NationStates Jolt Archive

A little legal question for you all, just for fun. In English Law, an attempt is "doing an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, with intention to commit the ulterior offence." This is often referred to as being 'on the job' of the thing you intend to do - something that can come a lot later in the act than you might think at first.

With this in mind, have a look at the following scenario, taken from a legal textbook.

D decides to kill V and with this intention he performs the following acts:

He spends several days observing V's movements in order to choose a good place and time for performing the killing.
He buys a gun and ammunition.
He visits a wood on several occassions for target practice.
On the day the offence is to be committed he loads the gun.
He drives to the scene of the proposed killing and hides in some bushes awaiting V's arrival.
He observes the road watching for V.
He sees V and takes aim.
He places his finger on the trigger.
He squeezes the trigger and fires the gun.


Where do you, members of the jury, think that the attempt is committed? There is no right or wrong answer; just explain why you think that the number you've picked is 'on the job', and not 'merely preparatory.'

I'd have to crank it all the way to 11

I'd have to crank it all the way to 11

What, at the funeral after the victim has been killed?

I think that goes some way past 'attempt'. :p

9.

Jury systems are flawed, foreign aberrations, so I can't speak for any of the British parts... but according to Swedish law, you have to attempt a crime for it to count as an attempt. Preparation is not enough - that would be conspiracy to commit a crime.

Basically, an "attempted" crime is a crime that you intended to commit but failed to commit after you had started committing it. So, for instance in a murder it's shooting at someone with the intent to murder and either missing or hitting without killing the victim or getting foiled in the act, for example, making it an attempt. Nine is the only thing that fits that description.

A little legal question for you all, just for fun. In English Law, an attempt is "doing an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, with intention to commit the ulterior offence." This is often referred to as being 'on the job' of the thing you intend to do - something that can come a lot later in the act than you might think at first.

With this in mind, have a look at the following scenario, taken from a legal textbook.

D decides to kill V and with this intention he performs the following acts:

He spends several days observing V's movements in order to choose a good place and time for performing the killing.
He buys a gun and ammunition.
He visits a wood on several occassions for target practice.
On the day the offence is to be committed he loads the gun.
He drives to the scene of the proposed killing and hides in some bushes awaiting V's arrival.
He observes the road watching for V.
He sees V and takes aim.
He places his finger on the trigger.
He squeezes the trigger and fires the gun.


Where do you, members of the jury, think that the attempt is committed? There is no right or wrong answer; just explain why you think that the number you've picked is 'on the job', and not 'merely preparatory.'

I'd say 7

What, at the funeral after the victim has been killed?

I think that goes some way past 'attempt'. :p

I just want to be sure the victim is infact dead and not just faking it

Under american law, I would say an attempt might fall at point 5 maybe 6. As for 5/6, at the point he has not only prepared all necessary tools and plans, but has actively taken steps to complete his act. Lying in wait is no longer mere preperation, but is an affirmative act deisgned specifically to bring a result.

Attempt is a very gray area, but I would think, as a prosecutor, I would feel comfortable at #6, as at this point he is no longer in preperation, but rather is now lying in wait, all preperations made. I say 5/6 because it's hard to seperate lying in the bushes, and waiting, I imagine there's that split second distinctio between when he crouches down, and when he sets his eyes on the road...but...ehh.

we need a poll!

Where do you, members of the jury, think that the attempt is committed?
Attempt, to me as a jury member, is not something that can be fine-tuned to a specific action; it has to be thought of as having decided on a plan of action and hardened the resolve to carry it out. With this in mind, I would state that the attempt is begun at the conclusion of step 1 and beginning of step 2.

9.

Jury systems are flawed, foreign aberrations, so I can't speak for any of the British parts... but according to Swedish law, you have to attempt a crime for it to count as an attempt. Preparation is not enough - that would be conspiracy to commit a crime.

Basically, an "attempted" crime is a crime that you intended to commit but failed to commit after you had started committing it. So, for instance in a murder it's shooting at someone with the intent to murder and either missing or hitting without killing the victim or getting foiled in the act, for example, making it an attempt.

That's interesting - I can easily see why you'd pick number 9, and would probably lean towards it myself. In English law, though, the question is one for the jury, and so some people might decide that an earlier number is more than preparatory.

A conspiracy in English law requires more than one person, ie you agree with another person that you will carry out an offence.

9, because in stages 1-8 I'm not convinced he has actually done anything prohibited by law.

Somewhere in the region of 4 or 5 I would imagine, dependant upon whether loading the gun at any point so as to commit the crime constitutes preparatory or on the job.

Step 5 or 7.

The time for preparation is over; Now he's taking steps to complete the crime.

Under american law, I would say an attempt might fall at point 5 maybe 6. As for 5/6, at the point he has not only prepared all necessary tools and plans, but has actively taken steps to complete his act. Lying in wait is no longer mere preperation, but is an affirmative act deisgned specifically to bring a result.

