Why the distinction between murder and attempted murder?

Factual Questions
1

I’ve always wondered why we distinguish between the crimes of “murder” and “attempted murder”. The sentencing guidelines for attempted murder are less harsh than those for murder, but the criminal’s intent is the same in both circumstances. Why do we set the criminal’s punishment based on the results of his actions, rather than the actions themselves?

For instance, let’s say Joe Psycho decides to kill his neighbor, because he stole his weedwhacker. Joe takes his high-powered rifle to a window and stares across the street, waiting for his neighbor to come into view. When he has a good shot, Joe fires.

Now, assuming it can be proven that Joe intended to kill his neighbor, one of two things can happen. If his shot hits home, he can be charged with murder. But if he misses, or doesn’t mortally wound his neighbor, he can only be charged with attempted murder. Solely because of his own clumsiness, he will not be punished as severely.

The same question applies to other charges. Let’s say I run a stop sign. I can be charged with a minor traffic violation. But if I run a stop sign and in the process slam into someone driving a Kia, killing them, that’s manslaughter. In these two situations, I’ve done nothing differently, but because of sheer bad luck, I would be punished more severely in the latter case.

And what if the person I hit was driving a big, safe, well-engineered Mercedes, and survived with nary a scratch? Why does the other person’s choice of car affect my punishment, when all other factors remain the same?

It seems illogical to me. It would make more sense if the legal system did not pay attention to such incidental consequences. A person running a stop sign and avoiding a collision should be punished as severely as one running the same stop sign and killing ten nuns on their way to feed the homeless*. Both acted identically in deciding to disobey the law, and placing the lives of others at risk. Luck alone is all that distinguishes the two situations.

Anyone know why the legal system is set up this way?

  • Of course, what this uniform punishment should be is another issue.
2

Why the distinction between murder and attempted murder?
Because in one someone dies, adn in the other, someone doesnt?!
But I DID enjoy reading your post and the thoughts it provoked! - got something against Kia’s? :smiley:
(I drive a Mercedes by the way, so I guess I would be okay if you were planning on running a stop sign in my direction! :smiley:

3

Because if Joe Psycho doesn’t miss, his neighbor is dead…his actions have caused more harm than if he does miss. So he gets punished for murder more severely than for attempted murder because actually killing somebody is worse than trying to and not killing them.

4

But the purpose of the justice system is not revenge (is it?). We punish people under the (perhaps deluded) idea that they will learn from their actions and be rehabilitated. And a failed murderer needs just as much rehabiliation and learning as a successful murderer. As I said, all that distinguishes them is luck - they share whatever mental deficiency led them both to attempt murder in the first place. The fact that one of them did not actually succeed seems totally irrelevant.

5

Keep in mind that, given some clarity of thought after an attempted murder goes wrong, if the punishment is the same for attempted murder and murder are the same, one might as well finish the job.

Let’s say you run a stop sign and nick a pedestrian. If you have no incentive to do otherwise, you might as well back up and finish them off so there are no witnesses.

6

Im with Absoute.

Supposing Mr. Psycho, instead of killing his neighbor, inflicts massive brain damage that has horrible consequences - irreparable and catastrophic harm such as blindness, or deafness, or vegetative state, etc.

The guy should get the same penalty as he would have for 1st degree murder.

7

I would wager thatt is for the same reason that theft of a greater amount is a greater crime. The net effect on the victim is a consideration in the punishment.

8

It’s just the way the law works. To be guilty of a crime you have to complete the act involved. If you try but don’t complete it, it’s an attempt, for which a less severe punishment is provided. Certain more serious crimes such as murder and rape, have attempts defined as separate offenses in separate sections, which carry their own punishments. But, IIRC, the punishment for other attempted crimes is figured according to a generic formula, in California at least. It’s something like half the sentence that would be handed down for the completed act–I recall reading this in the CA Penal Code but can’t find the cite now.

9

Well, one of the purposes of the justice system is rehabilitation, but another purpose is punishment, and another is retribution/revenge.

10

Well, maybe the penalties should be reconsidered.

