The metamorphosis of larceny permits us to abstract two general patterns of criminality that find expression in a variety of crimes in addition to larceny. The common law of larceny up to the time of Blackstone reflected what we may call the pattern of manifest criminality; the modern law of larceny, emerging in the late eighteenth century, stands for a pattern of subjective criminality. By generalizing the features of these two conflicting patterns of liability, we shall find that we have a powerful interpretative mechanism for understanding disputes in the law of burglary, attempts and other inchoate offenses, treason, and even a central dispute in the theory of constitutional arrests under the Fourth Amendment. The tension between the pattern of manifest criminality and the pattern of subjective criminality is one that pervades a wide field of the criminal law.
§3.1.1. The Pattern of Manifest Criminality. The critical feature of this basic pattern of liability is that the commission of the