125:
Country 1. The actor believed that her act was a crime, and even fully intended to commit a crime. However, Country 1 does not, in fact, ban lace from
Country 2. The traditional approach to understanding the legal impossibility defense is that the mistake (about the content of the law of Country 1) insulates the actor from a conviction for the crime of attempted smuggling. The
172:(1953), the defendant shot a stuffed deer, thinking it was alive, and was convicted for attempt to kill a protected animal out of season. In a highly debated reversal, an appellate judge threw out the conviction on the basis of legal impossibility, concluding that it is not a crime to shoot a stuffed deer out of season.
135:
of the crime (because they had not actually brought a banned substance into the country). To put it another way, merely trying to commit a crime is insufficient to constitute a criminal attempt; for criminal liability to attach, the actor must be attempting to engage in behaviour that is actually
124:
or statutory crime. The underlying rationale is that attempting to do what is not a crime is not attempting to commit a crime. One example of legal impossibility is a person who, thinking that
Country 1 has banned the importation of lace from Country 2, attempts to smuggle some "banned" lace into
150:
impossibility involves an error as to factual reality (the state of the world) that causes the actor to fail to commit a criminal offence when, if the circumstances were as the actor believed, the offence would have been committed.
74:
for shooting at a hole in the roof, believing his victim to be there, and indeed, where his victim had been only moments before but was not at the time of the shooting. Another case involving the defense of factual impossibility is
112:
An act that is considered legally impossible to commit is traditionally considered a valid defense for a person who was being prosecuted for a criminal attempt. An attempt is considered to be a
474:
Kayla
Barkase and David Macallister, "Impossibility in the Law of Criminal Attempt: A Comparison of Canada, Australia and New Zealand" (2014) 14 Oxford University Commwealth Law Journal
95:
a drunken, unconscious woman were guilty of attempted rape, even though the woman was actually dead at the time sexual intercourse took place.
357:
525:
481:
475:
451:
281:
224:
506:
Nicola
Monaghan. "Impossibility". Criminal Law Directions. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press. 2016. Chapter 15.5.3. Pages
271:
52:. This is not to be confused with a "mistake of fact" defense, which may be a defense to a specific intent crime like larceny.
480:
David D Friedman, "Impossibility, Subjective
Probability, and Punishment for Attempts" (1991) 20 The Journal of Legal Studies
60:
An impossibility occurs when, at the time of the attempt, the facts make the intended crime impossible to commit although the
322:
87:
436:
E M Burchell and P M A Hunt. South
African Criminal Law and Procedure. Third Edition, by J M Burchell. Juta & Co. 1997.
116:
impossibility when the defendant has completed all of his intended acts, but his acts fail to fulfil all the required in
22:
493:"Impossibility and inchoate crimes - Another hook in a red herring" in "Case and Comment" New Zealand Law Journal 426
499:"Impossibility and inchoate offences". Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine. Section 9.5. Pages
552:
242:"Once More unto the Breach:The Inherent Liberalism of the Criminal Law and Liability for Attempting the Impossible"
462:
Hellmut A Erwing, "Impossibility as a
Defense to Criminal Attempt" in "Notes" (1963) 17 Southwestern Law Journal
450:
J S Strahorn, "The Effect of
Impossibility on Criminal Attempts" (1930) 78 University of Pennsylvania Law Review
77:
241:
98:
In Japan, the corresponding category is "不能犯". A commonly used example is when someone attempts murder with
456:
Jerome B Elkind, "Impossibility in
Criminal Attempts: A Theorist's Headache" (1968) 54 Virginia Law Review
117:
308:
85:
was charged and convicted of fraud, despite the fact that a fictitious name was used to catch him. In
168:
547:
377:
45:
21:
This article is about the criminal defense. For the excuse for non-performance of a contract, see
444:
100:
66:
398:
358:"許された危険の法理に基づく因果関係論の克服 (Überwindung der Kausalitätslehre durch die Lehre vom erlaubten Risiko)"
507:
500:
369:
277:
220:
182:
514:
557:
468:
John J Yeager, "Effect of
Impossibility on Criminal Attempt" (1943) 31 Kentucky Law Journal
71:
33:
520:
R S Clark, "The Defence of Impossibility and Offences of Strict Liability" (1968 to 1969)
189:
82:
541:
328:
215:
Richard M. Bonnie; Anne M. Coughlin; John C. Jefferies, Jr.; Peter W. Low (1997).
531:
521:
494:
487:
437:
430:
423:
429:
Jonathan Burchell and John Milton. "Impossibility". Principles of Criminal Law.
469:
155:
impossibility involves an error as to a legal reality (the state of the law).
131:
121:
49:
463:
373:
61:
37:
486:
C L Ryan and G P Scanlan, "Attempted Impossibility - Dead or Alive" (1983)
422:
Desmond O'Connor and Paul A. Fairall. "Impossibility". Criminal Defences.
247:. George Mason University School of Law - Hastings Law Journal. p. 13
104:. This would be a case of 不能犯, and does not constitute attempted murder.
457:
41:
129:
may be thought of as reflecting that the actor had not satisfied the
70:, 95 Cal. 666, 30 P. 800 (1892), the defendant was found guilty for
158:
However, it is not always easy to identify whether an actor made a
48:
to commit. Factual impossibility is rarely an adequate defense at
16:
Criminal defense often used as a crime cannot be committed at all
92:
443:
R A Duff. "Impossible Attempts". Criminal Attempts. 1997.
530:"Immmigration Offence - Defence of Impossibility" (1983)
44:
that failed only because the crime was factually or
433:. Juta & Co. 1997. Chapter 16. Page 175 to 177.
