Those of you that insist that “attempted murder” should not be punished the same as “real murder” because they are different crimes are engaging in circular argument. They are considered to be seperate crimes because we have defined them that way: Murder vs Attempted murder. Based on SuaSponte’s exmaple above, I could include murder as well as attempted murder in the “assault with intent to cause death” charge used above. The outcome would be irrelevant to the charge or the punishment. However, there would still be different degrees of assault with intent to cause death that one could be charged with. This has little to do with intent. If you are a serial killer and you kidnap me and remove half of my skin and fry it up, should you really benefit if I escape and find a miracle surgeon to save my life? This is not hypothetical; you committed the crime and made your intent clear. As other posters have already stated, murder charges already establish intent to determine the degree of charge or to even reduce the charge to manslaughter in some cases. The same could be done with one uniform set of punishment for murder and attempted murder that disregards the outcome.
Look at it this way, if I pour gasoline on you front door one afternoon while you are not home and set your house on fire, should my punishment really depend on whether just the door burns or the whole house burns to the ground. Same crime, different result based on how quickly the fire department arrives.
I reckon hiring a hitman is conspiracy 
Since it could not be proven that the lack of a stop sign caused that crash, only that it might have been a contributary factor I still find it hard to understand how a murder conviction could stand on its removal.
Guess if those thieves had had Kennedy’s lawyers it might have been differant.
Laws are about fact. When you get thrown in jail, your life is taken away from you. That’s a pretty serious thing, considering that this is the 21st (or 20th) century and most people have a right to do what they want. If the system can take that away from us, then we need a balance in place to protect outselves. Hence the “innocent until proven guilty” and ‘evidence’ and ‘defence laywers’. We need to protect our own ass just as the system exists to protect our collective asses. And for the sake of the 1st ammendment and our right to privacy, the law really has no right to punnish is based on what we think. If you get upset about the intent not being given it’s fair share of prison time, where do you draw the line? Can they throw you in prison because you thought about killing someone? I realize that they do, but again you need proof of a serious risk to someone or something. Come on, this isn’t an Orwell novel, I have a god given right to do and think whatever the f–k I want as long as I don’t piss off too many people. And that’s what it comes to, intent doesn’t really piss of people because secretly we all do it, we just don’t want to be one of those poor shmucks who get caught.
This makes absolutely NO sense unless you are proposing that attempted murder is not a crime at all. A person sentenced to prison has been found guilty of the felony of trying to take another’s life but unsuccessfully (kind of implies intent already doesn’t it). If there is true doubt, then the is accused is found guilty of assault or a whole host of lesser charges rather than the full-blown charge of attempted murder which has a definite intent accussation already built into it.
This wasn’t my example. (You actually ignored my real example). Further, there is no circular argument. Finally, you cannot include murder inside “assault with intent to cause death.”
It is a FACT, not an “example”, that murder and attempted murder are considered different crimes in every U.S. jurisdiction of which I am aware.
Since it is a fact, pointing out the difference is in no way circular.
Next, “assault” means “assault”. “Murder” means “murder”. In the crime of murder, somebody dies. Murder is a type of homicide - killing a human. Assault means inflicting injury on a human, not killing them. When the assaultee dies in the hospital a week later, the charge is changed to murder - even if the assaulter didn’t intend to kill the assaultee.
And there’s a pretty pickle. Do you think that the charge should be changed to murder (or manslaughter, depending on circumstances)? After all, the “intent” wasn’t to kill anybody - it just happened as a consequence. If you think it should be changed to murder, than you have to admit that the consequences of an crime should define how the crime is categorized.
Yes. Yes. Yes. I didn’t kill you, therefore I didn’t commit murder.
Outcomes matter. Punishment should be proportional to the actual injury inflicted. If I steal your car, take it on a joyride, then bring it back unscratched, should I be punished as severely as someone who takes your car and dismantles it at a “chop shop”? We both had the same intent - to deprive you of your car. Again, looking back to my real “example” in my earlier post, should the guy who shoplifts the Playboy be punished as severely as the guy who steals $50 million?
Next, there are lots of intents out there. If I intend to kill you, I have formed the required mens rea to be guilty of a crime. If I never act on this intent, have I committed any crime? If I break into a bank vault intending to steal a fortune, but find the vault empty, should I be punished for theft when I didn’t take anything (Breaking and entering, sure, but theft when I didn’t commit that crime?)
Actually, the same category of crime, not the same crime. Arson has degrees, as well. And the different result matters to the victim. My life is not destroyed if I have to replace a front door. It is destroyed (or severely damaged) if I lose all of my possessions.
Sua
Great question zev one that I’ve thought about for a long time ever since I read about the case I’ll describe below. Without my remembering the names or dates of this case, it is hard for me to provide sites, if anybody recognizes this case and has some details or sites you can provide, it would be much appreciated.
warning disturbing details below
A woman is kidnapped, beaten, and raped by a man. After this severe attack, he takes a hatchet a hacks off her forearms and leaves her bleeding in a ditch. By some miracle, she manages to survive . The man is caught and tried. However, since she didn’t die, he is not guilty of murder. Eventually, after a number of years in prison he is released, the woman lives in fear of his return, but not long after his release, he murders a different woman and is caught and sentenced to death.
