No real reason to ask this, but I have come to wonder about something.
How realistic of an attempt does something have to be to be attempted murder? is the decideing factor anywhere in the intent of the person?
there is a guy around here, wears a cape and casts “death spells” on people he doesn’t like. he has a really elaborate ritual he goes through, and he seems to truely belives they will work (its part of his religion… which he claims is bushido… which I got a letter from the school when I pointed out that bushido isn’t even a religion… and certainly not one with death spells but a code of ethics like chivlry) hes odviously just nuts… so not a good example.
but what about religions that DO belive in curses… can you send someone to jail for doing curses? if someone TRUELY belives they are murdering me by doing some ritual, is it against the law?
a diffrent way to phrase the question. does the act a person do actually have to be harmful, or do they just have to intend to hurt someone. what if I poison someone’s drink with sodium… then decide to be extra murderous and poison them extra by adding some cloride.
is that legal? its an attempt to give someone a violent death but through some bad luck and skipped chemestry classes I really didn’t do anything that harmful… dopeing a drink with a little salt can’t be to very against the law.
but in that case it seems clear that someone trying that would be guilty. would a magic based attack be diffrent? can the government rule a religion incorrect? and say its okay to cast death spells because its a silly and wrong belive
Attempt usually requires specific intent to commit the crime, and an act in furtherance of the intent. Factual impossibility is usually not a defense to attempt, but I’m really uncomfortable with calling a curse “an act in furtherance” of anything.
I don’t know about criminal law, but I would think that if one could reasonably demonstrate that both the cursor and cursee truly believed in the hokum being thrown around, one might have a case of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. What one needs to prove depends on the jurisdiction, some still require some actual harm, some don’t.
Interesting, I think you could make the case. See section 5.01(1) of the MPC, if you are in an MPC jurisdiction. But also take a look at Section 5.05(2) which states that:
IANALYet either, but my guess is that the judge will probably decide that there are more ‘worthy’ people who belong in jail and let voodoo man go. Of course, every state may be different.
Sounds like a question a first-year law student might be asked, doesn’t it? In fact, Emanuel’s offers this example:
Personally, I think it’s silly. If V had died, they couldn’t have convicted D of murder, even if he thought he was responsible. The act he commited (sticking pins in a doll) was not in furtherence of any crime.
Like Nametag says, you’ve hit on a classic scenario law school professors use to demonstrate “factual impossibility”; that no matter how hard a person tries, the underlying crime can’t be committed in this way. Factual impossibilty is usually not a defense to an attempt crime, but in real life attempted murder for voodoo is unlikely to ever get prosecuted.
Also, the sodium would probably react violently with the water before you could ever get the chlorine in.
aye, I know probobly a voodoo case would be thrown out. was sorta an exagerated case. got me wondering how good of an atempt you had to make before it was against the law.
