Impossibility

Definition

Impossibility refers to a legal defense used in criminal law where a defendant argues that it was impossible to commit the crime they intended to commit. This can arise in cases where the means to commit the crime is unavailable, or the act would not result in a crime under the law. Understanding impossibility is crucial when analyzing the intent and capability of a defendant regarding the elements of a crime.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Impossibility can be categorized into two types: factual impossibility, where an unforeseen circumstance prevents the completion of a crime, and legal impossibility, where the act would not constitute a crime regardless of circumstances.
2. Factual impossibility typically does not absolve a defendant from liability, as the courts usually focus on the intent to commit a crime rather than its feasibility.
3. Legal impossibility may serve as a valid defense, since if the intended actions do not violate any laws, then there’s no crime committed.
4. The distinction between factual and legal impossibility is important, as it affects how courts interpret attempts and intent in criminal cases.
5. In some jurisdictions, impossibility defenses are viewed skeptically, with courts often upholding that the intent to commit a crime can still lead to liability even if the crime could not physically be completed.

Review Questions

• How does the distinction between factual impossibility and legal impossibility impact a defendant's ability to use this defense in court?
  • The distinction between factual and legal impossibility is vital for defendants seeking to use this defense. Factual impossibility occurs when an external circumstance prevents completing a crime that could otherwise be executed, but courts generally do not accept it as a defense. In contrast, legal impossibility arises when what the defendant intended to do is not criminal under any circumstances; this can be accepted as a valid defense. Therefore, understanding this distinction allows defendants to assess their chances of successfully arguing impossibility based on their situation.
• Evaluate how the concept of mens rea interacts with impossibility defenses in criminal law.
  • Mens rea plays a crucial role in how courts evaluate impossibility defenses since it reflects the intent behind an action. A defendant must possess the necessary intent to commit a crime for liability to attach. If a defendant can prove that their intended actions were impossible—either factually or legally—the court will examine whether that intent still aligns with criminal behavior. This interplay underscores how intent can lead to different legal outcomes depending on whether an impossibility claim is successful.
• Critique how courts have historically treated impossibility defenses and discuss potential reforms that could clarify their application in criminal law.
  • Historically, courts have been hesitant to accept impossibility defenses, particularly factual impossibility claims, often emphasizing that intent alone may suffice for liability regardless of actual feasibility. This has led to confusion and inconsistency in judgments across different jurisdictions. Potential reforms could include clearer guidelines distinguishing between factual and legal impossibilities and establishing specific criteria under which each type could be accepted as a valid defense. Such changes might enhance fairness in the judicial process by ensuring that defendants are judged based on realistic assessments of their ability to commit alleged crimes.

Related terms

Attempt: An attempt involves an effort to commit a crime that goes beyond mere preparation but fails to complete the crime.

Mens Rea: Mens Rea refers to the mental state or intent of a person while committing a criminal act, which is essential for determining liability.

Legal Impossibility: Legal impossibility occurs when the intended act is not a crime, even if the defendant believed it was, which can be a valid defense in some cases.