Should attempted murder carry the same penalty as murder?

[Gogf]

I'm talking about possible sentences (such as the death penalty in America) and mandatory minimum sentences.

I can't really think of a coherent reason why it should not, and yet it does not.

 

[Fifty]

AWWWWWWWWW, GOGF HAS DISCOVERED THE EXCITING WORLD OF MORAL LUCK!

this aint technically moral luck but whatevs

read the posts by Cleo, Jollyroger, and Ayatollah in that thread.

 

[Bill3000]

I can't really think of a coherent reason why it should not, and yet it does not.

Because you didn't actually kill someone? Because crimes are punished not merely on intent, but on action as well?

 

[Godwynn]

No, it should not.

 

[Gogf]

Whoa, great posts by I'm Cleo! and JollyRoger in that other thread!

 

[carmen510]

While you are a conspirator, you didn't kill someone. Therefore, you should just be charged with a separate sentence of attempted murder.

 

[Gogf]

While you are a conspirator, you didn't kill someone. Therefore, you should just be charged with a separate sentence of attempted murder.

I don't see where being a conspirator enters into the picture. Do you know what conspirator means?

 

[warpus]

Consequences matter.

If you punch someone in the face and you kill them, you should get a harsher punishment than if you punched them in the face and it cured their cancer.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

Is it worse to hit someone with the snowball than miss?

 

[Winner]

Yes. It's the intention that deserves the punishment - why should someone get of the hook just because he failed? So that he can be more successful the next time?

 

[Bill3000]

Yes. It's the intention that deserves the punishment - why should someone get of the hook just because he failed? So that he can be more successful the next time?

If it was merely the intention that deserved the punishment, then we wouldn't have criminalized manslaughter.

 

[Godwynn]

Yes. It's the intention that deserves the punishment - why should someone get of the hook just because he failed? So that he can be more successful the next time?

If it was a teenager's intention to only hurt someone on an opposing football team by punching him, and the kid's punch ends up killing the other guy, what is the punishment? The intention or the result?

 

[Winner]

If it was a teenager's intention to only hurt someone on an opposing football team by punching him, and the kid's punch ends up killing the other guy, what is the punishment? The intention or the result?

Intention. If the death was accidental (and the attacker can prove it), then it should NOT be punished in the same way as a murder in cold blood.

At least that's how it works in my country.

 

[Traitorfish]

"Yes" seems the painfully obvious answer. Intending to kill someone is, morally, equivalent to killing them. Intention is the root of the crime, after all, which is why manslaughter is not treated as murder.

 

[Gelion]

Dangerous logic. If we agree to that then the next step is thought control.

 

[sanabas]

If the consequences are worse than the intended consequences, then sure, consequences have an impact on it. Manslaughter is a good example, as are various other punishments based on negligence.

If the intent was there, but the consequences weren't as bad, then punish them as though the intended consequences happened.

So punishment for attempted murder = punishment for actual murder for me.

 

[History_Buff]

Dangerous logic. If we agree to that then the next step is thought control.

I voted yes for punishing the intent of an action, not the intent of a thought.

However, Bill raises a good point; I also favour criminalized manslaughter. I'm torn.

 

[Gelion]

I voted yes for punishing the intent of an action, not the intent of a thought.

However, Bill raises a good point; I also favour criminalized manslaughter. I'm torn.

I will try to raise another. How are we to distuinguish crimes that achieve their aims from those that did not? Attempted rape? Is sexual harassment similar to rape for example? Or attempted damage of property through fire punishable in the same way as total destruction of that same property? The punishment in modern legal system as I understand are done for two purposes to prevent crime and to compensate for damaged caused to juridical properties protected (such as life). If there is no complete damage, why should the punishment be as severe as full damage?

 

[Traitorfish]

Dangerous logic. If we agree to that then the next step is thought control.

A fallacy. What I am saying is that crime originates in intention, therefore the only way to punish and prevent crime is to deal with intention. If we merely deal with the actual act, then attempted murder would be no crime at all and we'd be prosecuting the San Andreas fault for killing people in earthquakes.
People are free to think whatever they want. However, how they express those thoughts in the physical world can effect others, and so these thoughts must be taken into account for an effective criminal justice system to exist.

How are we to distuinguish crimes that achieve their aims from those that did not?

We have that, it's called "the judicial system", and it has, in some form, existed since time immemorial.

 

[Gelion]

A fallacy. What I am saying is that crime originates in intention, therefore the only way to punish and prevent crime is to deal with intention. If we merely deal with the actual act, then attempted murder would be no crime at all and we'd be prosecuting the San Andreas fault for killing people in earthquakes.

I am not sure what you mean by San Andreas (GTA reference?), but this is exactly what I am talking about. I want to kill someone. Today. Tomorrow I just want to smack them and in a few hours from now I will even think about means of how to take revenge on that someone. Does this mean I can be brough to court?

Lets take the other situation. Suppose a person is under influence of durgs or is deeply depressed and some arrogant idiot comes and insults him heavily. A fight and intent of murder in this case might be actual, but they are not pre-meditated murder. Should this guy get the same sentance if the killed a guy who insulted him as a cold-blooded maniac?