I am especially concerned about the author's logic /q When the police catch someone in the course of criminal conduct and intervene mid-way, the punishment is

I am especially concerned about the author's logic /q When the police catch someone in the course of criminal conduct and intervene mid-way, the punishment is properly based on what the person was in the course of doing rather than how much he succeeded before he was caught. Let's say I issue a manifesto where I support free food for all. Would me picking up things in a store mean that I wanted to steal them or give them for free? The association between the man's principles and his assumed purposes is in direct contrast with the other author's argument on fighting lawfully. Even if he downloaded one article he could share it. Should he not be allowed access to information just because he was fighting for freedom of information? Do laws now impose principles and beliefs? Or does a principle render us in self-imposed seclusion until the relevant laws change? Highly problematic and indicative of how prosecutors argue the cases. And this man is considered an expert?