"All inchoate offences should be abolished on the theory that society is not harmed until the crime is completed" - Critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the above proposition.
"All inchoate offences should be abolished on the theory that society is not harmed until the crime is completed"
Critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the above proposition using examples drawn from any of the inchoate offences of incitement, conspiracy and attempt.
'All inchoate offences should be abolished on the theory that society is not harmed until the crime is completed', during this essay I shall critically evaluate this statement, using examples from the inchoate offences of incitement, conspiracy and attempt.
The definition of Inchoate offences, are the incomplete offences. I shall first explain the actus reus and the mens rea required for all the inchoate offences. The actus reus of conspiracy is the agreement with another or others that a course of conduct will be pursued, which if carried out by their instructions, will lead to an offence. The mens rea of conspiracy is intention, although in Anderson 1986 the House of Lords decided that the defendant was to be found guilty even when intention was not established. The actus reus of incitement is when the offender urges, suggests, persuades, etc. another to commit a crime. The mens rea of incitement is again intention, this intention is to bring about the required result. The actus reus of attempts exists when a party does an act, which is more than merely preparatory. Once again intention is the mens rea needed with attempts, as with all other inchoate offences.
Conspiracy is when an agreement is made between at least two parties. If conspiracy were to be abolished, then using the case of Chrastney 1991, where the defendant tried to argue that she had only discussed with her husband the matter of supplying class A drugs, whereas she had really known that other conspirators had been involved in the plan, then she would not have been convicted. People agree that conspiracy should not be used as an offence, as no one is being harmed by the parties conspiracy. The weaknesses arising in the statement that conspiracy should be ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Conspiracy is when an agreement is made between at least two parties. If conspiracy were to be abolished, then using the case of Chrastney 1991, where the defendant tried to argue that she had only discussed with her husband the matter of supplying class A drugs, whereas she had really known that other conspirators had been involved in the plan, then she would not have been convicted. People agree that conspiracy should not be used as an offence, as no one is being harmed by the parties conspiracy. The weaknesses arising in the statement that conspiracy should be abolished, is that offenders would get away with their offences if it was not or could not be completed. The present way, conspiracy is an offence even if one person has no intention of seeing the offence through but they have intended to take some part in the conspiracy, the person would be found guilty of conspiracy. This was the case with Anderson 1986, where he had agreed with another cellmate to help him escape, for a payment, but he argued that he was not going to be involved and just take the money and leave. This case lead to another problem that a defendant is only guilty of conspiracy if he intends to play some part in the proceedings, so this is a problem for offenders who organise the event and get others to carry out. In Siracusa 1990 the Court of Appeal decided that the decision made in Anderson was not entirely correct.
From another inchoate offence, incitement, the abolishment of inchoate offences may be seen in a different way. People suggesting or persuading another person to commit a crime is no harm to society unless the suggestion, persuasion or urge results in another person committing an offence. Some people feel that this inchoate offence should be abolished, as it is merely a suggestion to another person, who should know better. People also feel that it should be abolished as loopholes are being found such as in the case of Whitehouse 1977, where a man accused of inciting a young girl to have sexual intercourse with him, as intercourse did not take place the defendants conviction was quashed. The majority of people including myself feel that this inchoate offence should stay how it is. Without incitement people would get away with encouraging others to commit an offence. This inchoate offence can be to an individual or to the whole world, such as in Invictor Plastics ltd. v Clare 1976, where a company put an advert in a motor magazine advertising their product, which could be used to detect speed traps. Although I feel that incitement should not be abolished, I feel that the defence of impossibility should be abolished, as although the offence is impossible to take place, if it could then a crime would have been committed. Although impossibility is a defence, this excepts when it relates to the adequacy of the methods to be used. In Fitzmaurice 1983 the defendants father asked him to find someone to rob a woman with wages. The defendant approached a friend and encouraged him to take place. In fact the robbery was fiction in order for the father to collect reward money from the police. The defendant was convicted of inciting his friend, but appealed when he could use impossibility as a defence. The appeal was then dismissed, as it would have been possible for the defendant's friend to do it.
In conclusion after looking at all of the inchoate offences, the strengths of the proposition that 'all inchoate offences should be abolished on the theory that society is not harmed until the crime is complete, can be many things. If conspiracy, incitement and attempt were all abolished then people would only be convicted of offences that have actually taken place. This means that the courts would not be clustered with the cases that they are now facing with conspiracy, incitement and attempt offences, which are cases, which have not harmed society. The loopholes found with inchoate offences, such as in the case of Whitehouse1977 and Mcphillips 1990, can be seen as wasting the courts time. People agree with the arguments bought forward that inchoate offences should be abolished as no real offence has taken place, resulting in hurting someone or damaging society in general.
The weaknesses of this proposition is that without the offences of conspiracy, incitement or attempt people could help plan, encourage or even attempt to commit an offence and get away with it, which would be unacceptable. We need inchoate offences to stay with the legal system, so people conspiring, inciting or attempting an offence can be caught before the offence is actually taken place. So in all I feel that all inchoate offences should stay how they are, because if they were abolished the courts and legal system in general would be a disaster.
Given more time to complete I would have looked at all the inchoate offences, being conspiracy, incitement and attempts and looked at the proposition in more detail, including why certain issues of inchoate offences should be abolished. E.g. abolishing impossibility in all inchoate offences.
Jack Ingrey Inchoate offences Law
