What are the moral differences between premeditated and non-premeditated violence?

[Perfection]

It is not, thought police is criminalizing specific thoughts, whereas I'm proposing that in criminal justice thought matters when assessing what judgement to dole out. The action still is the crime.

When a person hurts someone else, we want to know why they did it. If they did it because they were insane and incapable of controlling themselves, that's one thing. If they did it because they were under extreme emotional stress, and didn't consider everything, that's another. If they did it because they thought long and hard about it then decided to act upon it, that's a third.

That mental state is important in establishing the appropriate punishment.

 

[bhsup]

We'll just have to agree to disagree, it seems. I just fail to see why the killer of Rhonda's husband should get less punishment than the killer of Jane's husband just because the killer of Rhonda's husband killed him without thinking about it for a month before doing it. I'm sure Rhonda probably doesn't see why, either.

 

[Zelig]

In general I don't think morality of actions lines up very well with how we should punish them. (ie. Egregious dishonesty in personal relationships is pretty immoral, but it's not criminal.)

I covered how I think punishment should work in another thread:

Well as I've said before, I don't think punishment for the sake of punishment has any value. Incarceration has three goals:

1. Prevention of re-offense.
2. Rehabilitation.
3. Deterrence of crimes by others.

I'm doubtful greater punishments for premeditation has a net positive effect on furthering those ends. (Maybe it would, but I'm not aware of any evidence either way.)

 

[Perfection]

We'll just have to agree to disagree, it seems. I just fail to see why the killer of Rhonda's husband should get less punishment than the killer of Jane's husband just because the killer of Rhonda's husband killed him without thinking about it for a month before doing it. I'm sure Rhonda probably doesn't see why, either.

The ends of criminal justice are not merely to placate the demands of victims, but to balance them with the needs of society, and the fairness to the perpetrator. The victim's families may or may not see it that way, but their loss is not the only thing that matters.

 

[JollyRoger]

So you think that someone who happens to think in a villainous manner is more deserving of punishment for same actual act? That's thought police.

If your same actual act was in self defense, do you not want the thought police to come to your rescue on if and how harshly you are punished?

 

[luiz]

If your same actual act was in self defense, do you not want the thought police to come to your rescue on if and how harshly you are punished?

Exactly. I'm shocked this is even being discussed. The intent is the most important thing when determining the punishment. People who commit a crime on the heat of the moment of course deserve punishment too, but it can't be the same as one who thought through the whole thing.

The act itself says very little. Self defense also may involve killing someone, as much as in theft followed by murder. But we don't punish them in the same way.

 

[Souron]

This is a non-partisan political discussion question that I am posting because it interests me?

Question: What are the moral differences between premeditated and non-premeditated violence?

Sub-question 1: When determining the proper prison sentence for a murder, should we take into account whether or not the crime was premeditated?

Sub-question 2: When determining the proper prison sentence for a rape, should we take into account whether or not the crime was premeditated?

Sub-question 3: When determining the proper prison sentence for an assault, should we take into account whether or not the crime was premeditated?

Sub-question 4: Does premeditated violence require greater malevolence from the perpetrator than non-premeditated violence?

I await your replies.

A vile act, done with malice and foresight is much worse than loosing your temper. A person is responsible for what they do when emotionally overwhelmed, but failing to do so is a lesser evil than planning to do a vile act from the start.

1-3)Absolutely. The motive and reasons for a crime should always be considered in sentencing. One of the objective of a sentence is to ensure that the crime is not committed again by the same person, and how to do that can depend on why the crime happened.

4)Yes.

 

[Dralix]

We'll just have to agree to disagree, it seems. I just fail to see why the killer of Rhonda's husband should get less punishment than the killer of Jane's husband just because the killer of Rhonda's husband killed him without thinking about it for a month before doing it. I'm sure Rhonda probably doesn't see why, either.

It's called mitigating circumstances.

 

[Souron]

In general I don't think morality of actions lines up very well with how we should punish them. (ie. Egregious dishonesty in personal relationships is pretty immoral, but it's not criminal.)

I covered how I think punishment should work in another thread:



I'm doubtful greater punishments for premeditation has a net positive effect on furthering those ends. (Maybe it would, but I'm not aware of any evidence either way.)

