Explain the logic behind holding a person liable for an attempted, yet failed or incomplete act. Should the person be held to a lower standard than if the act had been completed successfully?
What will be an ideal response?
The doctrine of attempt developed as a means of controlling both potentially dangerous persons and activities. For one to be liable for attempting to commit a crime, there must be proof of the specific intent to carry out an act that constitutes a crime. General intent, meaning the person's general disposition to commit criminal acts at any time or against any person when the opportunity arises, is not sufficient. As the criminal law does not punish evil thoughts alone, there must be some evidence of a specific intention to commit an overt act in the pursuance of the intended crime. Courts generally require evidence of "some step" or "substantial steps" (Model Penal Code, 1962), which constitute perpetration of the criminal act.
You might also like to view...
Psychological and emotional abuse that involves the spreading of smears, rumors, and private information in order to harm his or her partner.
A. Relational aggression B. Recreational aggression C. Acquaintance aggression D. Feticide
Searches that produce evidence under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act may be admissible against criminal defendants even thought the primary goal of the Act was to facilitate national security through the collection of foreign intelligence
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
To improve the ethical climate of an agency, Souryal advocates all except:
a. randomly auditing the job performance of supervisory staff. b. establishing quality-based supervisory techniques. c. emphasizing true ethical training. d. upgrading the quality of personnel.
Many investigations have come up with evidence linking governors, state legislators, judges, and other government officials on all levels with syndicated crime
Indicate whether the statement is true or false