219:. Westbury, NY: The Foundation Press. p. 251.
426:. Butterworths. 1996. Chapter 7. Pages 117 to 148.
399:"Attempt -Impossibility Unavailable as a Defense"
146:which is not generally a defense at common law.
64:is unaware of this when the attempt is made. In
91:the court held that men who believed they were
490:The Law Society's Gazette 1902 (27 July 1983)
276:. Oxford University Press. pp. 149–151.
8:
265:
263:
261:
513:Blackstone's Criminal Practice 2012. Pages
210:
208:
206:
345:. Vol. 第1巻. 松華堂書店. pp. 133–142.
202:
534:New Zealand Recent Law 82 (April 1983)
7:
14:
341:飯塚, 敏夫 (1934). "第六 丑の刻詣りと不能犯學說".
440:. Chapter 10. Page 105 et seq.
1:
401:. Oklahoma Jury Instructions
23:Impossibility of performance
270:George P. Fletcher (2000).
574:
142:can be distinguished from
40:is accused of a criminal
20:
329:13 U.S.C.M.A. 278
36:occasionally used when a
368:(4): 101–127 (107–111).
524:Criminal Law Quarterly
323:United States v. Thomas
309:167 A. 344, 348
304:Commonwealth v. Johnson
273:Rethinking Criminal Law
88:United States v. Thomas
78:Commonwealth v. Johnson
144:factual impossibility,
56:Factual impossibility
30:impossibility defense
311: (Pa. 1933).
240:John Hasnas (2002).
140:Legal impossibility
127:legal impossibility
108:Legal impossibility
517:, 99, 103 and 107.
447:. Pages 76 to 115.
101:Ushi no toki mairi
67:People v. Lee Kong
46:legally impossible
553:Criminal defenses
183:People v. Dlugash
565:
410:
409:
407:
406:
395:
389:
388:
386:
385:
376:. Archived from
353:
347:
346:
338:
332:
326:
318:
312:
306:
300:
294:
293:
291:
290:
267:
256:
255:
253:
252:
246:
237:
231:
230:
212:
72:attempted murder
34:criminal defense
573:
572:
568:
567:
566:
564:
563:
562:
538:
537:
419:
414:
413:
404:
402:
397:
396:
392:
383:
381:
356:沢登, 佳人 (1998).
355:
354:
350:
340:
339:
335:
320:
319:
315:
302:
301:
297:
288:
286:
284:
269:
268:
259:
250:
248:
244:
239:
238:
234:
227:
214:
213:
204:
199:
190:DPP v Armstrong
178:
169:State v. Guffey
110:
58:
26:
17:
12:
11:
5:
571:
569:
561:
560:
555:
550:
540:
539:
536:
535:
528:
518:
511:
504:
497:
491:
484:
478:
472:
466:
460:
454:
448:
441:
434:
431:Second Edition
427:
418:
415:
412:
411:
390:
348:
333:
313:
295:
282:
257:
232:
225:
201:
200:
198:
195:
194:
193:
186:
177:
174:
109:
106:
83:psychic healer
57:
54:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
570:
559:
556:
554:
551:
549:
546:
545:
543:
533:
529:
527:
523:
519:
516:
512:
509:
505:
502:
498:
496:
492:
489:
485:
483:
479:
477:
473:
471:
467:
465:
461:
459:
455:
453:
449:
446:
442:
439:
435:
432:
428:
425:
424:Third Edition
421:
420:
416:
400:
394:
391:
380:on 2014-04-27
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
352:
349:
344:
337:
334:
330:
325:
324:
317:
314:
310:
305:
299:
296:
285:
283:9780195136951
279:
275:
274:
266:
264:
262:
258:
243:
236:
233:
228:
226:1-56662-448-7
222:
218:
211:
209:
207:
203:
196:
192:
191:
187:
185:
184:
180:
179:
175:
173:
171:
170:
166:mistake. In
165:
161:
156:
154:
149:
145:
141:
137:
134:
133:
128:
123:
119:
115:
107:
105:
103:
102:
96:
94:
90:
89:
84:
81:, in which a
80:
79:
73:
69:
68:
63:
55:
53:
51:
47:
43:
39:
35:
31:
24:
19:
403:. Retrieved
393:
382:. Retrieved
378:the original
365:
361:
351:
342:
336:
331: (1962).
321:
316:
303:
298:
287:. Retrieved
272:
249:. Retrieved
235:
217:Criminal Law
216:
188:
181:
167:
163:
159:
157:
152:
147:
143:
139:
138:
130:
126:
113:
111:
99:
97:
86:
76:
65:
59:
29:
27:
18:
548:Common law
542:Categories
417:References
405:2008-01-25
384:2014-04-29
289:2008-01-25
251:2008-01-25
136:criminal.
132:actus reus
122:common law
50:common law
445:Chapter 3
374:0286-1577
197:Footnotes
62:defendant
38:defendant
510:and 427.
438:Volume 1
176:See also
118:elements
558:Attempt
503:to 399.
164:factual
148:Factual
42:attempt
495:Google
372:
327:,
307:,
280:
223:
93:raping
245:(PDF)
160:legal
153:Legal
120:in a
114:legal
32:is a
370:ISSN
362:法政理論
343:刑法論攷
278:ISBN
221:ISBN
162:and
526:154
508:426
501:392
482:179
476:153
470:270
464:461
452:962
28:An
544::
522:11
515:82
488:80
458:20
366:30
364:.
360:.
260:^
205:^
532:9
408:.
387:.
292:.
254:.
229:.
25:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.