Kadish and Voodoo Case

Anthony K.

The Model Penal code1, section 5.01 gives the following definition of attempted crimes:

“(1) Definition of Attempt. A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of the crime, he: (a) purposely engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be; or (b) when causing a particular result is an element of the crime, does or omits to do anything with the purpose of causing or with the belief that it will cause such result without further conduct on his part; or (c) purposely does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as he believes them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.”


Under this definition, can Victor be convicted of attempted murder?
How would Kadish analyze this case?
What is Kadish’s criticism of the “harm doctrine” and how does it apply to this case?
According to Kadish, why do we still have the “harm doctrine”?


1. Under this definition, can Victor be convicted of attempted murder?

Danny C. Original Response,


Yes, all three premises of M.P.C.'s definition of "Attempted Rape". The first requires that one commit an act that harms another if the conditions were as if one imagined it. In other words, Victor believes that his wife is under the power of voodoo, and commences his activity. A second requirement is that one makes no (action/or inaction) to prevent the crime. Victor, once he has had enough, continues without hesitation to the completion of the act. The third premise requires a substantial step in the direction of the crime. Victor, in this case, completes the entire crime.


In response to Danny C.,


Everyday Americans go daily with attempted “murder,” thoughts floating around in their brains, with no serious attempts of actually committing the crime when it comes down to the fact. No, Victor cannot be charged with attempted crime, because the crime could be viewed from the theological" approach. The Voodooist can be viewed as conducting a religious activity that alone circumvents; because of the United States Constitution, I wanted to point this out as a response to the questions…but also from a rebuttal approach.


2. How would Kadish analyze this case?


Kadish is trying to base cases upon information vs. taking things by literati on. Also between the cases actual death in comparison to stabbing an inanimate doll, they are two different things. Implicating a man, off whimsical evidence is the primary concern.

3. What is Kadish’s criticism of the “harm doctrine” and how does it apply to this case?

Kadish argues that the "harm doctrine" is theoretically incoherent and ineffective in its goal of crime prevention. Therefore, to judge him based on the results of the outcome, whether attempted murder or murder, is nonsensical. Misdemeanors & ticketed offenses are based somewhat on a
whimsical viewpoint (nonsensical). In "layman terms," if one becomes aware of the punishment associated with a crime he/she is less likely to commit the act due to an unwanted outcome. Kadish makes this claim simply to prove the ineffectiveness of judicial system under the "harm principle" while linked with premeditation. 4. According to Kadish, why do we still have the “harm doctrine”?
Society has an ever-changing attitude with a hopefully even slower change on morals and values when compared with philosophy. The American people though mislead are perhaps the reason for mainstream awareness. Kadish will further assert that the law is merely a reflection of the society's ability to justify. Mainstream society, culture, religion, and popular vote shape persecution and ratification.