Attempt is a very gray area, but I would think, as a prosecutor, I would feel comfortable at #6, as at this point he is no longer in preperation, but rather is now lying in wait, all preperations made.

It's a very grey area here as well, as what is between 'merely preparatory' and 'on the job' is incredibly difficult to define. If I were prosecuting here, though, I might try for steps 5/6, but I'd be more confident in getting it after step 7.

Attempt, to me as a jury member, is not something that can be fine-tuned to a specific action; it has to be thought of as having decided on a plan of action and hardened the resolve to carry it out. With this in mind, I would state that the attempt is begun at the conclusion of step 1 and beginning of step 2.

But the law doesn't punish thoughts; I can think I want to do something, and even go so far as to plan it, and if the law is going to punish me for already going so far, why should I change my mind?

9, because in stages 1-8 I'm not convinced he has actually done anything prohibited by law.

Yes, he has. To my knowledge, acquisition of a gun in the UK generally constitutes an offence.

im not sure what the charge would be at #5 but i would certainly like him to be arrested at that point and tossed into jail.

at #7 there can be no doubt that he is attempting to kill V.

hmmmm at #1 he is stalking V isnt he? hmmmmm he is "on the job." i dont know what it would take to get a conviction at that point, it doesnt seem likely but he really is "on the job."

That's interesting - I can easily see why you'd pick number 9, and would probably lean towards it myself. In English law, though, the question is one for the jury, and so some people might decide that an earlier number is more than preparatory.

Well, I guess we'll just have to be lucky not to have a jury system once more in this country.

A conspiracy in English law requires more than one person, ie you agree with another person that you will carry out an offence.

Conspiracy may have been the wrong translation. Swedish law has a term called "förberedelse till brott" which means "preparation for crime" and a term called "stämpling till brott" (both different from "brottsförsök" = "attempted crime") which is more agreeing with someone to commit a crime, influencing someone to commit a crime or offering to commit a crime which would seem to fit more what you describe as "conspiracy".

Attempt, to me as a jury member, is not something that can be fine-tuned to a specific action; it has to be thought of as having decided on a plan of action and hardened the resolve to carry it out. With this in mind, I would state that the attempt is begun at the conclusion of step 1 and beginning of step 2.

Thats how I'd read it as well...

9.

There are other laws broken before that, but it is at 9 that the law in question applies and becomes attempted murder rather than merely threatening or anything like that.

It's a very grey area here as well, as what is between 'merely preparatory' and 'on the job' is incredibly difficult to define. If I were prosecuting here, though, I might try for steps 5/6, but I'd be more confident in getting it after step 7.

Yeah 7 is obviously an attempt. 6 pretty strong. 5 I could make a case out of.

4 MAYBE, maybe maybe maybe could make an argument for 4, but it's pushing it. Attempt has manifested CERTAINLY well before 9, and after 2-3. Where in there...it depends on your jury. I PERSONALLY think at 5. I might be able to argue for 4.

Yes, he has. To my knowledge, acquisition of a gun in the UK generally constitutes an offence.
Yes, but it's not the offence of attempted murder.

Well, I guess we'll just have to be lucky not to have a jury system once more in this country.
Not even for criminal trials? What do you have instead?

Conspiracy may have been the wrong translation. Swedish law has a term called "förberedelse till brott" which means "preparation for crime" and a term called "stämpling till brott" (both different from "brottsförsök" = "attempted crime") which is more agreeing with someone to commit a crime, influencing someone to commit a crime or offering to commit a crime which would seem to fit more what you describe as "conspiracy".
Interesting; I can't think of anything comparable to what you're describing in English law. I'll have a think about it.

Step 9

It wasn't until he actually discharged his weapon at V that any attempt upon D's life was executed. D could have gone all the way to step 8 and decided not to carry on. It wasn't until step 7 that a threat to V was present. Depending upon where you live steps 1 through 6 are not crimes.

But the law doesn't punish thoughts; I can think I want to do something, and even go so far as to plan it, and if the law is going to punish me for already going so far, why should I change my mind?
It's the fact that you have demonstrated that you are going ahead with the plan through the initiation of its first component part, hence the "conclusion of 1 and beginning of 2" rather than just "at part 1". We're at the boundary between free speech and infringement of the law, being the point at which words and ideas translate into action. The execution of a plan that demonstrably involves a criminal element is illegal under English law (( under the heading of Attempt, as long as it can be shown that the defendant was aware of this at the time )), regardless of whether or not the plan ever reaches the stage whereby a crime is committed.

9.

A guy can hide in the bushes and take aim at someone all they want, but if they change their mind then they never attempted to kill their target.

Once they shoot at them they have.

So 9.

