murder and attempted murder

Great Debates
1

This question has been bugging me for a long time…

Consider Jack Thug. Jack Thug has it in for Bill Innocent. Big time. Jack Thug decides he’s going to go over to Bill’s house and do him in once and for all. He grabs his Saturday Night Special and heads over to Bill’s house. He arrives there and, for whatever reason, fails to get the job done. Maybe he’s a lousy shot. Maybe Bill shot him in self-defense first. Maybe a doctor pulled off a miracle and saved Bill from dying on the operating table.

My question is, why is there a charge of attempted murder? After all, had Jack had his way, Bill would be six feet under by now. Should Jack be rewarded (with a lesser charge, and, presumably, a lesser jail sentence) simply because his plans didn’t go his way, despite the fact that his intention was to carry them out to the fullest?

Zev Steinhardt

2

I understand what you are saying, but I think that it is important that the law provide punishment for what a person DID do rather than going into the more biblical “If a man hates his brother, he is guilty of murder” type thing. I realize that this is an extreme example, but I think we should be very careful about judging a person based on what was in his mind rather than what he did.

3

I agree, but in some states, doesn’t the US judge people on intent to commit murder (1st, 2nd or 3rd degree)? If you planned murder you could get the death penalty, but if it was in the heat of the moment you would only get 25 to life. The action was still the same, but we are judging based on what was in someone’s mind. We are already walking a fine line by doing that.

4

OK, I understand that. But, take the case where the doctor saves the victim’s life. Jack Thug’s actions aren’t any different whether or not the doctor saves the victim’s life. He did what he did. It was only through outside intervention that Bill Innocent didn’t die. That being the case, why not punish him for what he did (which would have been the same whether or not the doctor saved the victim’s life)?

Zev Steinhardt

5

I don’t see why the penalty should be different for someone who shoots and kills a guy and someone else who shoots and misses his victims heart by a quarter of an inch.

6

What VoR said.
I always wondered that myself-I mean, what if the murderer THOUGHT he killed the person, only the person wasn’t dead. He still THOUGHT of what he was doing was murder, right?

7

It is difficult to judge intent.

Jack Thug gets mad at Bill at a bar and beats on him for a while until the cops pull him off.

If Bill dies, Jack committed murder.

If Bill does not die, Jack committed battery [or whatever it’s called].

If Jack was trying to kill Bill, does he get away with “murder”, just because the cops showed up in time?

8

No. That’s a different case. In your case, you can’t say that Jack would have gone on to kill Bill. Maybe he would have only beaten him to a pulp. In my case, however, he did the act that would have killed Bill if not for outside interference.

Zev Steinhardt

9

Well, let’s say it was premeditated, that someone planned to kill someone-you have almost solid proof, arrangements were made, etc etc etc…but…the person miraculously survived.

Why should the murderer get off easy because someone failed to die?

10

Then I would agree with you. That was my point in the OP. :slight_smile:

Zev Steinhardt

11

I don’t know that much about US law - back home, however, it’s the intent that counts. In any crime. But since proving intent is darn near impossible, in reality your committing the crime proves your intent.

Of course, if a would-be murderer didn’t actually kill his victim, his defense lawyer can work that angle (“It was only supposed to be a very stern warning”, “my client changed his aim at the very last moment” or some BS like that).

Judging on intent raises an interesting question: When exactly is the crime committed ? Is it when I decide to commit murder, is it when I leave home with the weapon in my pocket, is it when I ring the intended victim’s door, is it when I shoot and miss, or when I shoot and hit ?

And , of course (this is where it gets really hairy) - what if I decide not to commit the crime anyway ? Let’s say I intended to rob a bank and left home with my pistol replica, my “Hand over the money” note and my ski mask, leaving a note to my GF on the fridge door: “Hi Hon, off to rob the bank. We’re out of kitty litter, btw.” but then lose my nerve at the last moment. I fully intended to rob the bank, but decided not to. What, if anything, am I guilty of ? And what if my decision was influenced by the fact that there were 4 police officers at the bank that day ? Did I really voluntarily abstain from committing the crime ?

So while criminal intent probably should be punished, doing so certainly makes for interesting cases…

S. Norman

12

He’s not being rewarded he’s simply being punished for what he did. We don’t punish people based on intent alone we mainly take into account their actual answers. It is possible in your example for Jack the Thug to be charged with assault with a deadly weapon instead of attempted murder. Depending on jurisdiction of course.

Marc

13

While we do, of course, take into account the intent of the perp, we also focus the most attention on what did they actually do. And the facts, as you’ve stated, zev(much as I admire you), are that the victim did not die.

For example, if some one attempts suicide and fails to do so, should we consider that person dead? Should we prosecute them for murder? no, I think not, even if their intent was as clear as a bell. Why? because intent can change. Who is to say that the reason the bullet missed is because of poor aim and not a last minute “oh no, I can’t do that”? And wouldn’t it be ironic to prosecute a failed suicide for murder (since that was their intent), and, as punishment for intentional homicide, sentence them to the death penalty?