Suppose it’s Life for murder, and 50 years for attempted murder.

If Mr. Psycho inflicts hideous damge on his victim - who lives, but will be forever physically and/or emotionally scarred - then Psycho should get twice the sentence for the attempt.

100 years, no parole.

11

[QUOTE=Sensibility]
Why the distinction between murder and attempted murder?
Because in one someone dies, adn in the other, someone doesnt?!
But I DID enjoy reading your post and the thoughts it provoked! - got something against Kia’s? :smiley:
(I drive a Mercedes by the way, so I guess I would be okay if you were planning on running a stop sign in my direction! :D[/QUOT

Heh…as you roll to a stop, watch for that high powered rifle poking out of ABSOLUTES driver side window.
:eek:

12

But barring great advances in medical technology, 100 years is effectively life in prison. As chemistrydork aptly points out regarding slightly different circumstances, I’d wager that a large percentage of would-be murderers would think, “Oh, well, this guy looks like he’ll be incapacitated for life. The penalty for that is 100 years. And if I kill him, it’s life in prison. Ah, heck, same difference,” and fire away.

Interesting question, btw, but I think perhaps rather more GD-ish than GQ-ish?

13

It wouldn’t be necessary in the scenario you describe. There would be other charges that would cover the grievous bodily injury, such as mayhem. Mayhem can carry life sentence in California. I’m not sure what the criminal court could do about emotional scarring; but the victim could sue, I suppose.

14

Good!

Thank you, Spectre of Pithecanthropus.

15

I find it profoundly disturbing that attempted murder is taken so lightly by the criminal justice system.

A number of years ago, a cousin of mine slashed his dad’s throat. The father did not bleed to death, thanks to the quick intervention of a neighbor.

My cousin was sentenced to five years in the penitentiary. He was released after having served three years. The Governor of my state was under pressure to reduce the size of the prison population, and large numbers of so-called “non-violent offenders” were set free.

Apparently my cousin was categorized as a “non-violent offender” because, although he slashed a man’s throat with a piece of broken glass, the victim did not die.

There is something wrong here.

16

I think attempted murder should carry just as serious a charge as murder. Because if someone tries to kill someone and fails, he’s just as likely to kill again as someone who tries and succeeds. Therefore, why does he get to leave prison sooner? The general population is at just as great a risk of harm with him back on the streets.

17

In New York State, attempting to commit an A-I felony is itself an A-I felony and attempting to commit an A-II felony is an A-II felony. So for serious crimes, like murder, the consequences are the same.

18

Here’s a fun legal quiz…

Let’s say Joe misses the neighbor, but the shot travels into the neighbor’s back yard and kills the gardener.

You’re all set to charge Joe with murder, when he points out that he had no intent whatsoever to kill the gardener. It was an accident! And since he had no intent to kill the gardener, but the gardener died as the result of an accident, manslaughter is the right charge, says he.

Well?

19

Guilty of murder, which is usually also defined as “causing any death during the commision of a crime.” If I rob a store, and the little old lady behind the counter vapor-locks, they will charge me with murder, even if I never touched her. Right? What do I win? :smiley:

20

I think a lot of the reason may come from the idea of repentance. Even without being Chrisian, this is a central idea that pervades our society and its laws. An individual might want to commit an action, and might even go through the steps to commit that action, but repent after failing to complete the planned action. In other words, in cases where “attempted murder” legally requires a lesser minimum penalty than “murder”, the mitigating factor may be the idea that the potential murderer has already seen the error of his/her ways, so that the punishment need not be as great.

In some cases, it is also hard to determine if the potential murderer changed his/her mind in the process of committing the act, meaning that the intention to commit murder was no longer present at the end of the act, even if it was there at the beginning. And if simply thinking about committing murder were illegal in and of itself, the jails would be bursting at the seams.

In the long run though, it is up to the jury to recommend sentencing in most cases. If the jury feels that the defendant truly intended to commit murder, and that it was circumstance rather than intention that kept the intended victim alive, they can recommend a stronger sentence than the legal minimum.