Step 9

It wasn't until he actually discharged his weapon at V that any attempt upon D's life was executed. D could have gone all the way to step 8 and decided not to carry on. It wasn't until step 7 that a threat to V was present. Depending upon where you live steps 1 through 6 are not crimes.

In the US 7 is most certainly attempt. 6 is too. The question is not "could he have walked away" but rather "did he". If he walks away he no longer has manifested an intent. The question is, if he is STOPPED at any point, what point is it attempt?

Abandonment changes things dramatically, the whole point of attempt, typically, is that you are caught before doing your crime.

"9, because in stages 1-8 I'm not convinced he has actually done anything prohibited by law."---Eltaphilon

well, he most definitely has done things prohibited by law unless you live in one crazy place. But yeah, 9 is the attempt. Before that are several degrees of lesser offenses for things like the varying levels of assault

Number 2.

Basically, an "attempted" crime is a crime that you intended to commit but failed to commit after you had started committing it. So, for instance in a murder it's shooting at someone with the intent to murder and either missing or hitting without killing the victim or getting foiled in the act, for example, making it an attempt. Nine is the only thing that fits that description.

23 kap. Om försök, förberedelse, stämpling och medverkan till brott



1 § Har någon påbörjat utförandet av visst brott utan att detta kommit till fullbordan, skall han i de fall särskilt stadgande givits därom dömas för försök till brottet, såframt fara förelegat att handlingen skulle leda till brottets fullbordan eller sådan fara endast på grund av tillfälliga omständigheter varit utesluten.
Is this the current law describing "attempt" in swedish law?

9, because in stages 1-8 I'm not convinced he has actually done anything prohibited by law.

But, Philosophy, if you read the wording of the post I responded to, I am correct.

Not even for criminal trials? What do you have instead?

"Tribunals" would be the closest translation.

Interesting; I can't think of anything comparable to what you're describing in English law. I'll have a think about it.

Section 1
A person who has begun to commit a crime without bringing it to
completion, shall, in cases where specific provisions exist for the
purpose, be sentenced for attempt to commit crime if there was a
danger that the act would lead to the completion of the crime or
such danger had been precluded only because of fortuitous
circumstances.

Punishment for attempt shall be at most what is applicable to a
completed crime and not less than imprisonment if the least
punishment for the completed crime is imprisonment for two years
or more.

Section 2

A person who, with the intention of committing or promoting a
crime, presents or receives money or anything else as pre-payment
or payment for the crime or who procures, constructs, gives,
receives, keeps, conveys or engages in any other similar activity
with poison, explosive, weapon, picklock, falsification tool or other
such means, shall, in cases where specific provisions exist for the
purpose, be sentenced for preparation of crime unless he is guilty of
a completed crime or attempt.

In specially designated cases a sentence shall also be imposed
for conspiracy. By conspiracy is meant that someone decides on the
act in collusion with another as well as that someone undertakes or
offers to execute it or seeks to incite another to do so.

Punishment imposed for preparation or conspiracy shall be less
than the highest and may be less than the lowest limit applicable to
the completed crime. No greater punishment than imprisonment for
two years may be imposed unless imprisonment for eight or more
years can follow for the completed crime. Punishment shall not be
imposed if the danger of the crime being completed was slight.

Section 3

Responsibility for attempting, preparing or conspiring to commit a
crime shall not exist if a person voluntarily, by breaking off the
execution of the crime or otherwise, has prevented its completion.
Even if the crime was completed, a person who has unlawfully had
to do with means to that end may not be held criminally responsible
for that reason if he has voluntarily prevented the criminal use of
the means.

Section 4

Punishment as provided for an act in this Code shall be imposed not
only on the person who committed the act but also on anyone who
furthered it by advice or deed. The same shall also apply to any
other act punishable with imprisonment under another Law or
statutory instrument.

A person who is not regarded as the perpetrator shall, if he
induced another to commit the act, be sentenced for instigation of
the crime and otherwise for aiding the crime.

Each accomplice shall be judged according to the intent or the
negligence attributable to him. Punishments defined in law for the
act of a manager, debtor or other person in a special position shall
also be imposed on anyone who was an accomplice to the act of
such person.

The provisions of this paragraph do not apply if the law
provides otherwise in special cases. (Law 1994:458)

9.

A guy can hide in the bushes and take aim at someone all they want, but if they change their mind then they never attempted to kill their target.

Once they shoot at them they have.

So 9.

Under law though that's...not true. If you're sitting in the bushes, with a gun, and a cop finds you and arrests you, and it can be proven that you were there waiting to ambush someone and kill him, then you are most certainly guilty of attempted murder.

Again, it's not whether at what point COULD he have walked away, that's the not the question. The important consideration is, if he is stopped by the police, and his efforts thwarted, where is it an attempt?

