The Ethics Of An Incomplete Attempt

909 WordsJan 18, 20164 Pages
An incomplete attempt is where the attempter had planted a bomb but is detained before he could set the bomb off. There have been many arguments put back and forth to punish incomplete attempts as you would if you had completed the attempt. Treating incomplete more leniently was first brought to our attention by Sir Blackstone (Ashworth, A 1988) whom stated that the ‘affirmed punishment must only be in accordance with the actions that have been committed’ (Jacqueline M, 2013). Further arguing that incomplete should have greater leniency than complete attempts is due the attempter’s chance of voluntary abandonment. The attempter may change his mind voluntarily and not gone through with the unlawful act. From my personal perspective, I feel it would be legally and morally justified for the attempter to occur the same punishment as that of the completed offender because even if they voluntarily had not gone through with the unlawful act they had the mere preparation in place. Although mere preparation cannot be used, you would consider other factors and implications like the level of intent the defendant had. It is important to remember the punishment of an attempt is at the judge’s discretion. Therefore if the offence is the offender’s first attempt, the judge may be more lenient to let them off with a less punishment, despite them having all the intention required to commit the crime. Attempts to Commit the Impossible Under the Criminal Attempts Act S.1 (2) 1981 it states
Open Document