Why is it more difficult to prove mens rea in an attempted crime?

The answer is that "it is more difficult to prove mens rea in an attempted crime because attempt is not a completed crime."

Strict risk offenses which can be submitted without evidence of mens rea exhibit by lawful authorities. In this sense, is it reasonable for rebuff the individuals who did not plan to cause hurt, but rather accomplished so because of numbness? Then again, it would be to a great degree hard to demonstrate the mens rea on a few offenses, for example, motoring offenses. Besides, it would force an extensive weight on the criminal equity framework.

The correct answer is: attempt is not a completed crime.

Mens rea refers to when an individual is completely aware and knowledgeable about the fact that he or she has or is going to engage in activity that is criminal. In other words, men rea refers to when someone intentionally went ahead to commit a crime. Mens rea is an important element in legal cases, since it establishes whether or not a crime was intended by the perpertrator. In cases of attempted crime (where no crime actually occurred), mens rea is difficult to establish because there is no physical evidence of the crime, despite a perpetrators intention to commit it. 

Is there a picture that goes with this question?