Criminal attempts require intent to commit an offence. But what constitutes such intent? Some cases are fairly straightforward. I act with intent to convert stolen goods if I intend that the goods I purchase be stolen. A man acts with intent to commit rape if he intends that the sexual intercourse be non-consensual. Other cases leave room for reasonable disagreement. Did a man intend to convert criminal property when he purchased goods which he suspected might be stolen? And did a man intend to rape a woman when he tried to have intercourse with her and was reckless about consent? Does recklessness as to the circumstance elements of an offence suffice for intent? Building on the view that attempts are failed attacks (as opposed to acts of endangerment), I argue that recklessness about circumstances is not enough for intent since such recklessness amounts to an act of endangerment. This is not to suggest that a man does nothing wrong in trying to have sex with a woman while being reckless about consent; it is to argue that he should be convicted of an endangerment offence, rather than an attempt. If we take seriously the idea that attempts are failed attacks, and that attacks and endangerments constitute different types of moral wrong, we have good reason to preserve this distinction in our offence labels by insisting that the fault element for attempts should require at least knowledge or belief as to the relevant circumstances of an offence.

犯罪未遂需要有犯罪意图。但什么构成了这种意图？有些案例相当简单。如果我打算让我购买的商品被盗，我会有意转换赃物。如果一个男人打算在非自愿的情况下进行性交，他的行为就有实施强奸的意图。其他情况为合理的分歧留下了空间。一个人在购买他怀疑可能被盗的商品时是否打算转换犯罪财产？当一个男人试图与她发生性关系并且鲁莽地同意她时，他是否打算强奸她？对犯罪的情节要素不顾后果是否足以构成故意？基于尝试是失败的攻击（而不是危害行为）的观点，我认为，对环境的鲁莽不足以构成意图，因为这种鲁莽等同于危害行为。这并不是说男人在试图与女人发生性关系时不顾一切地同意是没有错的；它是争辩说，他应该被判犯有危害罪，而不是未遂罪。如果我们认真对待未遂攻击是失败的攻击，攻击和危害构成不同类型的道德错误的观点，我们有充分的理由在我们的犯罪标签中保留这种区别，坚持认为未遂的过错要素应该至少需要知识或相信有关罪行的情节。这并不是说男人在试图与女人发生性关系时不顾一切地同意是没有错的；它是争辩说，他应该被判犯有危害罪，而不是未遂罪。如果我们认真对待未遂攻击是失败的攻击，攻击和危害构成不同类型的道德错误的观点，我们有充分的理由在我们的犯罪标签中保留这种区别，坚持认为未遂的过错要素应该至少需要知识或相信有关罪行的情节。这并不是说男人在试图与女人发生性关系时不顾一切地同意是没有错的；它是争辩说，他应该被判犯有危害罪，而不是未遂罪。如果我们认真对待未遂攻击是失败的攻击，攻击和危害构成不同类型的道德错误的观点，我们有充分的理由在我们的犯罪标签中保留这种区别，坚持认为未遂的过错要素应该至少需要知识或相信有关罪行的情节。