I think I understand the difficulty of convicting a person based on intent, but to me and I would think to the courts, this monster’s intent and callous disregard of humanity is quite clear from the first victom. The fact that she had the incredible strength to survive should not work in his favour.
Actually, I remember that crime, the guy did every last second of his time in prison, then had to live adjacent to the prison at a parole farm 'cause no community would have him. He eventually moved to Florida where recently, he was jailed again, having killed another woman (this time a prosititute in his home), he’s on death row.
One of the reforms created by that case was to allow for longer sentences for assaults where the victim did not die.
(by the way Sua back atchya buddy, blush, blush)
As Sua has shown so nicely, we have set up degrees of seriousness for nearly every criminal activity, to allow for individual differences of degree of action( the person stealing a pizza vs. stealing a Monet)as well as intent (manslaughter vs. premeditated homicide)
(on a side note, I’ve alwasy chuckled at the “attempted possession of drugs” charge, in that it brings to my mind an absolutely silly picture of some one begging "ah, come on, let me hold them).
Again, let me emphasize, without a balanced approach, where you take into consideration, not only the intent but the actual action, you will end up with more outrageous situations - the person who intends to litter by tossing a cigarette butt, but actually creates a forest fire, should be prosecuted for the result of their action, and for the serial killer example, no, they should not be prosecuted for killing me, since I’m still alive, but please feel free to prosecute them for the rest of the folks they killed.
On a related note, I remember a case recently where some teenagers set fire to an unoccupied warehouse. A couple of firemen were killed in the blaze. The teenagers were then convicted of some degree of homicide. For those who are arguing that punishment should be dealt out based on what a person intended, what do you think about this? Based on what was intended, they should be guilty of nothing more than arson.
Actually, IMHO, I don’t think that they should have been found guilty of homicide, as the firemen were aware of the danger before they went in, and willingly exposed themselves to it. If there was someone already in the building, however, I would have no problem with them doing time for his death.
My point, however, was that they should be judged based on a combination of act and intent.
I guess you could sum up my opinion as this:
There should be a charge for intent to murder followed by an act that attempts to fulfill that attempt (whether or not the murder was sucessful). This would include any direct action that would cause death (including shooting, stabbing, etc.) In other words, if you shoot someone without a damn good reason (self defense, etc.) you’re charged.
Cases that belong in this category would include:
[ul]
[li]Pweetman’s monster belongs here, based on his first assault.[/li][li]My original Jack Thug example.[/li][/ul]
There should be another charge for indirectly causing a death without intention to murder (excluding, of course, complete accidents).
Cases mentioned that belong here would include:
[ul]
[li]wring’s stop sign thieves and the brawlers.[/li][li]Smitty’s arsonists who thought they were burning down an empty house, but, there were occupants or fire fighters who died in the blaze.[/li][li]Starfish’s Jack Thug example (since the cops intervened in time).[/li][/ul]
And, of course (putting aside possible weapons possession violations) Spiny Norman’s bank robbers don’t get any punishment, because, in the end, they didn’t commit any crime.
As to the posters who brought up theft in differing amounts: I didn’t really want to equivicate this with theft. Theft, admittedly, is a different type of crime. I wanted to deal strictly with murder.
Zev Steinhardt
You seem, zev to only want to add the weight of the **actual ** outcome when it is greater than the intended outcome. Can you give some reasons to justify this position? Especially considering the possability that people’s intentions (even evil ones) may change? (the person who changes their mind at the last possible second and thereby jerking the gun enough that it misses its target)
I believe that when it comes to murder, the intent to commit the act, coupled by an action that directly can cause that act, should carry the same weight whether the victim dies or not.
Thus, to me, it should not make a difference if the victim survived because the gunman is a lousy shot, because a doctor pulls off a miracle, or even, to use your example, when the guy tries to miss at the last second because of a change of mind. Once you fire that gun, IMHO, whether you could have killed the victim or actually did is irrelevant.
Zev Steinhardt
I understood that it was your position. but why? especially given your stance on the other cases that the actual event, in essence should outweigh the intent. (I’m looking for the rationalization, the explanation of why this should be so)
What if you are angry at someone, want to kill them, but take an action against them that is extremely unlikely to kill them? You can kill someone by pushing them, but the odds are heavily against that happening. Should that carry the same weight as actually killing them? Or even the same weight as shooting them and injuring them, but not killing them due to a doctor’s intervention?
One benefit of the consequences = crime, with intent modifying severity of the crime is that it takes a lot of guesswork out of prosecuting someone. You can start with the facts - “this is what happened”, then modify the charge by trying to figure out “why”. Your approach puts the why question first, and that gets difficult.
