My only reasonable contribution to this thread:
Virginia really is a commonwealth.
Not quite the same thing, Ryan. It seems the issue here is more that the justification for outlawing behavior is that it is detrimental to someone/something(s). But the issue is that if the action could never be done (it was impossible) then what was the state protecting?
According to the site below, mere possession of more than 28.5 gm (1 oz) of marijuana gets you the following in California:
Possession
<=28.5g.:$100
>28.5g.:0-6 mos.; $500
Posession for sale
16 mos.-3; $20,000
Note that “possession” is mere possession so it would seem that proof of intent to do anything other than carry it isn’t requred. If it can be shown that you intended to sell the punishment is worse as you can see.
Federal law seems to be worse:
FEDERAL
Possession
Any amount: 0-1; $2,500
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_faq_laws.shtml
I had no intention of making this a discussion of drugs. The reference was intended only to show that, in my opinion, we may sometimes go overboard in reducing the requirement that some actual bad act be performed.
Since your Profile lists you as a prosecutor, Hamlet, I would expect you to take a different view. Maybe in Illinois intent has to be proved which makes your job harder. But hey, that’s why they pay you the big bucks.
I have a problem with the drug laws that assume that you had the intent to distribute when you possessed over a certain amount. Back when I smoked pot, I would occasionally buy rather large quantities for personal use only. Doing so made a lot of sense - if I bought a quarter pound, I did not have to buy more for at least a couple of months, which reduced my risk of getting busted. It also saved me a lot of money, the quarter pound that I could buy for under $160 would have cost me up to $480 if I bought it by the usual quarter-ounce bag. I had no intent to sell my drugs, but if I had been busted with that large of an amount there would be a good chance I would be treated as a drug dealer instead of just a drug user. If someone had offered me a good deal on a pound of weed and I had the money I would have jumped at the opportunity, knowing I wouldn’t have to worry about running out for almost a year.
As to law enforcement people entrapping people for sex crimes by pretending to be minors, this seems like it would be really easy to defend yourself from. One could just say that they knew that the person wasn’t really 13 and that you were engaging in some mildly disturbing but wholly legal sexual role-playing. If the person had the foresight to realize that the supposed 13 year old they were chatting with might possibly be a police officer, it would be smart to say something to the effect of ‘You can’t possibly be under 18’ at least once during each and every chat. It would be seen as flattery by a real 13 year old and be useful to your defense should you need to defend yourself. One might even claim that there are certain code phrases that are used during your supposed sexual role-playing to let your partner know that you aren’t really underage without coming out and saying it.
If the crime can only be proven through supposed knowledge of what the defendent actually knew and was thinking then it should be very hard to prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Even the case of someone trying to shoot someone and having the gun misfire could be reduced from attempted murder to a very mean prank if you claimed that you knew the chamber was empty or that the bullet was a dud.
Sorry, I’m not clear on what should go in the brackets.
It was increasing the expected value of the penalty. Let’s say that I’m considering doing action x, which is illegal. And suppose that every time I attempt x, there’s a probability p that it will turn out to be impossible, and I will be caught. Then my expected punishment per attempt is increased by xps, where s is the sentence for attempting to do x. Presumably, increasing the expected punishment will reduce the number of people willing to attempt x.
But under my admittedly convuluted definition, belief alone is not enough. The action (sticking pins in a doll) is not capable of causing a crime (homicide) so the fact that the witch doctor believed that it was doesn’t mean he is guilty of a crime. On the other hand, consider a man who intends to kill someone and shoots his victim in bed but failed because the victim had placed a dummy under the covers. This man committed an action (shooting at what he thought was a person) which would be a crime if his assumption was true.
Ryan, do you have contextual processing problems? [What you said] is not quite the same thing [as what the OP meant]. Of course, reading the second sentence should have made that clear.
I know what it was *doing[/i[, not what it was protecting. So I’ll just leave my question on the floor.
I don’t really see your point. In either case, the perps are taking actions which would be murder if their beliefs had been accurate.
The only difference is how reasonable the false assumptions are, no?
Seems to me it’s all about your views on prevention or deterrence of crime as a valid reason for incarceration, or simply the propriety of society’s defending itself by preventing actions against it.
Someone who has tried to commit a crime, knowing it would be crime, has shown his intention to do so, obviously. Preventing or deterring him from trying it again is usually thought of as a proper thing for society to do. So what if there was some other factor he was not aware of at the time? The law has a preventive function, not just a punitive function.
It definately appears that way.
David Simmons, I don’t want to further hijack this thread, but you’re still wrong, so I will be very brief. There are two separate charges: Possession of X, and Possession with Intent to Sell X. The difference between the two is the intent to sell, which the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Possession does not automatically become possession with intent at a certain amount of X. That’s true in Illinois, it’s true in California, and it’s true for every State I’ve ever heard of.
Every single crime in the United States has a required act, or actus rea. For murder, it’s taking somebody’s life. For conspiracy, it’s an agreement to commit a criminal act. Even an Attempt charge requires a substantial step be taken. You’re wrong again.
Now THAT is funny. Big Bucks. Teeheehehehehehe.
No, police officers would still be able to run almost all of the same operations they do now, even with the impossibility defense. The only ones they wouldn’t would be when the officers are pretending to sell a controlled substance which is, in fact, not. Most every other type would not be affected. And the “drastic hidden costs” would affect almost every other Attempt crime out there.
Shooting someone with a gun can cause death. Sticking pins in a voodoo doll cannot cause death. Beliefs have nothing to do with this.
So if I believed I was shooting someone, I would be doing something that could cause a person’s death, if I was doing was what I was thinking I was doing. But if I was sticking pins in a voodoo doll, I couldn’t cause anyone to die, regardless of whether or not I’m doing what I’m thinking of doing.
Think of a series of four questions: Did the accused take an action? Did the accused believe his actions would cause a result? Would his actions have caused the result he believed it would have? Would that result be a crime? If the answer to all four is yes, then the impossiblity defense should be disallowed. But in the case of attempted voodoo murder, the answer to the third question would be no.
Shooting a “dummy” cannot cause death any more than sticking pins in a voodoo doll can.
**
If you shoot a “dummy” you cannot cause anyone to die, regardless of whether or not your doing what you’re thinking of doing. (whatever that means)
Would you mind supplying the unstated condition for this conditional question? i.e. fill in the blank:
“Would his actions have caused the result he believed it would have, IF _________________”
It surely would, as entrapment is a complete defense. However, in the situation posed, it was not entrapment since the idea arose in the defendant.