# Attempting to murder someone that is already dead **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 10, 2022, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attempting-to-murder-someone-that-is-already-dead/964247 "2022-05-10T16:59:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2022, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attempting-to-murder-someone-that-is-already-dead/964247/61 "2022-05-26T13:13:56Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > If the current justice system gives one man a small fine and the other man 2 years in prison, it would be more just to give them both 1 year in prison. How do you know both of these were equally negligent? How is this enforced in a real world? How do all people who drink and drive get caught? If only the people who get caught by the police are punished, isn’t that a matter of luck as well? How do you handle the possibility of committing a crime versus actually carrying it out? What about two identical people who both leave their offices at 5:00. One leaves by themselves and goes home for a cold one. The other happens to leave with a colleague who invites him for a drink. One drink leads to another, and he gets drunk and kills some. He never would have gone for a drink by himself, but with bad luck, he was invited by his friend. The other guy would have gone has he happen to have been with them. It really isn’t fair that he escapes punishment because he would have done the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2022, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attempting-to-murder-someone-that-is-already-dead/964247/62 "2022-05-26T15:38:49Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > How do you know both of these were equally negligent? Two men who fire bullets into the air that collide are not equally reckless? I’m not sure why you seem to have such antipathy toward the hypothetical. Why not stop fighting it and address it? > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > How is this enforced in a real world? If you agree on the principle, there may be some real world implications for how we might improve our justice system. But it’s pointless to discuss them unless you are willing to first address the hypothetical and decide whether you agree with the _principle_ that in an ideal world we should be punishing people only for what they are actually responsible for (if we can determine it accurately), not for any random effects that also influence actual outcomes. Justice should go from principles to practice, not the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2022, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attempting-to-murder-someone-that-is-already-dead/964247/63 "2022-05-26T16:23:12Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > What about two identical people who both leave their offices at 5:00. One leaves by themselves and goes home for a cold one. The other happens to leave with a colleague who invites him for a drink. One drink leads to another, and he gets drunk and kills some. He never would have gone for a drink by himself, but with bad luck, he was invited by his friend. The other guy would have gone has he happen to have been with them. It really isn’t fair that he escapes punishment because he would have done the same thing. Free will is fiction, and that too has important implications for the justice system - but that’s a completely separate conversation. In this hypothetical, the reason you punish the person who _actually_ went and got drunk is clearly the deterrent effect. And that loops back to my hypotheticals. To the extent that the purpose of justice is deterrence, you must surely agree that it’s equally important to punish everyone who _creates the same risk_ of a bad outcome equally. ---
**Author:** ![mbh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2022, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attempting-to-murder-someone-that-is-already-dead/964247/64 "2022-05-26T18:54:06Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Free will is fiction This idea applies to the police and the courts, just as much as it applies to the defendants. If free will is fiction, what does any of this matter? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2022, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attempting-to-murder-someone-that-is-already-dead/964247/65 "2022-05-26T20:08:26Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > We have to consider the purpose of laws and criminal penalties. Does a law about cleaning your icy sidewalk exist to: > > Deter people from acting irresponsibly? > Punish people who do act irresponsibly? > Provide a restitutive path for the victims of irresponsibility? I think there’s another aspect of the legal system that people don’t think about; segregation. We define crimes, enact laws, and imprison people for the purpose of separating people who commit those crimes from the rest of society. Some crimes are just unique acts. But most crimes are essentially a lifestyle choice; most crimes are committed by people who commit those crimes on a regular ongoing basis. If you take the people who commit crimes on a regular ongoing basis and separate them from society by imprisoning them, you are going to reduce the amount of crimes that occur. This is true even if there is no deterrent or rehabilitative effect. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2022, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attempting-to-murder-someone-that-is-already-dead/964247/66 "2022-05-26T20:46:17Z")
> [@mbh](#): > > If free will is fiction, what does any of this matter? It is not a logical consequence of no free will that nothing matters. The fact that free will is nonsense has few practical consequences, but criminal justice is one of the areas where there _are_ strong implications. But it needs a separate thread. Nothing I’ve suggested in _this_ thread hinges upon discarding the concept of free will. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2022, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attempting-to-murder-someone-that-is-already-dead/964247/67 "2022-05-27T00:56:50Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > And that loops back to my hypotheticals. To the extent that the purpose of justice is deterrence, you must surely agree that it’s equally important to punish everyone who _creates the same risk_ of a bad outcome equally. I stand by what I said about dice. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2022, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attempting-to-murder-someone-that-is-already-dead/964247/68 "2022-05-27T01:16:36Z")
Yeah. There are practical reasons making it difficult to identify everyone who has made irresponsible choices, which creates the current unsatisfactory situation in which some poor decisions are unpunished, and some receive great punishment. I can see advantages in a system that can provide minor punishments to slightly stupid decisions to discourage people from such decisions before bad luck makes one of the poor decision-makers into a killer and some other person into a victim. I take it as given that humans are bad at risk assessment, so people make small stupid decisions all the time without considering that circumstances could turn very bad very suddenly; small corrections before things get bad might be better for everyone. If two people fire shotguns when they see a rustling bush and kill someone, we don’t go to the effort to figure out which pellet killed the victim (both would be charged, and likely convicted of some form of manslaughter) - but someday we might be able to make that determination. Would that be worth it? Worth discussion, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2022, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attempting-to-murder-someone-that-is-already-dead/964247/69 "2022-05-30T13:57:25Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Two men who fire bullets into the air that collide are not equally reckless? I’m not sure why you seem to have such antipathy toward the hypothetical. Why not stop fighting it and address it? Yes, two men fire bullets into the air. One fires a bullet into the air on his five-acre lot in a subdivision surrounded by other homes also in large lots while the other fires a bullet in a crowded marketplace. Who is more reckless? You propose that equal recklessness be treated equally, but in the absence of equality, how do you handle it? I’m trying to understand your point. The next question is how can this be enforced? How can everything be found and enforced? While it’s an interesting proposal, if it’s too impossible then it simply gets dismissed out of hand and doesn’t help lead to reforms. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attempting-to-murder-someone-that-is-already-dead/964247.md?page=3)