Finally, please explain why under your system changing your aim so as to avoid killing your victim should be punished as severely as intending to kill someone and failing.
There are two competing doctrines underlying criminal jurisprudence - retribution (“eye for an eye”) and deterrence. Retribution leans heavily towards treating attempted murder the same as murder - it holds that you should be punished in proportion to your illegal action and the damage it causes.
So, and this is very important (and an issue that hasn’t been raised yet) does deterrence. Deterrence is not only intended to deter people from crime, but from committing worse crimes. Say you intend to kill somebody, shoot him, and only injure him. If we punish attempted murder the same as murder, you have no incentive to change your mind at that point. You’re going to be punished the same degree, and the injured person lying on the ground is the primary witness against you. You might as well finish him off.
How many people would this save in a year? 1, 2, 500? I have no idea. But, criminal law asserts that the hypothetical people saved is worth reducing the sentence by a few years.
Sua
Because, I believe, * at a minimum * a person is responsible, at the very least, for what he intended to do (provided, of course, that he then follows through). Thus, Jack Thug should have the same degree of responsibility whether or not Bill Innocent survives his attack or not.
Similarly with arson, for example. If Pete Pyromaniac strikes a match to burn down his barn (where it is clear that that was his intention) but was stopped by someone else, he should be responsible for the charge of arson, even though he never actually got to set the fire.
However, I also think that you are, to a degree, responsible for the consequences of your actions, as well. Therefore, the sign stealing kids should be charged with burglary, vandalism, or whatever other charge their crime fits. If, however, someone dies as a result of their theft, they also bear a degree of responsibility in that as well. Likewise, if a man breaks into an asthmatic’s house and steals the last of his medication and, as a result the asthmatic dies, I believe he bears some responsibility for that death and should be punished accordingly.
Zev Steinhardt
You probably haven’t had a chance to react yet to Sua points, yet, but let me add this:
So I should be held legally responsible for what was in my heart and head, regardless of how fleeting, as long as I took any step, regardless of how minute, in the furtherance of that? hmmm.
No, not no matter how minute. However, if your action has the potential to end the victim’s life, then yes.
Thus:
buy a weapon : not responsible (for the murder, anyway)
leave your house: not reponsible
catch the bus: not responsible
knock on the victim’s door: not reponsible
pull the trigger at the victim: responsible
I haven’t read SuaSponte’s post yet, but I’ll address it shortly.
Zev Steinhardt
From your OP
**
But then:
**
See, in the second set of stuff, I believe the person would be guilty of attempted murder from some point prior to pulling the trigger, but according to your OP, the charge of “attempted murder” is not necessary.
Plus (not to split too many hairs), while in many cases, the action leading to a death could be clearly seen (pulling a trigger, poison, removing necessary meds etc.), how do you factor in something like the victim’s refusal to get medical assistance. Joe is angry, thinks’ I’d like to see Mike dead, takes a swing (requisite action), misses, Mike, in dodging the blow, trips over his feet, falls, and sustains a concussion. Now, in normal situations, a concussion is not lethal, unless you don’t seek out qualified medical treatment. Mike refuses to do so, and dies from the concussion. Now, Joe had the intent, did some action towards that end, but, it can be argued, is not responsible for the end result (since he neither the cause of the injury nor the lack of medical treatment).
I’ll be going away for the rest of the evening soon, so will look forward to your response tomorrow.
But you have to look at what a criminal intended to do, at least in some cases.
What if I fully intend to commit a crime, set things in motion and then the crime is not completed due to circumstances outside my control ?
OK, this is a ridiculous example, but work with me: I’ve decided on a career as a terrorist and have targeted an international flight. I cleverly conceal a bomb in a friend’s suitcase. Unbeknown to me, however, my shady contact has sold me dark grey play-doh instead of Semtex, so no explosion occurs. The “bomb” is found by accident, my fingerprints are traced and I’m arrested as I happily mimeograph my revolutionary manifesto. Am I not guilty of something considerably worse than smuggling play-doh on board a plane ? I ended up not doing anything particularly illegal, but I certainly intended to blow up a 747 in midair. Am I not a terrorist ?
S.Norman
Yes, Spiney you’re guilty of (at least to me and I believe that Sua’s position would be the same) “attempted” terroism, murder, mayhem, etc.
But not to be confused with terrorism, murder, etc. I would hold you responsible for the attempt.
Mr. Norman, you have addressed the issues of legal and factual impossibility. The classic example is if, after the end of duck season, a hunter blows away a fiberglass duck decoy thinking it was a duck, have they hunted without a license? I’m going to have to check my old law books, as I always get this confused.
Until, I check, I will leave you and Zev with this hypo. You hate someone, want to kill him, and sneak into his bedroom with a gun. You pop him several times, then sneak out. Unbeknownst to you, the guy had a heart attack before you arrived, and was already dead. Under U.S. law, you can’t be charged with murder (abusing a corpse, maybe, but not murder). Do you agree or disagree with U.S. law?
Sua