Philosophy
Inchoate Offenses and the Impossibility Defense in Attempt
Quick fact
In most US jurisdictions, factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt, so a burglar who breaks into an empty safe is still guilty of attempted burglary, reflecting a focus on dangerous intent over actual harm.
Why this is interesting
Can a person be punished for trying to commit a crime that is impossible to complete? For example, picking an empty pocket or shooting a corpse—many jurisdictions still treat these as punishable attempts, but not always.
Read the full explanation
Understanding Inchoate Offenses and the Impossibility Defense in Attempt
Imagine you want to commit a crime, like stealing a wallet. You reach into someone's pocket, but the pocket is empty. You haven't stolen anything—no crime completed—but you tried. Inchoate offenses, like 'attempt,' punish these incomplete steps because the law cares about your dangerous intent and the risk you created. The impossibility defense asks: if the crime couldn't happen, should you still be punished? The answer depends on whether the impossibility was 'factual' (e.g., the target wasn't there) or 'legal' (e.g., what you tried to do isn't actually a crime). An empty pocket is still an attempt; trying to buy a substance you believe is a drug, but is actually a legal powder, may be factual impossibility and still an attempt. But legal impossibility, like trying to kill someone who is already dead (you thought they were alive), is trickier and often a defense because the intended act isn't a crime.
A deeper explanation
The law of attempt requires two elements: specific intent to commit a crime and an act that is a 'substantial step' toward completing it. The impossibility defense challenges the second element when completion is impossible. The classic distinction: factual impossibility—conditions unknown to the actor make the crime impossible—is generally not a defense because the actor's intent and conduct are still dangerous. Legal impossibility—the intended act, even if completed, would not be a crime—is usually a defense because there is no criminal harm. Modern statutes often reject the defense altogether, simplifying to whether the defendant formed intent and took steps. This reveals the philosophical shift: liability based on dangerousness and the actor's state of mind, not just result, making the impossibility debate central to understanding criminal responsibility.