IF he changed his mind that's one thing, but that's not what's happening in an attempt. An attempt crime typically revolves around trying, and failing. Not changing your mind and walking away. For there to be a crime of attempt he must be STOPPED at some point, stopped, while the intent is still in his mind.

And the question is, at what point is he stopped, with the intent in his mind, to have it be attempted murder? I say at least 6.

But, Philosophy, if you read the wording of the post I responded to, I am correct.

You can buy guns in the UK...

And it's one H. :)

But, Philosophy, if you read the wording of the post I responded to, I am correct.

I'm unsure if 4 qualifies...it might, it's a stretch...

English law, yes?

1.

Under law though that's...not true. If you're sitting in the bushes, with a gun, and a cop finds you and arrests you, and it can be proven that you were there waiting to ambush someone and kill him, then you are most certainly guilty of attempted murder.

Again, it's not whether at what point COULD he have walked away, that's the not the question. The important consideration is, if he is stopped by the police, and his efforts thwarted, where is it an attempt?

IF he changed his mind that's one thing, but that's not what's happening in an attempt. An attempt crime typically revolves around trying, and failing. Not changing your mind and walking away. For there to be a crime of attempt he must be STOPPED at some point, stopped, while the intent is still in his mind.

And the question is, at what point is he stopped, with the intent in his mind, to have it be attempted murder? I say at least 6.

Yeah, but it doesn't matter what the law says. The question is what I would say were I a member of the jury.

Is this the current law describing "attempt" in swedish law?

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12686851&postcount=30

I posted an English translation there. It's from 1999 and the law was changed slightly in 2001, but it's mostly the same so you get the jist. The golden word is: "A person who has begun to commit a crime without bringing it to completion[...]". Steps 1-8 would count as preparation, with several of the steps however being crimes in and of themselves and would count as completed, thus you would probably be prosecuted for them as separate crimes, but they do not amount to attempted murder so you'd probably not get prosecuted for that.

You can buy guns in the UK...

And it's one H. :)

So it is, I never noticed....:D

I would have thought, given all the hoo-haa about UK Olympic shooting teams practicing in Switzerland and all that, that a licence was at the least necessary?

Yeah, but it doesn't matter what the law says. The question is what I would say were I a member of the jury.

well, I would hope that were you to be called to be a member of a jury you would faithfully apply the law as is. Indeed, we here in the USA do have a word for when a juror chooses based on his or her own personal beliefs rather than a faithful application of the law.

That word is "mistrial"

"Tribunals" would be the closest translation.
Again, this is quite interesting. I think I know roughly what you mean - in reality, under English law, the vast majority of trials (I think 98%) are not heard before a jury. They are in the Magistrates Court, where a panel of three trained laypeople will hear the case and pass sentence. Only if the crime is more serious will it move up to the Crown Courts, where the juries are found.

IF he changed his mind that's one thing, but that's not what's happening in an attempt. An attempt crime typically revolves around trying, and failing. Not changing your mind and walking away. For there to be a crime of attempt he must be STOPPED at some point, stopped, while the intent is still in his mind.
But waiting in a bush could still be argued to be simply 'preparatory'; you are preparing yourself to commit the murder. With the intent the MR is clearly satisfied, but, until you're 'on the job', the AR is not yet complete.

But waiting in a bush could still be argued to be simply 'preparatory'; you are preparing yourself to commit the murder. With the intent the MR is clearly satisfied, but, until you're 'on the job', the AR is not yet complete.

It could, but in my PERSONAL belief it goes beyond preparatory. I take preparation to mean that which I do to prepare myself for the crime. Once I lie down in the bushes, I am no longer taking steps to prepare myself. Rather I have taken the overt act to lie in wait, I am no longer preparing myself, I am at my killspot, at the location I plan to commit my crime. No more preparation, just waiting.

That, to me, seems like "on the job".

im assuming that the police know each action along the way.

they know point zero, that D hates V with a murderous passion

they know he stalked V

they know he bought a gun and ammo, that he practiced using the gun,

they know that on that day he loaded the gun, that he went to the woods, that he lay in wait, that he aimed the gun, put his finger on the trigger and pulled it.

at what point would they arrest him?

surely in the UK he would either be arrested when he bought the gun and ammo or when he went to the woods.

if they knew he was stalking V, surely he would at least be sternly warned by the cop on the beat to knock it off.

well, I would hope that were you to be called to be a member of a jury you would faithfully apply the law as is.

Depends on the case, I guess.

I just can't imagine considering it an attempt if he never actually attempted to shoot the guy.

The way I see it, no actual attempt was ever made on anybody's life before step 9. There may have been other crimes committed along the way, but I couldn't justify voting for attempted murder unless a shot was fired.

