In terms of legal impossibility, how is it treated compared to factual impossibility in criminal law?

Legal impossibility is treated as a valid defense in criminal law, particularly in the context of attempts to commit a crime. It refers to situations where a defendant believes they are committing a crime, but the act they are attempting is not actually illegal. For example, if a person attempts to buy goods from a store that is closed and believes they are committing theft, they cannot be convicted of attempted theft because the act of theft cannot occur when one cannot legally take possession of the items.

On the other hand, factual impossibility involves circumstances where the criminal act could not be completed, despite the intention to commit a crime. This does not provide a valid defense to an attempt because the law focuses on the defendant's intent to commit a crime, not merely the actual completion of that crime. For example, if someone attempts to pickpocket an empty pocket, they've committed an act that reflects criminal intent, and this intent can lead to a charge of attempted theft.

Therefore, legal impossibility serves as a defense because it demonstrates that there was no catchable crime, effectively negating the possibility of attempt. In contrast, factual impossibility does not absolve a person's intention or actions that indicate an attempt to commit a crime. This distinction is critical in understanding how