Elements of Criminal Act
For an offence to constitute a criminal offence, two elements must be satisfied: the accusers must regard the act as prohibited conduct and the mental intention or a guilty mind. “The prosecution must prove that in the most reasonable contemplation, the defendant alleged act, so-referred to an as criminal act, was constituted by the two elements” (Jackson, 1997, p.42). For example, supposing ‘A’ strikes ‘’B, without his / her consent. The claim of declaring ‘A’ as having committed an assault will hold only if the action of ‘A’ (striking B) stands out as the prohibited act with the guilty mind or mental element standing out as the intention of the striking. An exception of such a requirement is in the case of a strict liability in which the proof of the actual performance of an act is not required for guiltiness to stand. However, a person may strike the other person unwillingly through reckless behavior. In such a situation, assault is not committed since even though the execution of the action stands out, the person who stroke the other had no intent and therefore had not regarded his/her actions. Important to note are the cases of ancillary responsibility. Based on joint enterprise, a person who had not directly committed an act but participated in its planning may pass for a convict of the law. For instance, the guilty of the person who drives a getaway vehicle compares well with the guilt of the person who actually involves himself/herself in a robbery with or without violence. A person may also suffer charges proving him/her guilty of an offense even though the action constituting the prohibited conduct did not go up to completion. Rather the person had the mental intent to commit the crime. Even if the target person or place to which a planned criminal action is to be directed is not selected, the persons planning to commit the crimes can qualify as guilty of the offense on the grounds of conspiracy. For the case in question, Jack’s mission was to shoot Bert but accidentally shot Pratt. On realizing the mistake, he further proceeded to perform the second act: what he had priory intended to do. Unfortunately, the gun failed him. Proceeding to shoot the second time makes it clear that he had put his actions to a reasonable contemplation though never completed the action. Consequently, the element of mind guilt or mental intent to commit a crime qualifies. On such grounds, Jack deserved no acquaintance hence declaring the court wrong in dismissing the attempted murder charge.
Attempt and Impossibility
In legal terms, criminal attempt “…occurs when a person, with the intent to commit an offense, performs any act that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that offense” (Lippmann, 2008, p.107). Criminal attempts appear in two kinds: ‘incomplete’ and ‘complete, but An incomplete. Incomplete attempt takes place when the accused does all acts as intended but does not manage to achieve his/ her criminal objective. ‘Complete, but imperfect’ attempt occurs when the accused accomplishes substantial efforts toward committing a criminal act toward the plaintiff but decides to quit or encounters interception before the complete performance. On the other hand, impossibility, takes the forms of “factual, ‘inherent’ factual, hybrid legal, and pure impossibilities. The case in question pertains to factual impossibility. “Factual impossibility” exists when a person’s intended result constitutes a crime, but he fails to consummate the offense because of an attendant circumstance unknown to him or beyond his control” (Britain, 1990, p.47). Impossibility amounts to an incomplete attempt. Jack could not have managed to shoot Bert since the gun malfunctioned (jammed), something that he could not have controlled to permit the complete performance of his criminal objectives. Applying the general rule, “At common law, legal impossibility is a defense; factual impossibility is not” (Britain, 1990, p.56). In respect to the mentioned case of Jack, Bert, and Pratt, the cited defense of impossibility: factual impossibility should not have warranted the jury to grant it. Having pulled the trigger the intent to kill is clear in the mind jack!
Moral concerns of granting impossibility
Where acquaintance of criminal responsibility is the granted on successful application of legal defense of impossibility, enormous threats are posed to the ethical and moral perceptions of the criminal by the society. An individual is no single island. He/she lives in a society. For the acute distinction between various societies, there stand various codes of conduct that dictate between the right and the wrong thing or action. “The codes of conduct are the social norms, which are specific and completely distinguish one society from the other” (Kramer, 2004, p.98). Laws purposely govern conduct of individuals by inculcating fear of punishment. Morality “when it is internalized, when it has become habit-like or second nature, governs conduct without compulsion. The virtuous person does the appropriate thing because it is the fine or noble thing to do” (Kramer, 2004, p.109). However, despite the difference between law and morality, laws that defend values justify that morality and law coexist. Such laws include: laws that regulate crimes such as murder, fraud, bribery, etc. if a criminal can escape law, meaning that the person frees from punishment, how possible could the person adore the moral and ethical codes of conduct whose neglect do not involve direct punishment on the person? Erosion of moral or ethical uprightness of a person, reciprocates to permanent rejection of the person in the society. Avoiding criminal responsibility by successful assertion of impossibility defense does not convert the criminal into a better person-so regarded by the society as of good moral or ethical soundness. Rather the person’s moral and ethical force of command dies completely.
References
Britain, G. (1980). Criminal Law, Attempt, and Impossibility In Relation To Attempt, Conspiracy and Incitement (Law Com). Northern Ireland: H.M.S.O.
Jackson, L. (1997). The Framework of Criminal Law (Legal Framework). London: Routledge publishers.
Kramer, K. (2004). Where Law and Morality Meet. Oxford: OUP Oxford.
Lippmann, W. (2008). Public Opinion. Miami: BN Publishing.