試み

Attempt — Grokipedia Fact-checked by Grok 3 months ago Attempt Ara Eve Leo Sal 1x In criminal law, an attempt is an inchoate offense consisting of the specific intent to commit a substantive crime coupled with an overt act that constitutes a substantial step toward its completion, yet falling short of achieving the full criminal result. [1] [2] This doctrine punishes preparatory conduct deemed sufficiently proximate to the intended harm, reflecting a policy to deter dangerous behavior before harm materializes, though it requires distinguishing mere preparation from punishable attempts. [3] [4] The elements of criminal attempt universally demand mens rea in the form of purposeful intent to perpetrate the target offense—not mere recklessness or negligence—and actus reus via conduct beyond preparation, such as acquiring tools or reconnoitering a crime scene under circumstances indicating commitment. [1] [5] Under the Model Penal Code's influential formulation, adopted in many jurisdictions, the act must strongly corroborate the actor's criminal purpose, while traditional common law emphasized proximity to success or the "last proximate act." [1] [6] Penalties typically grade attempts as one degree lower than the completed crime, allowing for felony treatment even if the target offense is minor, with federal law mirroring this approach. [2] [7] Historically, the crime of attempt emerged late in English common law , absent from early treatises and not systematically formulated until the 19th century , evolving from ad hoc prosecutions for specific felonies to a general doctrine applicable across offenses. [8] [9] Defenses include factual impossibility in some older views (e.g., attempting to pick an empty pocket), though modern law largely rejects it in favor of focusing on intent and conduct; legal impossibility, however, remains a bar, as one cannot attempt what is not criminal. [1] [10] Controversies persist over borderline cases, such as the sufficiency of online solicitations or feigned acts, underscoring tensions between prevention and overcriminalization. [11] [12] Conceptual Foundations Definition and Purpose In criminal law , an attempt is an inchoate offense consisting of the intent to commit a substantive crime coupled with an overt act that constitutes a substantial step toward its completion, without the crime actually being consummated. [1] [13] The mens rea element requires specific intent to achieve the prohibited result or engage in the prohibited conduct of the target offense, distinguishing it from mere recklessness or negligence sufficient for some completed crimes. [13] [5] The actus reus demands more than preparatory acts, such as acquiring tools or planning, but rather conduct that strongly corroborates the actor's criminal purpose and creates a reasonable likelihood of advancing toward the crime's execution. [1] [5] The purpose of criminalizing attempts is to intervene against individuals who demonstrate a clear dangerousness through purposeful conduct directed at causing harm , thereby protecting society from the risks posed by such actors even when the full offense does not materialize due to external factors like intervention or good fortune. [14] This rationale rests on the recognition that the intent and substantial actions involved signal a high probability of future criminality if unchecked, justifying punishment to deter progression and incapacitate threats before completion. [13] Unlike preparation , which remains non-punishable to avoid overreach into innocent planning , attempt liability targets the point where renunciation becomes improbable and societal harm is imminent. [5] Penalties for attempts are typically graded lower than for completed crimes, reflecting the absence of actual harm while still affirming accountability for the culpable mindset and deeds. [14] Core Elements: Actus Reus and Mens Rea Criminal attempt requires proof of both actus reus , the guilty act, and mens rea , the guilty mind, adapted to reflect the inchoate nature of the offense. Unlike completed crimes, where actus reus involves the full execution of prohibited conduct, attempt's actus reus demands only conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the target offense, beyond mere preparation. [2] This threshold ensures liability attaches to dangerous proximity to harm without requiring its actual occurrence. [15] The mens rea for attempt mandates specific intent , or purpose, to commit the substantive crime, irrespective of the mental state required for its completion. [6] Defendants must act with the conscious objective of achieving the criminal result or engaging in the proscribed conduct, as mere recklessness or negligence suffices neither for attempt liability nor aligns with the doctrine's rationale of preempting imminent threats. [15] For instance, attempt liability for homicide necessitates intent to kill, precluding conviction based on reckless endangerment alone. [2] Under the Model Penal