If the defendant was arrested before step 9 then it would be, I suppose, a potential attempt.

im assuming that the police know each action along the way.

they know point zero, that D hates V with a murderous passion

they know he stalked V

they know he bought a gun and ammo, that he practiced using the gun,

they know that on that day he loaded the gun, that he went to the woods, that he lay in wait, that he aimed the gun, put his finger on the trigger and pulled it.

at what point would they arrest him?

surely in the UK he would either be arrested when he bought the gun and ammo or when he went to the woods.

if they knew he was stalking V, surely he would at least be sternly warned by the cop on the beat to knock it off.

Oh the problem is not at what point could they arrest him. They could probably arrest him for a series of things. It's at what point could be successfully charged with attempt.

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12686840&postcount=28

I posted an English translation there. It's from 1999 and the law was changed slightly in 2001, but it's mostly the same so you get the jist. The golden word is: "A person who has begun to commit a crime without bringing it to completion[...]". Steps 1-8 would count as preparation, with several of the steps however being crimes in and of themselves and would count as completed, thus you would probably be prosecuted for them as separate crimes, but they do not amount to attempted murder so you'd probably not get prosecuted for that.
I saw it :)
I'll repost part of it here:
Chapter 23, Swedish Penal Code: On Attempt, Preparation, Conspiracy and Complicity
Section 1
A person who has begun to commit a crime without bringing it to completion, shall, in cases where specific provisions exist for the purpose, be sentenced for attempt to commit crime if there was a danger that the act would lead to the completion of the crime or such danger had been precluded only because of fortuitous circumstances.
So, my question: Are you sure? If this is anything like here, I believe that you could be sentenced for attempt at an earlier stage than you suggest. As you say, the key word is "begun", but has he not begun the act when he places his finger on the trigger or takes aim? I doubt you should have to wait for him to actually pull the trigger to be convicted. At least, over here you would be convicted at an earlier stage than 9. Here it would be 7, with a possibility of going as far down as 5 depending on the circumstances. (Time elapsed, distance etc.)

It could, but in my PERSONAL belief it goes beyond preparatory. I take preparation to mean that which I do to prepare myself for the crime. Once I lie down in the bushes, I am no longer taking steps to prepare myself. Rather I have taken the overt act to lie in wait, I am no longer preparing myself, I am at my killspot, at the location I plan to commit my crime. No more preparation, just waiting.

That, to me, seems like "on the job".

And I don't disagree with you. If I were prosecuting, I would, like I said earlier, try for step 5. If defending, I think I could put together a strong argument as to why it wasn't an attempt unless the guy is left lying on the floor with serious injuries, but not actually dead.

That's why I find these grey areas to be the most interesting part of the law. :p

An addition to my previous post.

I'd say 7 should there be outside intervention from step 7 on. ie. A police officer or civilian intercedes. Or he gets mauled by a bear. (It could happen, he is hiding in a bush after all) Step 6 or prior, definatly no. One cannot attempt to murder someone who is not present to be murdered.

If the defendant was arrested before step 9 then it would be, I suppose, a potential attempt.

There is no such thing as a "potential attempt". An attempt is a potential, but stopped crime.

Something that has potential to have potential? kinda silly...

There is in some jurisdication a crime of "acts taken in furtherance of a criminal act" which would cover preperatory acts. But an attempt is that which that has the POTENTIAL to be a crime, not merely the point in which the final step along the way is made.

Again, this is quite interesting. I think I know roughly what you mean - in reality, under English law, the vast majority of trials (I think 98%) are not heard before a jury. They are in the Magistrates Court, where a panel of three trained laypeople will hear the case and pass sentence. Only if the crime is more serious will it move up to the Crown Courts, where the juries are found.

Well, then, it's sort of similar here. The crime will usually be heard before a judge (referred to in the law as "permanent salaried judge") and a panel of trained laypeople (usually 3-5), except of course if it reaches the Supreme Court where there is a panel of judges. However, juries are used in cases of freedom of speech/expression trials.

One cannot attempt to murder someone who is not present to be murdered.

Nonsense. If you're eatting at a restaurant and I sneak into the kitchen where your meal is being prepared and put poison in it this is not an attempt because you don't happen to be, at that time, standing in the kitchen?

Oh the problem is not at what point could they arrest him. They could probably arrest him for a series of things. It's at what point could be successfully charged with attempt.

with attempted murder?

from the point he lays in wait. if we know all the things he did before that, he is only stopped by circumstances.

Indeed, we here in the USA do have a word for when a juror chooses based on his or her own personal beliefs rather than a faithful application of the law.

That word is "mistrial"

That's OK; under English law, anyway, I think it's possible for a jury to pass judgement against the law if they feel the law to be unfair.

Also, in English law, it's considered contempt of court to disclose the jury's deliberations to anybody, even the judge, so my reason for voting really wouldn't matter.

with attempted murder?

from the point he lays in wait. if we know all the things he did before that, he is only stopped by circumstances.

which is at 5/6, which is what I said to begin with :p

There is no such thing as a "potential attempt". An attempt is a potential, but stopped crime.

