"Herring: Criminal Law"〕 New York State In New York law, the element of ''actus reus'' is that the person engages in conduct that "...tends to effect the commission of such crime."〔N.Y. Penal Law section 110.00, which may be found at (New York State Assembly web site ).〕 The test this requires either: * An action that reveals a criminal intent, that is, ''res ipsa loquitur'', or "the thing speaks for itself," or * The person has dangerous proximity, or is "dangerously near and close to the accomplishment of the crime."〔''People v. Acosta'' (N.Y. Court of Appeals 1993).〕 Model Penal Code Under the Model Penal Code, for a defendant to be convicted of attempt requires that they perform a "substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in (defendant' )s commission of the crime" (MPC 5.01(1)(c)). 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Attempt」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|