The criminal law is designed with a view to shielding the individual rights of the voter and the health and well being of society as a cohesive unit.
One of the most arguable areas of the criminal law is definitely its contribution to penalising criminal attempts.
Criminal law often concerns itself with punishing people who have committed injustices against the individual or against society, and this is usually particularly effective in making sure a feeling of lawful community and deterring the bulk of law breakers in their actions.
One of the most important questions most legal systems face is when, if at all, to intervene in completely legal behavior in help to stop a crime from happening? Consider the example of a gunman looking to kill a good friend.
Is he arrested at that point for tried murder? He goes to a hill near his friend’s house with the gun. Here? He’s taking target and starts to squash the trigger? What about now?
It is very hard to translate the most beneficial point to interpose in doubtless criminal behavior. On one hand there’s encroaching on civil freedoms, while on the other there’s a manifest threat to life and life, as well as property.
Drawing the line has been especially hard in the recent past, and has been the cause of regime draftsmen several headaches in interpreting what the law should be. Consider next the eventuality of the burglar pinching from an empty pocket.
Psychologically and physically he has committed enough acts to be found guilty of the crime, but simply as there was no wallet to be robbed, should he walk free?
Seeing as there had been no wallet, he could never be found guilty as charged of burglary, but should he be responsible in attempt? The answer in most jurisdictions is yes, but again this presents further issues.
Say as an example, you have got a wannabe drug dealer who buys a number of paracetamol. He sells these in the mistaken belief they’re illegal – he could never be found guilty as charged of supplying controlled drugs, but could he be convicted on the grounds of his attempts?
Most jurisdictions again say yes, with the reason that dangerous folk should be stopped in their tracks. Though a fair point, this type of debate doesn’t sit well in a modern context, particularly where civil freedoms and human rights play such a huge role in law internationally.
In addition, the theory of desertion is a little bit of a varied bag, with some nations swinging one way and others another.
What’s certain is that the criminal law may feel required to arbitrate in certain circumstances to stop harm to their voter, which would certainly be a major consideration in mitigation for wrongful arrest.
The postulate of the law of attempts is highly fascinating, and of specific note is the express treatment across the sector of both desertion and illegality. Maybe in an era of larger harmonisation, we intend to see more world authority on the applying of these elements.