Introduction
In the field of criminal law, unfinished crimes play a decisive role in identifying a criminal act that is not fully completed but shows a clear intent to commit a crime. One should study how the interaction between criminal justice and the law contributed to the changes and propose possible amendments to the California statute based on the needs of modern society. By examining the historical perspective of the common law and comparing it with the current state statute of California, one can gain insight into the evolution of the elements of this crime and the reasons for these changes.
Elements of Historical Common Law: Attempted Crime
Turning to historical common law, it can be found that the elements of the attempted crime were shaped by legal precedents and practices that prevailed before legislative codification. First of all, the behavior of the defendant must have been dangerously close to the commission of an intentional crime (Kamisar et al., 2022). That required a direct and unequivocal act of committing the crime, leaving no doubt about the defendant’s intentions.
In addition, there should not have been any ambiguity: the defendants’ actions should have demonstrated their criminal intent (Kamisar et al., 2022). Preparation alone was insufficient; there must have been clear evidence of intent to commit a crime. Moreover, the common law spoke of a virtual impossibility that did not serve as a defense (Kamisar et al., 2022). First of all, immediate attention was paid to the intent of the defendant and the actions taken to implement it, regardless of whether the actual completion of the crime was possible.
Elements of Current State Law
Under the historical common law, the crime of criminal attempt was characterized by specific elements that reflected the legal framework of the time. While the exact elements still vary by jurisdiction, one can highlight a few key features. In California, attempted crime is governed by Section 21a of the California Penal Code (California Law, 2022).
The statute contains the following elements: specific intent, overt action, substantial step, and non-commission of crime. The defendant has a concrete intention to commit a certain crime by demonstrating a conscious purpose or intent to engage in conduct that constitutes a crime (California Law, 2022). They had to take a direct but ineffectual step toward committing the intended crime (California Law, 2022). This step must go beyond mere preparation and demonstrate a clear intent to commit a crime.
Moreover, the defendant’s action must be an essential step towards the commission of the intended crime, indicating a firm commitment to its completion (California Law, 2022). The actual completion of the alleged crime is not required for an attempt charge (California Law, 2022). The focus is on the intent of the defendant and the significant steps taken to implement it.
Evolution of the Elements: Benchmarking in California
Having studied the elements of attempted crime under historical common law and the elements of current state law, a comparison should be made to trace the evolution of the crime and the reasons for changing its elements. Comparing the elements of an attempted crime under current California statute with historical common law shows significant changes in elements over time.
The first central element that changed over time was the transition from dangerously close to a significant step. Under historical common law, dangerous proximity has been a critical element requiring the defendant’s behavior to be perilously near committing a deliberate offense.
In contrast, California’s current state statute emphasizes the concept of a substantial step (California Law, 2022). This shift reflects a broader understanding of criminal behavior and recognizes that harm prevention is paramount. By focusing on essential steps, the law seeks to fix behavior that demonstrates a strong commitment to a criminal act, even if the crime is not threatening.
While historical common law emphasized the need for the unequivocal manifestation of malice, current California statute places more emphasis on specific intent. This evolution reflects that intent is key in distinguishing between criminal behavior and innocent acts today. In addition, the understanding of the actual impossibility has changed, and it can now be used as a defense. Current California statute recognizes actual impossibility as a defense against an attempted crime (California Law, 2022).
Unlike historical common law, which did not consider actual impossibility as a remedy, the modern statute recognizes that the possibility of committing an intended crime can affect criminal liability. This admission is consistent with a more subtle approach that takes into account the practical impossibility of committing the crime and places more weight on the defendant’s intention over actual feasibility.
Causes of Change and the Role of Criminal Justice
Several factors can account for changes in the elements of an attempt to commit a crime in California statutes compared to historical common law, including societal needs and the influence of criminal justice agencies. The past and changes in California law reflect the recognition of the importance of prevention and public safety.
By expanding the scope of a criminal attempt to include significant steps and specific intentions, the law seeks to intervene at an earlier stage, preventing harm before it occurs (Eldar, 2019). This change aligns with the role of criminal justice authorities, such as law enforcement and prosecutors, in taking proactive public safety measures.
In addition, the evolving elements of California law reflect a deeper understanding of criminal behavior. The recognition of specific intent as a central element recognizes the complexity of intent in determining guilt. This recognition is consistent with advances in legal understanding and the changing understanding of criminal behavior in society. Changes to the attempted crime law in California may also reflect the evolution of societal values and expectations (Nadler, 2022).
As society’s values and perceptions change, the law must adapt to reflect those shifts (Nadler, 2022). The desire for fairness, prevention, and accountability can influence changes in the law. Society is increasingly aware of the importance of addressing criminal behavior at an early stage and providing opportunities for rehabilitation and support (Nadler, 2022). Legislative changes reflect these changing societal values and the recognition that criminal justice should focus on prevention and rehabilitation and not solely on punitive measures.
Recommendations
Proposing new changes to California’s attempted crime law requires careful consideration of current societal needs and the goals of the criminal justice system. Based on these factors, potential changes could be considered to keep the bylaws current. For example, to improve the efficiency of criminal justice agencies, the statute may encourage closer cooperation and information sharing among law enforcement, prosecutors, and other relevant authorities (Sittig et al., 2018).
Better communication and data sharing can provide a more holistic understanding of individual cases, facilitate early intervention, and help identify patterns or trends in crime attempts (Sittig et al., 2018). Such cooperation can lead to more effective investigations, targeted interventions, and a proactive approach to crime prevention.
In addition, to better allocate resources and prioritize public safety, the law could introduce a distinction between high and low-risk attempts. High-risk attempts are associated with crimes that cause significant harm to individuals or society. In contrast, low-risk attempts are associated with less severe crimes (Klingele, 2020).
By distinguishing between these categories, the criminal justice system can focus on addressing high-risk attacks more urgently while allowing alternative approaches or diversion programs for low-risk attacks. Such an approach can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the justice system.
Conclusion
The offense of attempted crime has undergone significant modifications to its components compared to traditional common law and current California state statutes. California’s statute reflects a shift towards a more proactive approach, emphasizing substantive steps, specific intent, and recognizing virtual impossibility as a defense. These changes are in line with the needs of society, advances in the understanding of the law, and the role of criminal justice authorities.
By studying and analyzing these elements, one can gain insight into the development of the law and propose possible amendments that meet the current needs of society while ensuring an efficient and just criminal justice system in California. The current needs of society call for a dynamic and adaptable criminal justice system, and California’s attempted crime law can be improved to meet these needs. The proposed changes aim to create a more efficient and fair criminal justice system that promotes public safety and addresses the root causes of criminal behavior.
References
California Law. California Legislative Information. (2022). Web.
Eldar, S. (2019). Reforming the law of criminal attempt: Take Two. SSRN Electronic Journal. Web.
Kamisar, Y., LaFave, W. R., Israel, J. H., King, N. J., Kerr, O. S., & Primus, E. B. (2022). Modern criminal procedure, basic criminal procedure, and advanced criminal. West Academic Press.
Klingele, C. (2020). Making sense of risk. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 38(3), 218–225. Web.
Nadler, J. (2022). Criminal Law & Psychological Blame. SSRN Electronic Journal, 22-04. Web.
Sittig, D. F., Belmont, E., & Singh, H. (2018). Improving the safety of Health Information Technology requires shared responsibility: It is time we all step up. Healthcare, 6(1), 7–12. Web.