按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
has struck the match； or cocked and aimed the pistol； there is very little chance that he will not persist to the end； and the danger becomes so great that the law steps in。 With an object which could not be used innocently； the point of intervention might be put further back； as in the case of the purchase of a die for coining。
The degree of apprehension may affect the decision； as well as the degree of probability that the crime will be accomplished。 No doubt the fears peculiar to a slaveowning community had their share in the conviction which has just been mentioned。
There is one doubtful point which should not be passed over。 It has been thought that to shoot at a block of wood thinking it to be a man is not an attempt to murder； /1/ and that to put a hand into an empty pocket； intending to pick it； is not an attempt to commit larceny； although on the latter question there is a difference of opinion。 /2/ The reason given is； that an act which could not have effected the crime if the actor had been allowed to follow it up to all results to which in the nature of things it could have led； cannot be an attempt to commit that crime when interrupted。 At some point or other； of course； the law must adopt this conclusion； unless it goes on the theory of retribution for guilt； and not of prevention of harm。
But even to prevent harm effectually it will not do to be too exact。 I do not suppose that firing a pistol at a man with intent to kill him is any the less an attempt to murder because the bullet misses its aim。 Yet there the act has produced the whole effect possible to it in the ＇7O＇ course of nature。 It is just as impossible that that bullet under those circumstances should hit that man； as to pick an empty pocket。 But there is no difficulty in saying that such an act under such circumstances is so dangerous； so far as the possibility of human foresight is concerned； that it should be punished。 No one can absolutely know； though many would be pretty sure； exactly where the bullet will strike； and if the harm is done； it is a very great harm。 If a man fires at a block； no harm can possibly ensue； and no theft can be committed in an empty pocket； besides that the harm of successful theft is less than that of murder。 Yet it might be said that even such things as these should be punished； in order to make discouragement broad enough and easy to understand。
There remain to be considered certain substantive crimes； which differ in very important ways from murder and the like； and for the explanation of which the foregoing analysis of intent in criminal attempts and analogous misdemeanors will be found of service。
The type of these is larceny。 Under this name acts are punished which of themselves would not be sufficient to accomplish the evil which the law seeks to prevent； and which are treated as equally criminal； whether the evil has been accomplished or not。 Murder； manslaughter； and arson； on the other hand； are not committed unless the evil is accomplished； and they all consist of acts the tendency of which under the surrounding circumstances is to hurt or destroy person or property by the mere working of natural laws。
In larceny the consequences immediately flowing from the act are generally exhausted with little or no harm to the owner。 Goods are removed from his possession by ＇71＇ trespass； and that is all； when the crime is complete。 But they must be permanently kept from him before the harm is done which the law seeks to prevent。 A momentary loss of possession is not what has been guarded against with such severe penalties。 What the law means to prevent is the loss of it wholly and forever； as is shown by the fact that it is not larceny to take for a temporary use without intending to deprive the owner of his property。 If then the law punishes the mere act of taking； it punishes an act which will not of itself produce the evil effect sought to be prevented； and punishes it before that effect has in any way come to pass。
The reason is plain enough。 The law cannot wait until the property has been used up or destroyed in other hands than the owner's； or until the owner has died； in order to make sure that the harm which it seeks to prevent has been done。 And for the same reason it cannot confine itself to acts likely to do that harm。 For the harm of permanent loss of property will not follow from the act of taking； but only from the series of acts which constitute removing and keeping the property after it has been taken。 After these preliminaries； the bearing of intent upon the crime is easily seen。
According to Mr。 Bishop； larceny is 〃the taking and removing； by trespass； of personal property which the trespasser knows to belong either generally or specially to another； with the intent to deprive such owner of his ownership therein； and perhaps it should be added； for the sake of some advantage to the trespasser； a proposition on which the decisions are not harmonious。〃 /1/
There must be an intent to deprive such owner of his ＇72＇ ownership therein； it is said。 But why？ Is it because the law is more anxious not to put a man in prison for stealing unless he is actually wicked； than it is not to hang him for killing another？ That can hardly be。 The true answer is； that the intent is an index to the external event which probably would have happened； and that； if the law is to punish at all； it must； in this case； go on probabilities； not on accomplished facts。 The analogy to the manner of dealing with attempts is plain。 Theft may be called an attempt to permanently deprive a man of his property； which is punished with the same severity whether successful or not。 If theft can rightly be considered in this way； intent must play the same part as in other attempts。 An act which does not fully accomplish the prohibited result may be made wrongful by evidence that but for some interference it would have been followed by other acts co…ordinated with it to produce that result。 This can only be shown by showing intent。 In theft the intent to deprive the owner of his property establishes that the thief would have retained； or would not have taken steps to restore； the stolen goods。 Nor would it matter that the thief afterwards changed his mind and returned the goods。 From the point of view of attempt； the crime was already complete when the property was carried off。
It may be objected to this view； that； if intent is only a makeshift which from a practical necessity takes the place of actual deprivation； it ought not to be required where the actual deprivation is wholly accomplished； provided the same criminal act produces the whole effect。 Suppose； for instance； that by one and the same motion a man seizes and backs another's horse over a precipice。 The whole evil which the law seeks to prevent is the natural and manifestly ＇73＇ certain consequence of the act under the known circumstances。 In such a case； if the law of larceny is consistent with the theories here maintained； the act should be passed upon according to its tendency； and the actual intent of the wrong…doer not in any way considered。 Yet it is possible； to say the least； that even in such a case the intent would make all the difference。 I assume