What Donkeys and Elephants will probably disagree on

[Earthling]

Was the title edited or did I misread it as "agree" in the first place - I don't see any justification for the assertion but I guess that's irrelevant. Anyway:

"Attemped Murder! You don't get a Nobel Prize for Attempted Chemistry"

I vote intent 100% - given the two options, I don't see how it can be any other way. If an action is committed without intent then it's not just not a crime. Negligence and the like still count and so would standards of reasonable doubt and other legal requirements, but accidental events should not be arbitrarily punished. And of course it's just silly to presume anyone would try to enforce a system based on intention when nothing at all takes place, but that's the least applicable to the real world, and thus easiest to ignore contradiction.

Lastly, drinking doesn't absolve anyone of anything, ever. Except women, who after having consumed any amount of alcohol cannot consent to sex.

 

[Nylan]

Yes, but what of thoughtcrime?

 

[Ayatollah So]

Yes, but what of thoughtcrime?

That would be an example of punishing intention without any action being required. Whereas, as illram pointed out, almost everyone agrees that we should penalize some infractions, like speeding, based only on action not intention. But hey, this poll Q stank, I should have abstained.

P.S. When there's trouble-you call D.W.!

 

[nonconformist]

Drinking is not an excuse, unless it's linked to medical alcoholism.

Otherwise, it's assumed that you shouldn't be drinking if you can't control yourself.

 

[Earthling]

That would be an example of punishing intention without any action being required. Whereas, as illram pointed out, almost everyone agrees that we should penalize some infractions, like speeding, based only on action not intention.

I don't see how it's necessary to penalize speeding if the intention behind it is reasonable - in fact, I've heard of places that make exceptions for someone who is, say, driving a pregnant woman to a hospital. In some other emergency situation I'm sure I'd also argue that speeding shouldn't be penalized. It just happens that speeding isn't something that tends to have lots of potentially different intentions behind it like assault vs. self-defense does. "Negligence" still counts as intention in my book so if you're just driving recklessly for no reason that still is some intention. But I also agree that a good system really requires looking at both, and I'm still curious as to why this would be something Democrats and Republicans would differ on.

 

[LuckyAC]

It's like if you know you have epilepsy and you go driving. Even if the fit you have, causing you to run over someone, is completely involuntary, it was a reckless choice to drive with epilepsy. Also, there are pretty strong policy needs to not allow people to just get drunk to absolve themselves of later actions.

 

[Camikaze]

Drinking is no excuse for the action itself, which will still be punished to a small degree, but it is an excuse for intention. But it isn't an all or nothing situation. The epilepsy situation, for instance, does not deserve a murder charge; the intent would not be there, but does deserve more punishment than other types of manslaughter.

Not that I agree with the idea of punishment much anyway.

 

[nonconformist]

Drinking is no excuse for the action itself, which will still be punished to a small degree, but it is an excuse for intention. But it isn't an all or nothing situation. The epilepsy situation, for instance, does not deserve a murder charge; the intent would not be there, but does deserve more punishment than other types of manslaughter.

Not that I agree with the idea of punishment much anyway.

Well, in the UK at least, if you commit a crime while drunk, you're still liable for what you do under the effects, since it's assumed that if you're likely to commit a crime while drunk, you shouldn't be drinking.

Alcoholism, certified by a doctor, is a different matter.

 

[Camikaze]

What would make someone think they are likely to commit a crime when they are drunk? I mean, sure, you should know there is a higher chance, but I don't see how you would know that you are going to commit a crime, or even think that there is a reasonable possibility of it. Sure, if you do go and get drunk when you know that you are going to do something regretful whilst intoxicated, then 'intent', as such, is there, but for the average person, I'm guessing that that wouldn't be the case. What I'm getting at is that although being drunk shouldn't be an excuse, it does certainly put into doubt the intent behind a crime. And sending the offender off to an AA meeting would probably be more beneficial to society and the individual than putting them in gaol.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

This poll is Fair and Balanced (tm). It's like asking whether I want to live in a totalitarian or a somalian state.

 

[Hygro]

Voted action, though it is a false dichotomy. In the case of this scenario, the man behaved violently and irresponsibly the whole way through, so in fact he could reasonably be charged with murder of sorts by both intention and action.

P.S. hate crimes are hate crimes because they are an action, not merely an intention. If you wish to debate this please search "hygro" and "hate crimes", because I'm not starting from scratch

 

[nonconformist]

What would make someone think they are likely to commit a crime when they are drunk? I mean, sure, you should know there is a higher chance, but I don't see how you would know that you are going to commit a crime, or even think that there is a reasonable possibility of it. Sure, if you do go and get drunk when you know that you are going to do something regretful whilst intoxicated, then 'intent', as such, is there, but for the average person, I'm guessing that that wouldn't be the case. What I'm getting at is that although being drunk shouldn't be an excuse, it does certainly put into doubt the intent behind a crime. And sending the offender off to an AA meeting would probably be more beneficial to society and the individual than putting them in gaol.

In that case, every time someone had a DUI, or vehicular death as a result of being DUI, they could turn up to court and argue, "well, I'm not liable for my DUI, since I was under the influence at the time"

 

[Camikaze]

You still have liability for an action, it is just that the justice system's has to determine to what degree intent was a factor. I see what you mean, and I'm not saying that you shouldn't punish the action, or should allow excuses to be made, but the intent in the situation should be looked at as the major determining factor in any sentence, but of course depending on what type of crime it is.

 

[civ_king]

Should people who commit crimes be charge on action or intention?
Can you charge a man who committed murder accidentally when he fired a loaded gun who he 100% believe it to be blanks?

why would you fire at someone with a gun loaded with blanks?

Given the scenario:
A woman has an affair with another man. The husband in a bout of depression goes drinking. He gets drunk and in a frenzied drunken rage kills the other man. As he was drunk at the time, he was not of sound mind and decisions cannot be trusted to him.

Should the husband be charged for murder, or for a lesser sentence of irresponsible drinking? Why would be an appropiate punishment then in your opinion?

Charge with Drinking and Manslaughter, punishment would be counciling, an alcohol detox program and prison time

Second Question:

Imagine a Man commits intended murder. Does he deserve a second chance in life? (As in serve his time and rehabilitated into society.)

if they show remorse they can be released after Conflict resolution, rehabilitation and repaying their debt to society

 

[cardgame]

Both, of course. Ths poll stinks

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

It's not a crime until there is action. But at that point, intention can still modify the verdict.

 

[Cutlass]

It should be based almost always on both, and sometimes only on action if the crime or infraction is minor. Speeding doesn't require intent for instance. You do it you pay. Murder obviously requires intent, and the severity of your punishment rides on the level of your intent. And don't forget that sometimes we substitute things classically not considered "intentional" such as recklessness in to qualify as the requisite intent necessary for the crime, because we as a society have agreed that for certain things there is an objective level of normal behavior that if you fall below, you can't just escape culpability because you "didn't mean it." E.g. accidentally running a red light and killing someone.

Which is how we have been doing it for a while BTW.

Cue Lucy Duke and a reference to the Station Nightclub Fire. The problem with that is that even without the intent to be anything other than careless or reckless, the harm done can so outstrip the penalty imposed that having done it that way appears a travesty. 100 dead. 3 years in prison. It undermines faith in the system.

That said, actions should be what counts the most, but intentions shouldn't be overlooked. A person who is drunk or stoned should not receive a lighter sentence because they were impaired. Because they chose to be impaired.