Let me offer up some real life examples of prosecuting for the actual deed too:

A case (in Florida, IIRC) where 3 young adults thought it’d be funny to steal a stop sign. They did. A car with several other young persons did not stop at the intersection and were killed by a truck. The 3 thieves were convicted of a homicide (one of the lower ones, like manslaughter) in that they committed an act which could have been foreseen as having dire consequences, did have dire consequences etc, but they certainly had no specific intent to cause harm (did not even know the victims).
Their intent was to steal, not to kill, but death resulted. So, they paid the penalty for causing a death without having the intention of doing so. I believe this was correct.

Their intent was to steal. Should they be off the hook because they intended no harm? no - they should have been able to reasonably assume that some mayhem would happen if suddenly there were no stop sign. lacking specific intent to cause bodily harm should not prevent them from accepting the actual consequences of their actions. OTOH, I don’t want to extend now to anyone else dumb enough to steal a stop sign that they’ll prosecute for attempted murder 'cause in this other case a death resulted.

Another case in close by St. Johns, MI, a fist fight between two friends, one got hit in the head, fell. Seemed to be dazed, declined several attempts to get medical help to him, died. The surviving friend is being prosecuted for “open murder” (which, in my state means the jury/judge will examine the facts and determine the level of homicidal involvement). His intent was to assault. His actions led to a death. (FTR, I think this one will be difficult since the proximate cause of his death may have been falling out of bed, and not the original blow to the head).

So, in general, a balance of intended outcome and acutal outcome seems appropriate to me.

14

What we’re dealing with here is a question of punishment fitting the crime. Jack obviously can’t be convicted of murder since Bill is not dead. I don’t know what the sentencing guidelines are for attempted murder, but I could imagin in some non-death penalty jurisdiction someone being punished as harshly for attempted murder as for murder.

In a way, it’s the eye-for-an-eye concept. If Jack kills Bill, Bill’s life is over; therefore, Jack’s life should be over (through the dealth penalty or life imprisonment). Of course, this doesn’t always happen. If Jack does not kill Bill, Bill could have a long, normal life; therefore, Jack needs to be punished, but not to the same extent.

I’m not arguing for or against the death penalty, or for any particular level of punishment (since this isn’t GD…yet). I’m just trying to provide what I think the background behind this would be.

15

I think an “attempted murder” should be punished more strictly than a successful murder.

The perpetrator is not only a big meanie but also a total fuck-up!

It’s bad enough that we have murderers being released from prison after only a few years–let’s at least try to keep the klutzy ones in for a bit longer.

Besides what if the bad guy missed, thus sparing the life of his intended victim, but managed to hit you in the genitals? Would you be inclined to be lenient then?

16

In the UK you can plot a murder without carrying out any act whatsoever and get charged with ‘Conspiracy to murder’

This has been used many times to convict criminals trying to hire hitmen, life imprisonment is often the result.

Wring

On the face of what has been posted on this board about those stopsign thieves I would disagree that they should have been convicted of manslaughter but there may be more to it than it seems.
My reason for disagreeing is that the driver of the vehicle was not paying attention, when did you pull across another road in total trust without looking ?
That type of driving in the UK is actually an offence and can lose you your license.

Regardless of wether there was a stop sign or not the driver should have been aware that they were approaching a crossing/junction.

I suspect that there is more to it than that though, US courts would have surely taken such things into account.

17

IIRC, it was an otherwise unmarked intersection and the driver of the vehicle that was hit was unfamiliar with the area. And, while there may be an issue of additional culpability by the driver of the car (who’s to say they wouldn’t have gone through the stop sign anyhow), the point was, we cannot know that the lack of the stop sign didn’t, in effect, cause the accident.

18

wring love ya baby – excellent posts.
As a general rule, U.S. criminal law looks first to results of the criminal activity to establish how the crime is categorized, then looks to intent to establish how severe the crime is within that category.
Looked at this way, attempted murder isn’t really linked to real murder. Attempted murder would better be described as “assault with intent to cause death” - the most severe of the assaults (simple assault, aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to cause grave bodily harm, and a few that I’m sure escape me).
Result-oriented punishment makes sense to me - it looks at what you actually did and the cost of what you did (in money, lives, etc.) in determining the appropriate punishment. We then modify the punishment, up or down, by looking at intent.
If we look at intent alone, we have problems. Do you agree that someone who steals $50 million should be punished more than a kid who shoplifts a dirty magazine? If we look to intent alone, these crimes are identical - both perps intended to take something that wasn’t theirs.

Personally, I think negligence, not intent, should be a primary factor. Vehicular homicide when you’re drunk should be punished more severely than intentional murder, because the drunk is showing callous disregard for everybody who happens to be on the road, while the murderer is only gunning for one person and is unlikely to cause collateral damage. But that’s for another thread.

Sua

19

I was going to insert a witty and cogent reference to Les Miserables in my point about degrees of theft. Just pretend that I did :wink:

Sua

20

Casdave: It is only conspiracy to commit murder if you plan it with another person. If you simply THINK about commiting murder, or plan it in your own head, you cannot be charged with a crime. I can plot out how to kill my next door neighbor, have everything ready to go, have the gun and everything, but if I change my mind before I leave the house I haven’t commited a crime.

But if the two of us sit down and plan out my neighbor’s murder, then we HAVE commited a crime. We have conspired to commit a murder, whether anyone ends up dead or not.