Final answer:
The test for actus reus of attempt includes considering a normal law-abiding citizen's perspective on whether actions appear criminal, along with the probative intention behind those actions. This subjective standard often relies on the 'last act' or 'proximity test', ensuring that mere preparation is not punishable unless it significantly approaches the commission of a crime.
Step-by-step explanation:
The test for the actus reus of attempt that considers whether a normal law-abiding citizen would view someone's actions as criminal is a subjective one and often relies on what is known as the 'last act test' or 'proximity test.' The subjective standard is based on the reasoning that a person's actions become significantly criminal when they cross a threshold that a common law-abiding citizen would recognize as preparation for the commission of a crime. Under this approach, the intention of the individual (the mental element or mens rea) is also a critical factor in determining the attempt, but it is the manifestation of that intent into action that a 'normal' person would regard as a step toward committing a crime that satisfies the actus reus requirement for an attempt.
Mere preparation, which is not punishable as an attempt, is not enough to constitute the actus reus. The distinction is important because it helps to prevent the law from punishing individuals for thought crimes before they have actually taken concrete steps toward committing a criminal act. However, not all jurisdictions apply the subjective or normal person standard; some employ an objective test, focusing on the actions of the accused and the remaining steps needed to complete the crime.