Research Articles
| Open Access |
https://doi.org/10.55640/ijssll-03-03-01
The Defence of Voluntary Desistance in Criminal Attempts: A Malaysian Legal Perspective
Abstract
The doctrine of criminal attempts is a critical component of criminal law, designed to punish individuals who intend to commit crimes but are intercepted or fail before completion. However, the concept of voluntary desistance—where an individual willingly ceases to commit a crime before completing the offense—poses complex legal and moral questions. This paper examines the viability and legal recognition of voluntary desistance as a defense in criminal attempt cases within the Malaysian legal framework. Drawing on statutory provisions, case law, and comparative analysis with jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and the United States, the study highlights the absence of explicit legislative guidance on the issue in Malaysia. It also explores whether existing legal principles allow for the incorporation of voluntary desistance as a mitigating factor or complete defense. The paper concludes by proposing legal reforms that would provide clarity and consistency in handling cases involving desistance in criminal attempts.
Keywords
Voluntary desistance, criminal attempts, Malaysian criminal law, incomplete offenses, legal defense, intent, comparative law, penal code, legal reform, criminal responsibility
References
1. American Law Institute. (1985). Model Penal Code. https://www.ali.org/publications/show/model-penal-code/.
2. Chew, M. (1988). Should Voluntary Abandonment be a Defence to Attempted Crime? American Criminal Law Review, 26(2), 441–461.
3. Christopher, K. H., & Christopher, R. L. (2011). Criminal Law: Model Problems and Outstanding Answers. Oxford University Press.
4. Duff, R. A. (1996). Criminal Attempts. Clarendon Press.
5. Sayre, F. B. (1928). Criminal Attempts. Harvard Law Review, 41(7), 821–859.
6. Taib et al. / Zulfaqar J. Def. Mgt. Soc. Sci. Hum. 81. (Note: This reference seems incomplete and refers to a journal/page number rather than a specific article or book title).
7. Gaur, K. D. (2009). Textbook on the Indian Penal Code. Universal Law Publishing.
8. Lee, C. F., Hassan, C. A., & Bajury, M. S. H. M. (2012). Introduction to Principle and Liability in Criminal Law. Lexis Nexis.
9. Ranchhoddas, R., & Thakore, D. K. (1998). The Law of Crimes (24th ed., Vol. 2). Bombay Law Reporter.
10. Woodward, J., & Allman, J. (2007). Moral intuition: Its neural substrates and normative significance. Journal of Physiology Paris, 101(4–6), 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2007.12.003.
11. Yaffe, G. (2011). Attempts: In the Philosophy of Action and the Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199590667.001.0001.
12. Kee Ah Bah v Public Prosecutor (1979) 1 MLJ 26.
13. Mohd Ali Jaafar v. Public Prosecutor (1998) 4 MLJ 210.
14. Munah bte Ali v. Public Prosecutor [1958] MLJ 159.
15. Tan Beng Chye v PP (1966) 1 MLJ 173.
16. R v Scofield, Cold. 397 (1784).
17. Public Prosecutor v Zainal Abidin Ismail & 3 Ors (1987) 2 MLJ 741.
18. State of Maharashtra v Mohd Yakub (1980) Criminal Law Journal 793.
19. People v Taylor, 598 NE 2d693 (NY, 1992)
Article Statistics
Downloads
Copyright License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (CC BY 4.0).
Authors retain full copyright of their work.
Content is freely accessible and can be shared or reused with proper attribution.
This ensures open access and promotes global dissemination of knowledge.