Something that has potential to have potential? kinda silly...

Perhaps what I should have said was "potential to be an attempt".

Anything before step 9 has the potential to be an attempt. Step 9 is the attempt itself.

There is in some jurisdication a crime of "acts taken in furtherance of a criminal act" which would cover preperatory acts. But an attempt is that which that has the POTENTIAL to be a crime, not merely the point in which the final step along the way is made.

Well, no, an attempt isn't something that has the potential to be a crime. An attempt is a crime in and of itself.

Well, no, an attempt isn't something that has the potential to be a crime. An attempt is a crime in and of itself.

Yes, but the crime is doing that which has the potential to be another crime. Or rather, doing something, with intent to commit a crime, after significant preparations have been done. You've shifted the crime of attempted murder so far that it would only ever occur when someone is actually injured and, by happenstance, lives.

Yes, but the crime is doing that which has the potential to be another crime. Or rather, doing something, with intent to commit a crime, after significant preparations have been done. You've shifted the crime of attempted murder so far that it would only ever occur when someone is actually injured and, by happenstance, lives.

Yup.

This is what wiki (take it or leave it) says about attempted murder under English law:
There must be more than merely preparatory acts and, although the defendant may threaten death, this may not provide convincing evidence of an intention to kill unless the words are accompanied by relevant action, e.g. finding and picking up a weapon, and making serious use of it, or making a serious and sustained physical attack without a weapon

So, yes, I feel I would be justified in not voting guilty until step 9.

Yup.

ok, fine. But that's not, once again, how the law works. And jury nullification, which you alluded to before, is far more serious and far more involved than simply "ehh....I don't like it"

ok, fine. But that's not, once again, how the law works. And jury nullification, which you alluded to before, is far more serious and far more involved than simply "ehh....I don't like it"

I updated my post, but here's what I added anyway:


This is what wiki (take it or leave it) says about attempted murder under English law:
There must be more than merely preparatory acts and, although the defendant may threaten death, this may not provide convincing evidence of an intention to kill unless the words are accompanied by relevant action, e.g. finding and picking up a weapon, and making serious use of it, or making a serious and sustained physical attack without a weapon

So, yes, I feel I would be justified in not voting guilty until step 9.

I saw it :)
I'll repost part of it here:

So, my question: Are you sure? If this is anything like here, I believe that you could be sentenced for attempt at an earlier stage than you suggest. As you say, the key word is "begun", but has he not begun the act when he places his finger on the trigger or takes aim? I doubt you should have to wait for him to actually pull the trigger to be convicted. At least, over here you would be convicted at an earlier stage than 9. Here it would be 7, with a possibility of going as far down as 5 depending on the circumstances. (Time elapsed, distance etc.)

The thing is, though, putting a finger on the trigger is still not having begun to commit the crime (it is a crime in and of itself to point guns in such a fashion at people, but we're talking about murder now). You could still stop. The law does permit it to count as an attempt, though, if "such danger had been precluded only because of fortuitous circumstances". That basically means that 8 or 7 could count as an attempt if what stopped you was a "fortuitous circumstance", such as a police officer seeing you and stopping you and there is reason to believe that had he not, you would have committed the crime.

Take a bank robbery, for example. You can plan to do it and even go up to the bank in all your gear and stop yourself and then it would not count as an attempt. If however, you were stopped by this "fortuitous circumstance", say earlier in the planning, then it would be preparation or conspiracy, or as you are about to enter the bank and rob it and it is reasonable to assume that you stopped only because you were stopped then it would be attempted.

There has to be "a danger that the act would lead to the completion of the crime" and steps 1-8 do not count as such by themselves. 7-8 could, however, if you were foiled and didn't stop yourself. There is a degree of imminence that has to be met and whether 7-8 count as "attempt" depends on the circumstances, but absent you not being stopped by a "fortuitous circumstance" and you not having taken the shot, it's immensely difficult to prosecute you for "attempting" something you didn't begin to commit, in this instance murder. When do you begin a murder? When you put someone's life at risk. Pointing the gun isn't enough in and of itself since you still can stop before you put that life at risk.

EDIT: IMO, of course. Some might argue otherwise. That's why we have lawyers. ;) Then again, "iura novit curia".

Nonsense. If you're eatting at a restaurant and I sneak into the kitchen where your meal is being prepared and put poison in it this is not an attempt because you don't happen to be, at that time, standing in the kitchen?

That is a completely different situation from the one which Philosopy proposed. With a gun, a person has to be within range of the projectiles fired for it to pose a threat.

Had I gotten to step six, and you had been a thousand miles away instead of within range of my firearm, how great a threat do I pose to you at that moment?

