(I’ve been wondering) how you could be charged for a crime that you didn’t actually commit.
In the Dateline series, perverts (can’t think of a better name) chat with adults on line then arrange to meet them. Of course, they think they are chatting with kids, but they are actuallly soliciting sex and visiting adults.
Now, the perverts are scum in my book – no doubt about it. But from a legal angle, it always annoyed me, because they never spoke to a minor, never visited a minor and never committed a crime with a minor. A phantom crime has happened, but they don’t get phantom legal proceedings.
To highlight my potentially idiotic point, let’s say a computer that has been programmed to imitate a human chatter on-line engages me in convo, taunts me, enrages me thru various means, and dares me to come over and do something about it, saying things like, " feel free to grab a knife from the kitchen and I dare you to come over to 123 Sycamore and kill me".
Completely enraged, I drive there, march into the house – invited – and I storm upstairs with a Ginsu and I go bonkers stabbing a pillow.
I can be charged with attempted muder for stabbing a pillow after a computer dared me to do it???
…how you could be charged for a crime that you didn’t actually commit.
You’re charged with a crime you DID commit - namely, the attempt to commit another crime. When you arrange with a minor to have sex, you are attempting to violate the law. You failed, not because you renounced your effort and withdrew, but because external circumstances made it impossible for you to complete the crime. So you never committed the crime of sex with a minor, but you did complete the crime of attempted sex with a minor.
It’s more like you tried to shoot them with a real, loaded gun, but the Mythbusters got a hold of it and stuffed a chicken in the barrel or something without your knowledge, rendering you unable to kill the co-worker.
The point can be made that the suspect believed he/she was talking to a minor. The ones busted in the Dateline episodes even took the time to drive over to the agreed upon metting place at the agreed upon time.
In the end, a jury is allowed to infer what the suspect believed by his actions.
He can try to claim he knew all along that it was a joke/hoax/sting, and that he didn’t really mean what he said, but he’s gonna have to be an oscar winning actor for that kind of defence…
The same logic is applied to folks who are busted for attempting to buy narcotics from undercover police officers. It was the intent to buy that got them busted, not the actual possesion of controlled substances.
No, as far as I know, it’s not against the law to “kill” something that isn’t alive. But you can be busted for trespassing, breaking and entering, vandalism, and stuff like that.
An “imaginary gun”? Your index finger? Your guilty of being annoying, at the most.
No. At the most, “Threats of terrorist act”, or some other intimidation type of charge. Not attempted murder.
However, if you tried to rob a liquor store with nothing but a bar of soap (carved and colored to look like a pistol), it is still armed robery. You are using the threat of death to convince the clerk to hand over the cash. The clerk believed the soap to be a gun, so the threat was very real to him.
But they believed they were chatting with a minor. They set up a meeting, and went to it with the intention of having sex with a minor. They were foiled only by the fact that there was no minor there. So they did not have sex with a minor. But they ATTEMPTED to have sex with a minor. Attempt of a felony is itself a crime, as a general rule.
Probably nothing. Because you knew, or should know, that no harm can come from an imaginary gun shooting imaginary bullets.
But – suppose I know you’re contemplating killing your coworker. To prevent a tragedy, I remove the bullets from your gun and file down the firing pin. You come into the office, draw your gun, declare that your employment is a thing of the past and you intend to kill your coworker, aim, and pull the trigger, fully expecting the gun to go off. You’re not guilty of murder. But you are guilty of ATTEMPTED MURDER.
Depends. What was your mental state? If you knew the gun was fake, then – no. If you believed the gun was real, and picked it up and aimed it intended to kill, but were foiiled because I replaced your real gun with a realistic-looking and realistic-feeling fake… yes. Attempted murder.
If it could be proved that you thought the gun and bullets were real then in most jurisdictions you could be charged with attempted murder or threatening behaviour or similar.
I think this is the point you are missing here: does the perpetrator believe that his actions were viable? Does he intend to commit a crime. The intention to commit a crime is itself a crime in most jurisdictions, simply because it is both difficult and impractical to only charge people after a crime has actually been committed. Thus attempted burglary is no different to actual burglary just because the cops nabbed you climbing in the window, or your jemmy broke. You had the intent to commit the crime and if that can be proved ot a jury you will be charged with that intent.
If you an imaginary gun and an imaginary bullets then presumably you don’t believe that they are real, and thus you had no intention of commiting the cirme. Certainly we coudl never prove to a jury that you had such an intention. Your next hypothetical is closer to the cases being discussued…
Yes, attempted murder or similar if it can be proved ot a jury that you belived the gun was real and had real intent to kill someone. This is no different to a sting where you hire an undercover cop to kill your spouse. You still get charged with incitement to murder or accesory to murder even if the cop was a fake hitman that looked real.
The reason why you wouldn’t actually be charged with attempted murder in your hypothetical is there is no practical way to prove to a jury that you thought the gun was real. Now if you had arranged to meet with someone who would give you the gun moments before the murder, and had stated explicitely on camera that you belived the gun was real, and were then filmed pointing and pulling the trigger, then you could and may well be charged. That’s because a jury could then be convinced of your intent.
And child sex stings are not different. The jury has all the evidence needed ot convince it of your intent.
1 Man wants to kill neighbor.
2 Man buys gun and ammunition.
3 Man loads gun.
4 Man (w/o trespassing) aims gun.
5 Man changes mind and doesn’t pull trigger.
This, it seems to me, is not attempted murder.