Code (§5.01), which influences many U.S. jurisdictions, attempt culpability mirrors the purpose required for the underlying offense, coupled with conduct that either advances a plan to culminate in the crime or represents a substantial step under the defendant's believed circumstances. [16] Substantial steps include acts like reconnaissance or possession of materials tailored to the offense, evidencing commitment. [2] Common law variants employ tests such as "dangerous proximity" to the result or unequivocal acts implying no innocent purpose, reinforcing that actus reus must demonstrate irrevocability short of completion. [17] Factual impossibility does not negate these elements, as liability hinges on the defendant's intent and progress under perceived facts, not objective feasibility. [15] Historical Evolution Common Law Origins The doctrine of criminal attempt emerged gradually in English common law , initially absent from early medieval precedents, which emphasized completed harms over preparatory acts due to the retributive focus of the blood-feud system underlying primitive criminal sanctions. [9] [18] Early common law adhered to the principle that an unconsummated endeavor to commit harm constituted no offense, reflecting a causal realism where punishment required actual injury rather than mere intent or proximity to it. [18] Limited exceptions arose in contexts like high treason , where statutes from the 14th century onward, such as the 1351 Treason Act, penalized preparatory acts toward compassing the king's death, treating them as constructive completion due to the existential threat posed. [9] The first judicial recognition of attempt as a distinct misdemeanor at common law occurred in Rex v. Scofield (1784), where the defendant ignited wet flax in an effort to burn a haystack, failing due to the material's dampness; the court convicted him of a misdemeanor attempt, establishing that an overt act toward a felony , even if factually impossible, warranted punishment if it demonstrated dangerous proximity to the intended crime. [19] This case marked a shift from preparatory impunity , influenced by evolving societal needs to deter public dangers, though attempts remained misdemeanors punishable by fines or short imprisonment rather than the capital or corporal penalties for completed felonies. [17] Prior isolated precedents, such as 17th-century convictions for attempts to poison or assault with intent, had treated such acts as aggravated variants of battery or trespass rather than a general category of inchoate liability. [18] By the early 19th century , the doctrine coalesced into a general principle applicable to felonies, as articulated in cases like Rex v. Higgins ( 1801 ), where an unsuccessful inducement to commit sodomy was deemed an indictable attempt, requiring proof of specific intent ( mens rea ) to commit the substantive offense coupled with an overt act unequivocally renunciative of mere preparation. [2] Courts distinguished attempt from conspiracy or solicitation by demanding direct movement toward perpetration, excluding equivocal preparations like acquiring tools or reconnoitering sites unless fused with immediate execution. [17] This common law framework, devoid of statutory codification until later reforms, prioritized empirical evidence of volitional proximity over abstract moral culpability , reflecting a pragmatic balance against overcriminalization while addressing causal threats to social order . [9] Codification and Reforms The offence of attempt, initially developed through English common law precedents without statutory codification, underwent gradual reforms to address ambiguities in its elements, particularly regarding the required proximity of acts to completion and the treatment of impossibility. By the 19th century, as criminal law expanded, legislative efforts sought to integrate attempts into broader codes; for instance, the English Draft Criminal Code of 1878–1880, prepared under James Fitzjames Stephen, proposed provisions treating attempts as inchoate offences punishable by half the penalty of the completed crime, though comprehensive codification failed due to parliamentary resistance favoring judicial discretion. [20] Similar pushes in the United States, influenced by David Dudley Field's Penal Code of 1865 in New York, incorporated general attempt clauses applicable to felonies and misdemeanours, shifting from purely judge-made law to statutory frameworks that emphasized intent and overt acts. [21] A pivotal reform occurred in England and Wales with the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, which abolished the common law offence and enacted a unified statutory definition under section 1: a person is guilty of attempting to commit an offence if, intending to commit it, they perform an act that is more than merely preparatory to its commission and which they believe constitutes such a step. This addressed prior inconsistencies, such as the common law's f