Criminalizing the Efforts of Crime
Criminal law is designed with the aim of protecting individual citizens' rights and the health and welfare of the community as a cohesive unit. In this case, he is responsible for establishing parameters of social behavior, and for ensuring the consistent application of principles and doctrines. One of the most controversial areas of criminal law is undoubtedly its role in punishing criminal endeavors. When someone tries criminal behavior but does not solve it, should that person still be responsible for public policy issues? What if a potential criminal stops a second from shooting their victim, decides not to follow up on their criminal intentions? Furthermore, should a criminal be punished for trying to commit a crime that is not factually possible? In this article, we will consider each of these arguments and look for possible ways in which they can be treated more effectively.
Criminal law usually involves itself by punishing those who have committed wrongdoings against people or society, and this is generally very effective in ensuring a legitimate sense of community and deterring most criminals in their actions. However, one of the most relevant questions facing the legal system is when, if at all, intervening in perfect legal behavior in aid to stop crime from happening? Consider the example of a shooter who wants to kill a close friend. He bought a firearm. Was he arrested at this point for attempted murder? He went to a hill near his friend's house with a gun. Here? He aimed and started pressing the trigger? How about now? It is very difficult to interpret the most favorable point to intervene in potentially criminal behavior. On the one hand there is the threat of encroachment on civil liberties, while on the other hand there are real threats to life and life, and property. Pulling the line has been very difficult in recent times, and has caused the government chief's headache to interpret what should be the law.
Consider the scenario of the thief stealing from an empty bag. Mentally and physically he has taken enough action to be punished for crime, but only because there is no wallet to steal, should he be free? Because there is no wallet, he can never be punished for theft, but should he be responsible for his business? The answer in most jurisdictions is yes, but again this presents further complications. For example, you have a potential drug dealer who buys a number of paracetamol. He sold this with the false assumption that it was illegal - he could never be punished for supplying illegal drugs, but could he be punished on the basis of his efforts? Most jurisdictions say yes, arguing that dangerous people must be stopped. Although it is a fair point, this kind of argument does not fit into the modern context, especially when civil liberties and human rights play a large role in international law.
In addition, the concept of neglect is somewhat of a mixed bag, with some countries swinging in one direction and others. Should the defendant be allowed to drop his weapon at the last minute and decide not to kill on this occasion? Or, is the fact that he considers and makes the steps to commit a serious crime enough to attract responsibility and blame others? Courts throughout the world are very divided on this issue, even internally, remembering puzzles especially in the context. What is certain is that criminal law may feel obliged to intervene in certain circumstances to prevent harm to their citizens, which would certainly be an important consideration in the wrong mitigation of arrests.
The legal concept of effort is very interesting, and what needs to be considered is special treatment throughout the world, both neglect and illegality. Maybe in an era of greater harmonization, we will see more international authority in applying these principles.