Back here in Holland, he/she can be arrested at step 1. He/She is effectively stalking His/Her target...

Had I gotten to step six, and you had been a thousand miles away itstead of within range of my firearm, how great a threat do I pose to you at that moment?

The level of threat is irrelevant. In fact, it's been long held legal maxim that you can be guilty of an attempt crime even if the underlying crime would have been 100% impossible to commit. THe threat of it is irrelevant. You could be guilty of attempting to murder someone who was at the time already dead.

Attempt has nothing, absolutly nothing, zero, nada, zilch, zippo, to do with the threat you pose to someone. Threat ONLY has to do with the intent to do something, and acts that go beyond mere preparation to do it.

Whether i am in fact CAPABLE of doing it is irrelevant, as long as I INTENDED to do it

OK, Neo Art, just in case you don't believe the Wiki article, here's something from a transcript of a presentation by a Cambridge law lecturer:
The definition of attempted murder involves first doing a more than merely preparatory act; getting beyond preparation.
Source (pdf) (http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/microsites/openday/transcripts/graham_virgo.pdf)

Again, I would feel entirely justified voting for not guilty if the defendant hadn't fired a shot.

The level of threat is irrelevant.

Nonsense.

Nonsense.

No, he is right. If I decide to kill you using a cardboard box and start whacking you round the head with it, it is irrelevant that I won't actually kill you; I am 'on the job' and the intention is there. Likewise, if you see a body lying in the road and decide to run it over and kill it, it is still attempted murder, even if the body has in fact been dead for a week already.

Nonsense.

Under English law, s1(2) Criminal Attempts Act 1981 applies the Act even though the facts are such that the commission of the offense is impossible so long as, under s1(3), the defendant believes that he is about to break the law and intends to commit the relevant full offense.

I'd say that if you can be convicted of attempted murder even when the person you are attempting to murder is already, in fact, dead, then yes, the level of threat you pose is irrelevant.

How much threat do I pose to a dead man? How much risk do I present attempting to commit an impossible crime?

0

But even with 0 risk, even with 0 likelihood of success, I can still be guilty of attempt.

So...no, it really isn't all that much nonsense after all is it?

Whether i am in fact CAPABLE of doing it is irrelevant, as long as I INTENDED to do it

This would then make it conspiracy to commit murder rather than attempted murder.

number nine, at any point before then he could have changed his mind and not gone through with it and thus would be innocent of attempted murder. in fact even at option 9 he could have changed his mind an flicked his aim off as he pulled the trigger. in that instance he wouldn't be guilty either.

No, he is right. If I decide to kill you using a cardboard box and start whacking you round the head with it, it is irrelevant that I won't actually kill you; I am 'on the job' and the intention is there. Likewise, if you see a body lying in the road and decide to run it over and kill it, it is still attempted murder, even if the body has in fact been dead for a week already.

Except there is no body on the road to hit, or person to wack about the head with cardboard.

No, he is right. If I decide to kill you using a cardboard box and start whacking you round the head with it, it is irrelevant that I won't actually kill you; I am 'on the job' and the intention is there. Likewise, if you see a body lying in the road and decide to run it over and kill it, it is still attempted murder, even if the body has in fact been dead for a week already.

That's not true for all systems of law, for instance the Swedish one. The crime has to be committable for you to attempt to commit it. If someone's already dead, you can't commit the crime and hence there can be no attempts to it. If a prosecutor tried to prosecute you for the crime, the court would immediately ask: "Was there a danger that the action could lead to the intentional unlawful killing of this person?" The answer is no, since the person is already dead or in your example cannot be killed through the action.

"[...]be sentenced for attempt to commit crime if there was a danger that the act would lead to the completion of the crime" - if the crime cannot be completed, there is no danger of your action leading to its completion. The danger simply isn't there. Thus no attempt can be seen to have taken place.

However, you'd probably be found guilty of assault in the case of the cardboard, or desecration of a body in the case of the dead person. Again, there has to be this "danger".

OK, Neo Art, just in case you don't believe the Wiki article, here's something from a transcript of a presentation by a Cambridge law lecturer:

I know exactly what the law says on the subject. And as I said before, legal precident would suggest that conditions of lying in wait meets the satifactory elements is backed up by caselaw.

And in fact, I know it's english law, not american law, but given the great similarities between the two:

Allen alleges the district court erred in applying the Sentencing Guidelines by concluding he had acted with premeditation or by lying in wait to effectuate the attempted murder of Dennis Painter. We have previously noted that no set period of time is required to demonstrate premeditation. See Faust v. North Carolina, 307 F.2d 869, 871 (4th Cir. 1962). All that is required is that the defendant acted with a "cool mind [and] did, in fact, reflect, at least for a short period time before his act." United States v. Shaw, 701 F.2d 367, 392-93 (5th Cir. 1983).

