Criminal Law Vs Inchoate Crimes

719 Words 3 Pages
Throughout history, laws have been used to guard civilizations and the people that dwell within them. Unfortunately laws are ever changing and will never stay the same. Since before modern civilization, there has been many on going arguments about different crimes and how they should be punished. For the first core essay, the class was asked to wright about either one of the Inchoate crimes, or the four parties to crime under common law. After reading about both, the history behind Inchoate crimes seemed more interesting. As described in the textbook, Criminal Law, by Joel Samaha, Inchoate crimes stem from the Latin word incohare which means “to begin” (p. 272). As can be guessed, the three parts of Inchoate crimes require an individual “to begin” the crime, which may or may not be finished. The different parts of Inchoate offenses include attempt, conspiracy and …show more content…
Plato, the philosopher, stated, “If anyone has a purpose and intention to slay another. . . but is unable to kill him, he who had intent and has wounded him is not to be pitied. . . but should be regarded as a murderer and be tried for murder” (Laws 223). Written around the time 360 B.C. Plato clearly believed in a similar idea to the inchoate crime, criminal attempt. Although Plato 's view regarding punishment may be a little harsh, the idea of punishing the individual who attempted the murder is different than that of later ideas. Almost one thousand years later, English nobleman Henry of Bracton stated, “for what harm did the attempt cause, since the injury took no effect” (p. 273). Henry would have taken a different stance on criminal attempt. Instead of convicting the individual for the murder because there was an attempt, he would rather let them go since it was not successful. Henry’s stance on criminal attempt was favored in England 's common law until the 1500 's (p. 273).

Related Documents