What legal implications arise from the mental intent of an attempt at an SL crime?

The correct choice regarding the legal implications of mental intent in attempts at a specific intent crime is that mere intent without action is insufficient. In criminal law, to establish liability for an attempt, the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant had the requisite mental state and engaged in some act that constitutes a substantial step toward committing the crime. The mere intention to commit a crime does not satisfy the requirement for an attempt. There must be evidence of an overt act, reflecting that the defendant is moving toward the commission of the crime, rather than simply contemplating it.

Therefore, in the realm of attempt crimes, the focus is on the actions taken by the defendant that further their illegal intent, coupled with their mental state. Without an overt action that indicates a step taken towards the crime, mere desire or intent is insufficient for an attempt charge. This principle ensures the legal system distinguishes between thoughts and actions, reserving culpability for those who have not only the intention but also take actions toward committing a crime.