United States v. Allen, 143 Fed. Appx. 519, 520 (4th Cir. 2005)

Gee, someone convicted of attempted murder while he was lying in wait? Sounds familiar....

Okay, I've done a bit of shopping around, and I can tell you that precedence exists in English courts for a guilty attempted murder ruling when the events themselves got no further than step 7.

I can also tell you that step 5, the act of hiding in the bushes with a loaded gun, would be sufficient to demonstrate a clear intent to break the law in American courts and thereby deem the act a formal criminal Attempt.

From what I can gather, it is a prevalent view that the crime is when a clear intent to commit crime moves from from resolution to action. In hindsight, it is certain that this is stage 2, since the actions of stage 5-9 make this intention obvious to us and 2 is action on the basis of this resolve. However, only when this resolution becomes apparent from one's actions does the perpetrator become prosecutable. There are arguments to be made at any point between stages 5-9, therefore, as to when enough actions have been taken as to render intent sufficiently clear as to warrant prosecution.

This would then make it conspiracy to commit murder rather than attempted murder.

um....no.

No, not even close. In fact, at no point in this hypothetical did the defendant do ANYTHING even REMOTELY resembling conspiracy.

Seriously, you can't just be throwing out legal terms willy nilly, they have real meaning...

That's not true for all systems of law, for instance the Swedish one. .

Which is all well and good, however the OP did ask about BRITISH law, not Swedish.

Which is all well and good, however the OP did ask about BRITISH law, not Swedish.

And I was calling British law nonsensical in this case.

I know exactly what the law says on the subject. And as I said before, legal precident would suggest that conditions of lying in wait meets the satifactory elements is backed up by caselaw.

And in fact, I know it's english law, not american law, but given the great similarities between the two:

United States v. Allen, 143 Fed. Appx. 519, 520 (4th Cir. 2005)

Gee, someone convicted of attempted murder while he was lying in wait? Sounds familiar....

Not to be rude, but I'll believe the Cambridge law professor over some guy quoting American precedent at me.

Which is all well and good, however the OP did ask about BRITISH law, not Swedish.

And I was calling British law nonsensical in this case.

English, please. You'll upset the Scots. :p

English, please. You'll upset the Scots. :p

I'm not afraid of the Scots. Remember the last time we made them our bitches? So easy...

Which is all well and good, however the OP did ask about BRITISH law, not Swedish.

English law. There's really no such thing as British law.

Not to be rude, but I'll believe the Cambridge law professor over some guy quoting American precedent at me.

the problem is, it's one thing to quote someone, and entirely another to understand what he's saying.

You haven't said anything that hasn't already been said in this thread, by the OP no less.

If you want to find british case law that backs up your point go ahead, but simply quoting something that, yes, I know, and no, doesn't change a thing, really doesn't help you.

um....no.

No, not even close. In fact, at no point in this hypothetical did the defendant do ANYTHING even REMOTELY resembling conspiracy.

Seriously, you can't just be throwing out legal terms willy nilly, they have real meaning...

Sure I can, it just doesn't make it correct. ;)

Sure I can, it just doesn't make it correct.

well...alright, I suppose I'll give you that.

It's raining purple on my walrus. Tomato!

the problem is, it's one thing to quote someone, and entirely another to understand what he's saying.

You haven't said anything that hasn't already been said in this thread, by the OP no less.

I am perfectly aware that it's already been mentioned in the OP. The trouble is that you seem intent on ignoring it, no matter how many times it's repeated to you.

If you want to find british case law that backs up your point go ahead, but simply quoting something that, yes, I know, and no, doesn't change a thing, really doesn't help you.

Let's take your very own words, which our discussion came from:
I would hope that were you to be called to be a member of a jury you would faithfully apply the law as is

So, frankly, case law doesn't matter. All that matters, in the context of our discussion, is that I would feel content that I had applied the law if I were to vote not guilty had the defendant been apprehended at any point prior to 9.

So, frankly, case law doesn't matter. All that matters, in the context of our discussion, is that I would feel content that I had applied the law if I were to vote not guilty had the defendant been apprehended at any point prior to 9.
But all 9 have happened. Surely we should be voting based on the evidence placed before us rather than hypothesising over guilt in a scenario with less evidence?

But all 9 have happened. Surely we should be voting based on the evidence placed before us rather than hypothesising over guilt in a scenario with less evidence?

The question is where you would consider it attempted murder. I've answered 9, and expanded by saying that I don't feel it would be attempted murder at any point before that.

Since then, my conversation with Neo Art has centred around the reasons why I wouldn't think the offence had been committed earlier than stage 9.

So, actually, I feel that a discussion based upon when I would vote for guilty is pretty much as relevant as you can get.

I'd say #9 - shooting at the guy.

If you miss, it's attempted murder.
If you hit, it's murder.