It seems to me the deterrence impact would be different. For people thinking to do murder, the punishment needs to seem much worse than the benifit they could ever get from doing the crime, because those people don't see the crime itself as bad (enough). For non-premeditated murder, there is hardly any need for deterrence, because the would be criminals know their crime is bad, but do the crime from lack of self control.

On the other hand, with premeditated murder, it's quite possible to imagine that a particular criminal is not likely to be a danger to society at large if the criminal has no malice for anyone but the victim, and the victim is dead or otherwise specially protected.

Similarly rehabilitation is totally different for someone who's circumstances lead toward a life of premeditated crime, and someone who can't manage their temper.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sorry if I missed it. From what I gather "attempted <crime>" is generally punished at the same level of intensity as "<crime>" is. You did try to do it after all, the fact that you were inept or unlucky doesn't necessarily make you any less guilty.

I believe the idea between differentiating premeditated murder and non-premeditated violence is that in the first type we place the cause of the action on the perpetrator. In the second we place some of the cause of the action on the situation. The perpetrator may have, or not, guilt from being in the situation in the first place, but when punishing that individual we consider them less of a risk of being the sort of person that will make such behavior a habit - since the behavior was partially the result of a weird situation, not the man. Bear in mind, the bar for "premeditation" is really really easy to clear in a lot of places. In some of them, the act of reaching for a weapon and using it satisfies the requirements of "premeditation." In others, it takes just a little bit more. But in none of them that I am aware of does it require plotting for a week while twirling your mustache.

 

[Zelig]

If your same actual act was in self defense, do you not want the thought police to come to your rescue on if and how harshly you are punished?

I don't particularly care about V's state of mind if I'm determining whether an act was justifiably self defense.

It seems to me the deterrence impact would be different. For people thinking to do murder, the punishment needs to seem much worse than the benifit they could ever get from doing the crime, because those people don't see the crime itself as bad (enough). For non-premeditated murder, there is hardly any need for deterrence, because the would be criminals know their crime is bad, but do the crime from lack of self control.

On the other hand, with premeditated murder, it's quite possible to imagine that a particular criminal is not likely to be a danger to society at large if the criminal has no malice for anyone but the victim, and the victim is dead or otherwise specially protected.

Similarly rehabilitation is totally different for someone who's circumstances lead toward a life of premeditated crime, and someone who can't manage their temper.

Yeah, that's why I said net effect.

Basically we're asking "What's the action that results in the most benefit to society?", where "benefit to society" can be inferred by the three points I mentioned - I don't know that the action "more punishment" for premeditation vs. impulse violence results in a net gain.

 

[Flying Pig]

We'll just have to agree to disagree, it seems. I just fail to see why the killer of Rhonda's husband should get less punishment than the killer of Jane's husband just because the killer of Rhonda's husband killed him without thinking about it for a month before doing it. I'm sure Rhonda probably doesn't see why, either.

Because somebody capable of spending a month plotting murder and therefore saw nothing wrong with it is probably more likely to kill again than somebody who killed someone in a fit of passion and instantly regretted it.

 

[timtofly]

There is nothing moral in the differences. There is only the justification of punishment required. The problem with the current state of affairs is that humans have conflated justice with morality. If justice was moral, we would have no laws and thus no peace, but chaos. Justice is the act of correction, not the determinate of intent. A person who acts out of impulse, is just as capable of doing it again, without even thinking about it, but may try to actively stop themselves. A person who pre-meditates, can also stop themselves, but they have a stronger case not to do so.

There is a difference between someone who plans on committing an act and one who does not, but all humans are very capable of doing both, thus there really is no moral difference between the two.

 

[Perfection]

There is nothing moral in the differences. There is only the justification of punishment required. The problem with the current state of affairs is that humans have conflated justice with morality. If justice was moral, we would have no laws and thus no peace, but chaos. Justice is the act of correction, not the determinate of intent. A person who acts out of impulse, is just as capable of doing it again, without even thinking about it, but may try to actively stop themselves. A person who pre-meditates, can also stop themselves, but they have a stronger case not to do so.

Correction should be applied only as far as it is fair. We punish with an eye for morality. That's why we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one has committed said act before punishing. If someone is undeserving of punishment it is a miscarriage of justice to punish them. Similarly if someone is undeserving of a certain degree of punishment it is a miscarriage of justice to overpunish them (imagine being jailed for 5 years for stealing a pack of gum). I would contend it is unfair to punish impulsive acts and planned acts in the same manner as those who act only out of impulse are demonstrating less immorality.

