Criminal Law · Impossibility Criminal
Clear answer to: What Is The Difference Between Impossibility Criminal in Criminal Law? with key cases, examples, and exam tips for law students.
Impossibility in criminal law refers to the inability to commit a crime due to factual or legal reasons. Factual impossibility occurs when the intended crime cannot be completed due to some factual circumstance, while legal impossibility occurs when the actions taken do not constitute a criminal offense under the law.
Impossibility in criminal law primarily revolves around two types: factual impossibility and legal impossibility. Factual impossibility arises when a defendant intends to commit a crime, but some factual circumstance prevents the completion of that crime. For example, if a person attempts to pickpocket someone who is not actually carrying any money, they may claim factual impossibility. This type of impossibility generally does not absolve the defendant of liability, as their intent to commit the crime is still present.
In contrast, legal impossibility occurs when a defendant’s actions, even if fully carried out as intended, do not amount to a violation of law. For instance, if someone attempts to sell a substance they believe to be illegal drugs, but the substance is actually legal, this is a case of legal impossibility. Courts generally afford a defense for legal impossibility, as the individual did not commit a crime that the law recognizes.
The distinction between these two types is crucial in determining criminal liability. Courts tend to reject claims of factual impossibility as a defense since the perpetrator has the required mens rea — criminal intent — even if the crime itself cannot be completed. On the other hand, legal impossibility can serve as a complete defense, leading to acquittal, because the action does not constitute a violation of the law.
The rationale behind this differentiation is rooted in policy considerations: allowing factual impossibility as a defense would undermine the deterrent effect of criminal law, whereas recognizing legal impossibility respects the principle that one must be guilty of an actual offense to be held criminally liable.
Suppose an individual plans to commit a burglary by attempting to break into a vacant property. If they are caught before entering and the prosecutor claims attempted burglary based on their intentions, this situation may reflect factual impossibility since the structure was never occupied. Conversely, if someone tries to pickpocket a mannequin thinking it's a real person, they would be facing a case of legal impossibility since no crime occurs against an inanimate object.
Exam questions often involve hypotheticals that test your understanding of factual versus legal impossibility, requiring analysis of the defendant's intent and the nature of their actions.