Is there a moral and/or legal distinction between murder and attempted murder?

Fifty · Apr 16, 2008

Consider two situations (call them "situation 1" and "situation 2"), one in which person A shoots and kills person B, and another in which person A attempts to shoot and kill person B but fails. These situations are otherwise equivalent, and assume they are instances of morally reprehensible murder and attempted murder, respectively (so A isn't shooting B out of self-defense, but rather for some morally repugnant reason).

Two main questions:

1. Is there a moral distinction between these cases? That is, is person A more morally blameworthy (or more morally wrong, or whatever) in situation 1 than in situation 2?

2. Should there be a legal distinction between these two cases, say, in terms of how much punishment A receives? Also assume that all the facts of the case are equally provable in each case (so, you know in both cases that A was genuinely trying to murder B).

Explaining how you arrived at your answers to these two questions would make this thread much more interesting.

ArneHD · Apr 16, 2008

From a moral stand point there may not be a difference, but from a legal standpoint there is. In situation 1 the person have demonstrated themselves willing and capable of killing another person. In situation 2 the person have demonstrated themselves willing, but not capable. The person in situation 2 thus presents a lower security risk to society then the person in situation 1.

Defiant47 · Apr 16, 2008

Without having succeeded, how do we know that they would have killed the other person? You never know... for example, maybe they changed their mind and decided to feign incompetence.

Fifty · Apr 16, 2008

ArneHD said:
From a moral stand point there may not be a difference, but from a legal standpoint there is. In situation 1 the person have demonstrated themselves willing and capable of killing another person. In situation 2 the person have demonstrated themselves willing, but not capable. The person in situation 2 thus presents a lower security risk to society then the person in situation 1.

Assume that the difference was in no way the fault of a "lack of ability". So, perhaps A's gun just randomly jammed, or a gust of wind caused the bullet to narrowly miss, or whatever.

Defiant47 said:
Without having succeeded, how do we know that they would have killed the other person?

Because it is stipulated. :rolleyes:

Defiant47 · Apr 16, 2008

Fifty said:
Because it is stipulated.

Perhaps, but things aren't that certain in a court of law.

Defiant47 · Apr 16, 2008

So I guess I'm saying that the punishment morally should have no consequence on success (in a world where everyone could be evaluated perfectly), but the legal reality created a justified distinction between the two.

Alpine Trooper · Apr 16, 2008

Punch a person in the face in a fight, they fall and break a leg and you're charged with assault.

Punch a person in the face in a fight, they fall and crack open their skull and die and you're charged with second degree murder.

Wherever intent exists the punishment seems to increase. If you intended to break their leg you might get assault with bodily harm. If you intended to crack open his skull you might get first degree murder.

Since A intends to kill the B, I think it qualifies for a more serious punishment.

LightFang · Apr 16, 2008

I think they're both morally equivalent then. As long as the intent to kill was there, I don't think you can judge between murder and attempted murder if for all intents and purposes A would have killed B except due to some freak accident.

From the legal perspective, there is a difference, probably because of what ArneHD said. In the real world, we don't have perfect information.

Archbob · Apr 16, 2008

There should be because in one person the victim died and in the other, he's still alive. Thats a difference in reality. In theory, they are the same.

Integral · Apr 16, 2008

Fifty said:
Consider two situations (call them "situation 1" and "situation 2"), one in which person A shoots and kills person B, and another in which person A attempts to shoot and kill person B but fails. These situations are otherwise equivalent, and assume they are instances of morally reprehensible murder and attempted murder, respectively (so A isn't shooting B out of self-defense, but rather for some morally repugnant reason).

A most interesting question, Dr. Fiftyson!

1. Is there a moral distinction between these cases? That is, is person A more morally blameworthy (or more morally wrong, or whatever) in situation 1 than in situation 2?

Nein. Person A carries the same moral burden in both cases. In scenario 2, person B got lucky. I'm not going to reward person A just because he happened to be a bad shot.

