The Funny thing about Attempt

Punishing criminals that commit crimes make sense to me. The process is pretty simple. The legislature enacts criminal statutes to punish certain behavior that it deems dangerous to the greater society. The idea is that if you impose criminal sanctions on certain behavior the sanction acts as a deterrent.

Hopefully everyone feels safer because we live in a society where criminals are punished (well some of them). But what about criminalizing attempted crimes? That just seems wrong to me. I think it's bad not in the least because the crime of attempt encroaches upon a fundamental principle of criminal law, which is to punish defendants that actually committed a crime. It's bad policy to send innocent folks to the slammer. So, if the criminal has not committed a crime, it would be wrong to punish him.

But mostly, I question the efficacy and overall necessity of attempt because it's goal, like all criminal sanctions, is to deter the criminal from engaging in criminal conduct that is potentially harmful to the greater society. However, punishment for attempt is far less severe than the punishment imposed for actually committing crimes. What makes the government think attempt will deter any more criminals?

Look at it from the criminal's perspective. Mr. criminal is about to rob a bank. He goes to the store and buys all the necessary items one needs to rob a bank (e.g., a bandana). At this point the severe punishment for robbing banks isn't deterring him; obviously the punishment for attempt won't either.

Therefore, the crime of attempt shakes the foundations of criminal law without offering value.