In addition, for the purpose of correction, intent matters. Planned acts are the result of a failure of character, whereas impulsive acts are the result of failure to control one's actions. To say that they require the same correction is to make a gross mistake.

There is a difference between someone who plans on committing an act and one who does not,

Good.

but all humans are very capable of doing both, thus there really is no moral difference between the two.

Excuse me? That seems like an absurd argument. Just because all humans are capable of act X and all humans are capable of act Y doesn't make act X and Y morally equivalent. All humans are capable of of being mean to those weaker then them, all humans are capable of being generous to those weaker then them. There most certainly is a moral difference between the two!

 

[warpus]

A person who sits down and plans how another one is going to suffer VS one who acts rashly without thinking to cause the same level of suffering = (to me) obviously 2 scenarios that need to be punished differently.

 

[timtofly]

Excuse me? That seems like an absurd argument. Just because all humans are capable of act X and all humans are capable of act Y doesn't make act X and Y morally equivalent. All humans are capable of of being mean to those weaker then them, all humans are capable of being generous to those weaker then them. There most certainly is a moral difference between the two!

It is absurd to place morality on different levels, but we do it all the time.

We limit peoples impulses, but we do not limit people's potential?

You would be willing for one human to set levels of morality? What makes it any different if humans agree there are levels of morality? Is one human's character any less important than any other human?

Planned acts are the result of a failure of character!

This is where the problem is. Whose character are you talking about? Yours? Planned acts define a character. Impulsive acts also define character. Character is how other's see us, because character is only viewed when acted out. While it is true that our true character is what we do when no one is looking, it does very little good for those around us who do not know our true character.

The show Hannibal clearly shows Hannibal's character, but not to those around him. To them he is a very moral character. If Hannibal learns that one does not see him as moral, they do not live. Morality breaks down when it does not work properly.

Morality does not work because we make people follow morals. It works when people are moral even when they do not want to be, because it is not their true character.

So we are back to "rewarding" people on different levels of human character, which is determined on who they actually are, which seems absurd.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm really not certain it's entirely a morality issue as much as it is a repeat offense issue.

 

[Narz]

I'm really not certain it's entirely a morality issue as much as it is a repeat offense issue.

I'd agree with this.

I always thought it was BS "rewarding" impulsive. Violence is violence whether it was planning in a day or in the five seconds before the firestorm. At least per-meditated violence can be stopped if the perpetrator manages to rethink things.

 

[luiz]

I'd agree with this.

I always thought it was BS "rewarding" impulsive. Violence is violence whether it was planning in a day or in the five seconds before the firestorm. At least per-meditated violence can be stopped if the perpetrator manages to rethink things.

But of course there's a moral component to punishment. If there wasn't and we were just concerned with avoiding repeat offense there would be no point in making "the punishment fit the crime"; we would just execute most criminals. We don't because we think that wouldn't be fair. Fairness is key when dealing punishment.

Non-premeditated violence, specially if it occurred under extreme circumstances, is clearly a less evil act than premeditated violence. That's why the punishment must be smaller, even if the risk of repeat offense is higher.

The argument that punishment is merely or mostly to avoid repeat offense is quite silly. If that was the case we should let a lot of cold-blooded murderers walk because there's virtually zero chance they'll kill again.There was this famous case of an old journalist in Brazil that killed his much younger girlfriend in cold blood after finding out she was cheating. He planned the whole thing through, it wasn't done in the heat of the moment. This is a 70-something year old guy who will most likely never date again much less kill again. Should he be given a lenient sentence just because he pose no risk to society? Of course not! Justice is primarily about retribution. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding himself.

 

[Narz]

Non-premeditated violence, specially if it occurred under extreme circumstances, is clearly a less evil act than premeditated violence.

It's not clear. I catch some guy sleeping with my hypothetical wife & I butcher him immediately or after stewing in my juices for four hours. Dude's dead, same thing.

Justice is primarily about retribution. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding himself.

Yes, this is unfortunate. This is why the "correctional" system corrects very few & simply breeds more criminality.

The same type of society that has mercy on impulsivity can't take the time to (pre)meditate on how to make the correctional system more beneficial to more criminal & society (rather than a breeding ground for more criminals, feeding itself). Simply "punishing" criminals clearly isn't a deterrent as the jail population is booming (at least in the US).