But suppose someone else stops him at point 2 3 or 4. He still had a
chance to actually get to 5 (after any stage he was stopped at) but the
stoppage prevented this. Is this just a matter of fact for the jury to
decide? Now I agree if he’s stopped at stage 3 say, it would be difficult
o prove he ever wanted to commit murder, but suppose that is not the
point of argument.
There are a number of ways in which attempt can come about.
An attempt may be charged when the accused deliberately and knowingly engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the surrounding circumstances were as he believed them to be, or as a reasonable person similarly situated would believe them to be.
Or an attempt can be charged when the accused deliberately and knowingly engages in conduct which, under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, is an act constituting a substantial step in the course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime.
That is attempt under the second (“substantial step”) approach.
However – hold the phone. We must now discuss the concept of renouncing the crime.
An accused renounces his attempt if he abandons his effort to complete the crime. This is generally an affirmative defense to the crime of attempt, and the burden of proof is on the accused to show that his abandonment was voluntary, complete, and originated entirely with him. If he discovers he’s out of bullets, for example, that’s not renunciation. If the decision arises from his mind and not some external force or motive, he may argue that he renouced his course of criminal action. Obviously, this must occur before he completes the crime in question.
So…
This man could claim renunciation of criminal purpose as a defense to the crime of attempt.
There was an episode of The Practice where almost this exact scenario played out. If there are inaccuracies in my recollection here, or if the legal reasoning is wrong, I’ll let Bricker or some other law-type person correct me.
A man had a workshop in his attic where he kept a detailed journal fantasizing about killing his wife, planning it as “the perfect crime” – he planned to say she slipped and hit her head on the leg of their table or piano or something, and even built a big fake wooden leg to hit her in the head with so the skin abrasions / bruises / fractures / whatever would look appropriate.
At some point his wife discovered his workshop and had him arrested on a charge of attempted murder.
The prosecution said that you have to commit “an overt act” to be guilty of attempted murder, and building the fake leg was the overt act. They read sections of his journal where he talked about how wonderful it would feel to hear the crack of the wood against her skull and to finally be free of her. They said that he had gone beyond the point of no return and that, if not for the intervention of the police, he would have gone through with it and actually tried to kill his wife.
The husband, however, claimed that it was all an elaborate fantasy, and that he just did it to make himself feel powerful and in control when his wife would yell at him. He pointed out that he had been planning it for years, and had never done anything about it in real life – his journals were just creative writing, and said that “planning the perfect crime” was basically his hobby.
It was interesting, because I had no idea if the guy was telling the truth or not.
He was acquitted eventually, but I still wasn’t sure.
There’s a reasonable standard that applies. For example, if you try to shoot somebody with a gun but the bullets were defective and wouldn’t fire, you could be charged with attempted murder because a reasonable person with the knowledge you possessed would have believed that his actions would cause the victim’s death. If on the other hand, you tried to kill somebody by stabbing a voodoo doll of them, you couldn’t be charged with attempted murder even if you sincerely believed your action would cause their death because a reasonable person would not believe a voodoo doll was capable of killing anyone.
When does this become entrapment? Isn’t there a difference between the police reviewing transcripts of emails between a suspect and an actual minor, vs. the police pretending to be a minor and trying to nail him?
I just tried to shoot my coworker with a gun that was fake, but looked real. Nothing happened. Attempted murder?
IANAL but I’ve had some experience with these issues. They’re a common occurance where I grew up. Gun play is a fact of life in many places.
If your coworker saw you doing this and was frighterned by it, then you’re guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. It doesn’t matter if the gun is fake.
Even if you just showed the coworker that you had a gun (held it up for them to see but didn’t point it at them) you would be guilty of “brandishing a weapon.” It doesn’t become ADW until you point it at them.
If the person being threatened can reasonably fear for their life or safety, then any sort of threat is an assault. I was in my local once when a customer threatened the bartender: “I’ll kick your ass, you f’ing bitch.” He was arrested and convicted of assault.
Did you watch the end of the segment? because they explain what they’re charged with at the end of each show. Sometimes they even tell you what sentences they received. It’s a great segment, too. But yeah, they are committing a crime, they are attempting to solicit minors in sexual activity, they are committing lewd acts against a minor and are enticing minors into sexual situations.
Entrapment is a lot more difficult to establish than you might think. The majority rule is that for an entrapment defense to be established it has to be shown that not only did the crime originate with law enforcement, but that the defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime. If the police merely offer an opportunity to commit the crime to a person otherwise ready and willing to commit it, there’s no entrapment.
But wait… couldn’t slowing down in front of the house and then driving away (i.e. not following through) be considered renouncement? So the guy had the proverbial gun pointed at the proverbial victim, but decided not to fire, and therefore no crime?
Back in the other thread referred to in the OP, it’s said that police are arresting people just for driving by. I would infer that they’re not stopping, checking out the place, seeing a police presence, and renouncing their endeavor due to involuntary circumstances. If they’re just driving by, isn’t that prima fascie evidence that they’re renouncing their intent to commit the crime? Maybe some of these guys have no intention of ever committing the crime, but they get their kicks out of being able to arrange such things. (An analogy: I don’t ever plan on cheating on my wife, but damn! It’s nice to know that I could have the Battlestar Galactica version of Lucy Lawless anytime I wanted to.)
Not having seen the show in question in which it’s stated what they’re charged with after the segment, perhaps they’re being charged with something different. The Virginia law that you cited in the other thread mentions that carnal knowledge requires physical acts, which at this point haven’t been performed. In a general or specific sense, what’s the law say about chat room conduct? Possession of child porn is illegal, but assume they’re just in text chat. Is there a crime there if there’s never any intention to follow through?