It just doesn’t seem to make sense to me. If the intent and the capability to commit the crime is still there, why should the penalty be the same? Does the fact that they were foiled before committing the crime make then any less of a threat to society?
(Sorry for the short OP, but responses would be appreciated)
this is more of an IMHO thing.
Its probably because the trauma inflicted on the victim and the victims family is less with attempted murder than with completed murder.
Having a family member be a target for murder and having a family member get murdered are 2 totally different things.
Not intent wise, though.
I asked my housemate this same question the other week. If I have attempted to kill you, and the intent is definitely there, what difference does it make if you don’t die?
I believe it is because in the former you have a corpse, while in the latter, you don’t. There is, in my mind, a big difference between intent and action.
There are a number of factors that come into play during sentencing. The age and criminal record of the offender and prospects for rehabilitation, whether the offender displayed remorse and mitigating circumstances like diminished capacity. The effects on society and the victim are also considered. It’s for this reason, presumably the victim is less affected by an unsuccessful attempt, that the sentence is usually less severe. For all of those reasons it is conceivable that some offenders will receive tougher sentences for an attempt than a job well done. For example, a long suffering, battered wife versus a paedophile trying but failing to get rid of the evidence/witness/victim.
I can see where you’re coming from, since it might seem as if we’re rewarding the attempted murderer for being incompetent or unluckly. But still, the punishment must be proportional to the harm done, and an attempted murder has caused much less harm than one which has succeeded.
The model penal code provides for punishing attempt with the same sentance as a successful crime, see Sec. 5.05(1), so at least some commentators/academic types think there should be no difference.
Ultimately, your view on attempt depends on what you view the role of punishment to be. If punishment is designed for general deterrence, that is to deter bad actions from people in general, then impriosoning people for attempt may not have any deterance effect at all, since all criminals intend to succeed. On the other hand, if you view prison as aimed primarily at specific deterrence, i.e. protecting the population from bad people, then it would seem that the sentance ought to be the same. Most jurisdictions fall somewhere inbetween these two approaches, probably because the population is uncomfortable with applying the full force of the law to someone when there has been no injury, or only minimal injury.
Sideshow Bob (from the Simpsons) “In Jail for a crime I didn’t even commit. Convicted of Attempted Murder? Now I ask you what is that. Do they give the nobel prize for Attempted Chemistry?”
If attempted murder carries a lower sentance than murder, will the trauma not be eaul as the convict wil be released earlier to potentially try again?
I will learn to check my spelling - I meant EQUAL!
There’s a fine line between kicking a guy in the shins and kicking him in the kidney. The latter can be prosecuted as attempted murder, if the kicker is a karate expert, but no jury would convict on murder charges.
The way it was explained to me was that in attempted murder you can always argue that the criminal didn’t have the heart to go through with it and therefore is guilty of a lesser offense. In most of the cases I am aware of though, it seems that it was only dumb luck not intent that made the difference.
I don’t have an answer, but I have a guess.
With attempted murder we must guess at the criminal’s intent from other evidence. There are degrees of certainty for “attempted murder” depending on how much supporting evidence there is (and you don’t necessary have a corpse – the victim may have never come to any harm at all). If I write a letter saying I’m going to poison my wife, then buy poison and write on the check note space: “for poisoning wife”; then I call up everyone I know and announce I’m going to poison her, I’ve left behind plenty of corroborating evidence that my intent is to kill. If she partakes of the poison I left behind and she is hospitalized with liver failure due to poison (but doesn’t die) then there appears to be plenty of proof that I made the attempt. Not all attempts are so clear-cut, either. Perhaps I did try to kill her but someone else actually succeeded. Am I off the hook for attempting to do so?
With manslaughter we also guess at the intent of the killer through other evidence and testimony. Sure, the victim died, but did the killer mean for this to happen?
So I believe the punishment for murder is different because the burden of proof is different. We have a body, yes, but we must prove intent; if we cannot prove intent, we go with manslaughter.
I dunno. Just a thought.
FISH
Perhaps in certain cases a distinction can be drawn between the two, such as when the killer plans to shoot his wife but backs out because of bad conscience and when the killer simply fires a nonfatal shot. In the former case, the killer has shown that they are unwilling/unable to kill, and are therefore less of a threat to society upon their release. However, if the killer simply botches the crime, there is nothing to stop them from going back and finishing the job.
And don’t get me started on ‘trauma on the victim’. If the murder is completed, the victim is dead, and doesn’t have to worry about anything anymore, whereas with attempted murder the victim is likely to be profoundly affected mentally. This entails years of therapy to treat post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, or any other mental illness that may arise out of the incident. The victim may still be alive, but their quality of life is much, much worse.
I vaguely recall the following example from Legal Studies years ago and was wondering if any lawyer-type person could tell me if I’m correct?
Say Rich Uncle Pennybags is a bit of a jerk and kicks my dog whenever he’s over. So I get a comically oversized mallet and thwack him over the head. Murder. Fine.
Now say instead of the comically oversized mallet I prepare an anvil with a prominently displayed “20 TONS” on its side above his garage, and wait for him to drive off somewhere. I hear the car start and unleash a hilarious system whereby the anvil falls (possibly after rolling marbles and see-saws maneouver back and forth) on the car, killing the occupant. If it’s Pennybags, again I get murder. However, if it’s Jeevesy McBritish taking the boss’s car out for a night with Missers McWifey (she kept her mother’s maiden name, obviously), I get Manslaughter, since I didn’t actually intend to kill him.
[catchphrase]What’s up with that[/catchphrase]
In one of the cases the victim cannot testify.
No, you are guilty of murder. Intent follows the bullet (I helped a friend study for the Bar. 
Hmm. Maybe it’s a quirk of Australian law, like how stealing loaves of bread gets you a free ticket to New South Wales.
As the Earl said, Matt, it’s still murder. You set out to deliberately kill the occupant of the car, whoever it may be. Plus you have the “special circumstance” of lying-in-ambush, which means in most of the USA it’s the needle or the cyanide sauna for ya.
The difference in sentencing between murder and attempted murder sounds more “reasonable” when the sentence for murder is death or “length of natural life” imprisonment; since there was no life taken, it would strike the mind as unfair to take life in retribution. Then, the court gets to evaluate exactly how dangerous is this person and for how long he has to be locked up.
The result of the crime does matter. Suppose two burglars break into two different homes in the same neighborhood. One finds hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of jewelry, electronic equipment, etc. and removes it all. The other only finds cheap costume jewelry worth a few hundred dollars. Both intended to steal as much as they could get, but the penalties will be different because the results were different.
Lando, we’ve discussed the issue of murder victims before on the SDMB. In addition to the people killed, the courts consider their survivors to be victims of murderers. If your child, husband, parent, lover, or friend is the victim of an attempted murder, you still have that person around to be in your life. The families of the victims of murder are left with enormous holes in their lives. Murder is also considered to be a crime against society. It robs us of the ability to benefit from whatever the victim might have contributed in the future. Whatever the intent of an attempted murderer, his victim is still able to go on.