The Student Room Group

Guilty or not?

Ok, someone who hopes to be doing an oxbridge law interview phoned me to ask what I thought of a question she had heard about (like I'm somehow an expert :rolleyes: ) I'm just interested to see if people would have given the same answer as I did.

man A does a magic spell to kill man B, it involves putting together ingredients and then saying a few words. man A fully believes in the spell (i.e he is convinced man B will die), however to someone who did not believe in magic they would think it impossible for man B to die as a result of it.

Would man A be guilty of attempted murder? Explain your reasons fully.

I said he would be guilty.

Scroll to see replies

Well - from my limited knowledge - I'd say guilty - mens rea (he believed the potion would kill) and actus reus (mixing and administering the potion)are present... I'm sure I'm missing something though!!!!
Reply 2
You have to discuss preparatory acts, intention etc.

Then consider whether attempts to do the impossible should be punishable.

There was a case, can't remember what it was (but think it was something to do with cyanide in a cup of tea!) which confirmed that you can be found guilty if the act is actually impossible.

:smile:
i wasn't looking for legal knowledge, just reasoning. she hasn't studied law before so she won't have to show any prior knowledge.
Reply 4
Ok,

the issues here are twofold - should a person be punished for doing something which he/she belives will produce a certain outcome but is actually impossible; and should the law focus purely on punishing acts rather than prevention of future acts.

Punishing attempts is about prevention of future acts. So should prevention override the reality of whether a future event is actually possible?

Take both perspectives (attemptor/victim) and consider both answers (yes they should be punished/ no they shouldn't)

Should the attemptor be punished for merely thinking bad thoughts? How far should we go back - how much intention (non-legal sense) is needed?

What would the victim's view be? Should policy decisions be taken on whether to include their perspective?

Honestly you could rabbit on for hours about this. It might even be fun to come to the opposite conclusion and argue harder for the person to be not guilty.
Might I point out that you are going too far with looking at impossibilities ... I would just use causation to cast the minimal amount of doubt req'd onto the fact taht the acts caused the death.
Reply 6
Lewis-HuStuJCR
Might I point out that you are going too far with looking at impossibilities ... I would just use causation to cast the minimal amount of doubt req'd onto the fact taht the acts caused the death.


Nobody has died though, it's about attempts.

The question of possibility is the whole point of the problem.
well just goes to show how little reading i did of that, my bad...

on a fully subjective test of "more than merely preparatory acts" or whatever the exact wording is he is guilty, but we hardly did any work on attempts in criminal, so little that I didn't even learn it for the exam.
Reply 8
Lewis-HuStuJCR
well just goes to show how little reading i did of that, my bad...

on a fully subjective test of "more than merely preparatory acts" or whatever the exact wording is he is guilty, but we hardly did any work on attempts in criminal, so little that I didn't even learn it for the exam.


Don't worry, you didn't miss anything exciting!
:smile:
I just explained it in comparison with an attempted murder which would almost certainly have no doubts cast on it. for example, say Lewis was annoying me because he can't read questions, so I decide to kill him by making a bomb. Now I have no knowledge of explosives at all so I make a bomb, which in the eyes of a reasonable person, could not go off or cause any harm. However, the point is that I fully intended and believed that the bomb would go off and if the law said that an crime must be certain in order to be a crime then there would be a situation where it was legal for anyone to attempt murder with no consequences unless the attempt was successful.

Theres a distinction between obscure thoughts and actions and something which has clearly been thought about and attempted with the sole aim of murder.
Reply 10
I would say not guilty - the accused would surely raise the defence of insanity anyway?

Not guilty because that would overcrowd prisons if a verdict of guilty was passed, for example voodoo dolls! If I used a voodoo doll on someone am i guilty of gbh if they break a leg, perhaps they fell over at the same time by coincidence? Do we start to punish everyone who uses such beliefs against people when the results cannot be proven to have been caused by the 'guilty' persons' acts. But if you're just talking about nothing happening to them, then I still say not guilty because too many people would be getting punished.

Say if the man actually died, it's quite impossible to prove that the man died due to the potion too?
I hope you realise that insanity needs recognised psy illness... or abnormality of mind wording something like that I cant really remember... either way it needs an internal cause and this isnt it. Leads to stupid things like diabetics who go hyperglycaemic being insane, and those who go hypoglycaemic being guilty ... which is absolutely ridiculous although the latter is more your fault and is deemed as an "external" cause since you took too much insulin.

I dont think the overcrowded prison thing is a real defence either...
The Potion - proving it killed (assuming the person DID die - which I know is not the question)... that may or may not be possible! If the potion in itslef was toxic and bloood toxicology reveals it as the cause of death then it's proven... but assuming (a large dose of fantasy required) that the potion was echnically harmelss without the "magic words" then I think you're right - it would be impossible to prove that the potion had killed.

As the person hasn't taken the potion - and if the potion was NOT toxic then, again, it would be awfully hard to make it stick as "attemtped murder".
Reply 13
Lewis-HuStuJCR
I hope you realise that insanity needs recognised psy illness... or abnormality of mind wording something like that I cant really remember... either way it needs an internal cause and this isnt it. Leads to stupid things like diabetics who go hyperglycaemic being insane, and those who go hypoglycaemic being guilty ... which is absolutely ridiculous although the latter is more your fault and is deemed as an "external" cause since you took too much insulin.

I dont think the overcrowded prison thing is a real defence either...


I realise all of this. There must have been a disease of the mind and I suppose some smart ass lawyer could somehow argue this.

Also with regards to overcrowding of prisons its not a defence, but its a practical point. Lord Woolf even said that judges should take into account prison population before sentencing.
He maybe said it, and yeah they can take it into acct when deciding SENTENCING but bear in mind here a non-custodial sentence would be an outcry if he was guilty of attempted murder. Also, it should have no bearing on the original decision of whether or not guilt arises, and no discussion of sentencing ever occurs in criminal law exams as far as I am aware, guilt is the only question at hand and only thereafter does sentencing arise
\
having said that you see some dodgy sentencing lol.
Reply 15
Lol yea we did some work on sentencing (only at A level mind you so I realise I am not as knowledgable as yourself) but we were made aware of some rediculous sentences!

Hmmm I guess the question of guilt, there is no concrete answer I suppose?
Well no theres not, but if I had the act and stuff inf ront of me I could give more idea, as I said we did very little attempts at degree level even and I didnt bother learning it for hte exam so im just patching together already very scant knowledge.
My answer would be that he was guilty. My reasons for this are person A followed through steps, which he believed, could have caused the death of person B, so therefore he attempted (without success) to commit an act of murder.
Reply 18
I'd say that he is guilty. Mixing the ingredients and saying the words are more than merely preparatory (in his mind). There's the actus reus. He fully believes that the spell will work and so has a direct intent to kill the other man. There's the mens rea.

I think that it is pretty irrelevant that the reasonable person would think that the spell would be ineffective. I might be getting confused but I think that R v Shivpuri said that you were able to attempt the impossible, so as long as you believed it was possible, fully intended to do it, and then committed an act that was more than merely preparatory.
I think we are all guilty of over-legalising this problem ... you woudl probably be expected to discuss whether or not the person should be guilty if they do something which they beleive is sufficient for interview purposes. Using reasonsing in your own head etc... the common sense view here would probably lead you to the answer of not guilty. But then again, you could land either way without the correct studying of the area.

Latest