The Actus Reus of Attempt

The Actus Reus of Attempt
Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
The Actus Reus of Attempt
Definitions
Firstly, the “last act” test aims at determining whether the defendant committed the last act of the crime in which he/she faces charges. In this case, the final action in which the crime is committed is put into consideration, thus proving the intentions of the defendant in performing the crime to its entirety.
The “physical proximity” test, on the other hand, aims to determine whether the offender was physically close to either the victim or crime scene to prove that he/she was able or nearly able to commit the crime. Therefore, distance plays a critical role, in this case, to establish the actions of the defendant in attempting to commit the crime. The prosecution must prove that the individual was actually close to the crime scene for this test to substantially hold as the basis for the charges.
Apart from that, the “dangerous proximity” test tries to prove that the individual’s conduct might have led to the success of the crime to a great extent. Therefore, while physical proximity to the crime scene or the intended victim may not be required in this case, the chances of likelihood play a role in determining whether the crime would be successful or not. For instance, the “dangerous proximity” test as applied in People v. Rizzo, 158 N.E. 888 (N.Y. 1927) the defendants were riding in a vehicle looking to rob their victim but were arrested on suspicion and later charged for attempted robbery (Moore & Worall, 2013, p.277). However, the court used the test to dismiss the charges against them due to the lack of ‘dangerous proximity’ on their part to complete the crime.
The “indispensable element” test aims at determining any other factor that could be missing thus hindering the completion of the criminal act. Therefore, by proving this test, the defendant cannot be found guilty of committing the crime due to a missing critical aspect in its completion. As used in the case State v. Addor, 110 S.E. 650, the defendants lacked a critical component in manufacturing the liquor, thus were found not guilty of the offence (Moore & Worall, 2013, p.278). Consequently, the element required to complete the crime entirely was missing, thus would require them to be charged on a lesser account of the crime.
The “probable desistance” test aims to determine the probability of the offender to stop once the effort has been put in place starting the crime. Therefore, in such a case, the defendant’s ability to realised the impact of their conduct and further desist from performing the act forms the basis for the attempt.
The “unequivocality” test is used to when the intentions of the offender become clear and thus show that he/she was clearly intent on doing the crime. Consequently, once the intention becomes clear, it can be proven that the offender endeavored to take part or commit a crime, whether it was completed or not.
The Model Penal Code “substantial step” test aims to determine whether a substantial step wa...