Impossibility Defense

Definition

The impossibility defense is a legal argument used in criminal cases where a defendant claims that it was impossible to commit the crime they were charged with. This can arise in scenarios where the means to commit the crime are unavailable or when the law does not recognize the intended act as a crime. Understanding this defense is important in evaluating conspiracy and solicitation, as it explores whether a person can be held liable for actions that could not realistically lead to the commission of a crime.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Impossibility defenses can be categorized into two types: legal and factual impossibility, with legal being more accepted in court than factual.
2. In cases of conspiracy, an impossibility defense may argue that since the target crime could never occur, the agreement itself lacks the requisite criminal intent.
3. For solicitation, if a person solicits another to commit a crime that is impossible to achieve, such as asking someone to perform an act that is not illegal, this can serve as grounds for an impossibility defense.
4. Judges often scrutinize impossibility defenses carefully because they challenge the core elements of intent and capability in committing a crime.
5. Some jurisdictions may reject the impossibility defense altogether in conspiracy cases, arguing that the mere agreement to commit a crime, regardless of its feasibility, is sufficient for liability.

Review Questions

• How does the impossibility defense interact with the concepts of conspiracy and solicitation?
  • The impossibility defense directly impacts both conspiracy and solicitation by questioning whether a defendant can be held liable for actions that cannot lead to an actual crime. In conspiracy cases, if it can be proven that the intended crime was impossible to commit, it may negate the agreement's criminality. Similarly, in solicitation, if someone attempts to persuade another to commit an act that is legally impossible, they may use this defense to argue that no crime occurred, thus affecting their liability.
• What distinguishes legal impossibility from factual impossibility within the context of an impossibility defense?
  • Legal impossibility occurs when a defendant believes they are committing a crime but is actually not due to an error in understanding the law. Factual impossibility, on the other hand, arises when circumstances prevent the completion of a crime despite the defendant's intent to commit it. In many jurisdictions, legal impossibility can sometimes result in acquittal, while factual impossibility typically does not absolve criminal liability because it does not negate intent.
• Evaluate how courts view the application of an impossibility defense in conspiracy cases and its implications for criminal liability.
  • Courts often take a critical stance on applying an impossibility defense in conspiracy cases. Many jurisdictions maintain that the essence of conspiracy lies in the agreement itself rather than the feasibility of carrying out the crime. This view leads to implications where defendants may still face charges despite arguing that their intended acts were impossible. Consequently, this perspective reinforces accountability for criminal agreements while highlighting potential gaps in ensuring justice when an actual crime could never have been committed.

Related terms

Legal Impossibility: A type of impossibility defense where the defendant believes their actions constitute a crime, but they do not due to a misunderstanding of the law.

Factual Impossibility: A defense that argues a defendant was unable to complete a crime due to factual circumstances, even if their intent was criminal.

Conspiracy: An agreement between two or more parties to commit a crime at some point in the future, which can be affected by the impossibility defense if the crime cannot actually be committed.