2. Should there be a legal distinction between these two cases, say, in terms of how much punishment A receives? Also assume that all the facts of the case are equally provable in each case (so, you know in both cases that A was genuinely trying to murder B).

Hrm. I'd probably slap the same punishment on both, given that I have perfect information about both cases. If we relax the perfect information assumption, the model becomes unstable.

holy king · Apr 16, 2008

in situation 1 you have a) the intent to kill and b) a person gets killed.

in situation 2 you have a) the intent to kill.

there's the moral distinction.

scy12 · Apr 16, 2008

The one who attacked the victim and Attempted murder may claim that he did not kill the victim not due to luck but because he didn't intended to do so. i.E He shot the victim in an area where he could be in danger zone but not die.

Berzerker · Apr 16, 2008

yes and yes

the loss of life matters morally and legally

Spilling blood is worse than trying to spill blood...

Yoda Power · Apr 16, 2008

Morals: No difference.

Legally: There should be. The way I see it a sentance consists of two things 1) rehabilitation and 2) revenge. The need for rehabilitation will always be the same no matter if the person died or not. The need for revenge on the damaged person/family differs depending whether or not the person died.

sourboy · Apr 16, 2008

Courts and laws will all split hairs. Essentially the intent was one in the same, so the punishment should be as well. But as soon as it's your loved one who just had the fluke severe result, you'd be pushing for higher action as well.

bhsup · Apr 16, 2008

MOrally there should be no difference. Case "B" just involves an incompetent murderer. Legally there should be no difference either.

QuoVadisNation · Apr 16, 2008

In American law, the intent is only part of the equation that determines the punishment handed out. Other things that matter are the action, the actual (not the theoretical) consequences, and affront to social norms, who is being killed and who is doing the killing.

If someone bothers or cared enough, uncovering whether murder cases and attempted murder cases stand on all fours would answer our legal question here. I would imagine it not to be considering courts' tendencies to split hairs incredibly thin when it comes to murder charges, but I don't claim to know everything about the law. Nor will I be the one looking into laws for an internet subforum. . .

The moral part is just a big open-ended opinionated question, and I don't think anyone will be receiving a definitive response for that anytime soon.

brennan · Apr 16, 2008

Yoda Power said:
Morals: No difference.

Legally: There should be. The way I see it a sentance consists of two things 1) rehabilitation and 2) revenge. The need for rehabilitation will always be the same no matter if the person died or not. The need for revenge on the damaged person/family differs depending whether or not the person died.

Good answer.

I'm Cleo! · Apr 16, 2008

Morally, the two are the same. The actor made the same decision -- to take a life -- only that in one case the gun jammed.

Legally, the two are distinct because the purpose of criminal law is not only to punish wrongdoing but to provide incentives for persons considering wrongdoing. Those incentives are called "deterrence" when we want people not to do something, but there are also positive incentives. If attempted murder and murder were punished the same, if someone tried to kill someone and failed, they'd might as well try again, to increase their chances to get away with it. I could foresee situations where one person tries to kill another but then has a change of heart or panics when they fail. While the shooter's moral burden is indistinguishable, we want to encourage wrongdoers to let victims live for the sake of the victims and their families. So attempted murder is punished less severely.

Cleo

kuukkeli · Apr 16, 2008

Fifty said:
1. Is there a moral distinction between these cases?

No.

2. Should there be a legal distinction between these two cases, say, in terms of how much punishment A receives?

Theoretically no. In reality in many cases the intent is impossible to prove so there will be difference. As a rule thumb if A hits B with his shot the intent should be clear enough and his punishment should not be lessened due to his inability to finalize his plan.

Is there a moral and/or legal distinction between murder and attempted murder?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just a little bit mad

Peace Sentinel

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Peace Sentinel

Peace Sentinel

AllCiv

"I'm the hero!"

Ancient CFC Guardian

Can't you hear it?

Deity

Deity

Deity

✫✫✫✫✫✫✫

Awakening...

Deity

keeping your angel alive

Argumentative Brit

Deity

King

Similar threads