No Cover Image

Journal article 587 views

"Possibility, Impossibility and Extraordinariness in Attempts"

Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov

Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, Volume: 23, Issue: 1, Pages: 47 - 70

Swansea University Author: Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov

Full text not available from this repository: check for access using links below.

Check full text

Abstract

The relationship between possibility / impossibility and attempts is complex. Accounts of the relationship are often marked by a confusion that serves to distort our understanding of the nature of attempts as such. It will be argued below that impossibility is irrelevant to an understanding of attem...

Full description

Published in: Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence
ISSN: 0841-8209
Published: Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 2010
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa5107
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
first_indexed 2013-07-23T11:51:42Z
last_indexed 2018-02-09T04:31:07Z
id cronfa5107
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2014-03-24T13:13:23.3270546</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>5107</id><entry>2011-10-01</entry><title>"Possibility, Impossibility and Extraordinariness in Attempts"</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>6dbd693e537ece98e6999449784e69de</sid><ORCID/><firstname>Bebhinn</firstname><surname>Donnelly-Lazarov</surname><name>Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2011-10-01</date><deptcode>LLPC</deptcode><abstract>The relationship between possibility / impossibility and attempts is complex. Accounts of the relationship are often marked by a confusion that serves to distort our understanding of the nature of attempts as such. It will be argued below that impossibility is irrelevant to an understanding of attempts. This is not just to say that impossibility should not affect our view of how blameworthy certain defendants are. It is rather to say that the &#x2018;impossibility&#x2019; referred to in the context of attempts is just not aboutattempts at all. In contrast, possibility is relevant to an understanding of attempts but its relevance is found to be universal and no normative distinctions among attempts can be made on the basis of possibility. If it can be shown that impossibility is a concept that does not belong toattempts then it follows that attempts which are treated as different to &#x2018;central cases&#x2019; of attempts in virtue of impossibility either, (a) are not different at all or, (b) are different for reasons other than impossibility. If some attempts belong to category (b) then it may be considered that the equal blame that is ordinarily taken to survive impossibility, does not survive these other reasons.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence</journal><volume>23</volume><journalNumber>1</journalNumber><paginationStart>47</paginationStart><paginationEnd>70</paginationEnd><publisher>Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence</publisher><issnPrint>0841-8209</issnPrint><issnElectronic/><keywords/><publishedDay>15</publishedDay><publishedMonth>1</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2010</publishedYear><publishedDate>2010-01-15</publishedDate><doi/><url>http://www.law.uwo.ca/research/the_canadian_journal_of_law_and_jurisprudence/2010_January.html</url><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Legal Practice &amp; Graduate Diploma Law</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>LLPC</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><lastEdited>2014-03-24T13:13:23.3270546</lastEdited><Created>2011-10-01T00:00:00.0000000</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences</level><level id="2">Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Bebhinn</firstname><surname>Donnelly-Lazarov</surname><orcid/><order>1</order></author></authors><documents/><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2014-03-24T13:13:23.3270546 v2 5107 2011-10-01 "Possibility, Impossibility and Extraordinariness in Attempts" 6dbd693e537ece98e6999449784e69de Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov true false 2011-10-01 LLPC The relationship between possibility / impossibility and attempts is complex. Accounts of the relationship are often marked by a confusion that serves to distort our understanding of the nature of attempts as such. It will be argued below that impossibility is irrelevant to an understanding of attempts. This is not just to say that impossibility should not affect our view of how blameworthy certain defendants are. It is rather to say that the ‘impossibility’ referred to in the context of attempts is just not aboutattempts at all. In contrast, possibility is relevant to an understanding of attempts but its relevance is found to be universal and no normative distinctions among attempts can be made on the basis of possibility. If it can be shown that impossibility is a concept that does not belong toattempts then it follows that attempts which are treated as different to ‘central cases’ of attempts in virtue of impossibility either, (a) are not different at all or, (b) are different for reasons other than impossibility. If some attempts belong to category (b) then it may be considered that the equal blame that is ordinarily taken to survive impossibility, does not survive these other reasons. Journal Article Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 23 1 47 70 Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 0841-8209 15 1 2010 2010-01-15 http://www.law.uwo.ca/research/the_canadian_journal_of_law_and_jurisprudence/2010_January.html COLLEGE NANME Legal Practice & Graduate Diploma Law COLLEGE CODE LLPC Swansea University 2014-03-24T13:13:23.3270546 2011-10-01T00:00:00.0000000 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov 1
title "Possibility, Impossibility and Extraordinariness in Attempts"
spellingShingle "Possibility, Impossibility and Extraordinariness in Attempts"
Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov
title_short "Possibility, Impossibility and Extraordinariness in Attempts"
title_full "Possibility, Impossibility and Extraordinariness in Attempts"
title_fullStr "Possibility, Impossibility and Extraordinariness in Attempts"
title_full_unstemmed "Possibility, Impossibility and Extraordinariness in Attempts"
title_sort "Possibility, Impossibility and Extraordinariness in Attempts"
author_id_str_mv 6dbd693e537ece98e6999449784e69de
author_id_fullname_str_mv 6dbd693e537ece98e6999449784e69de_***_Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov
author Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov
author2 Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov
format Journal article
container_title Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence
container_volume 23
container_issue 1
container_start_page 47
publishDate 2010
institution Swansea University
issn 0841-8209
publisher Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence
college_str Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
department_str Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law
url http://www.law.uwo.ca/research/the_canadian_journal_of_law_and_jurisprudence/2010_January.html
document_store_str 0
active_str 0
description The relationship between possibility / impossibility and attempts is complex. Accounts of the relationship are often marked by a confusion that serves to distort our understanding of the nature of attempts as such. It will be argued below that impossibility is irrelevant to an understanding of attempts. This is not just to say that impossibility should not affect our view of how blameworthy certain defendants are. It is rather to say that the ‘impossibility’ referred to in the context of attempts is just not aboutattempts at all. In contrast, possibility is relevant to an understanding of attempts but its relevance is found to be universal and no normative distinctions among attempts can be made on the basis of possibility. If it can be shown that impossibility is a concept that does not belong toattempts then it follows that attempts which are treated as different to ‘central cases’ of attempts in virtue of impossibility either, (a) are not different at all or, (b) are different for reasons other than impossibility. If some attempts belong to category (b) then it may be considered that the equal blame that is ordinarily taken to survive impossibility, does not survive these other reasons.
published_date 2010-01-15T03:06:03Z
_version_ 1763749672434794496
score 10.970258

Similar Items