Just in passing, not only murder but almost any penal crime (not a redundant solecism but the attempt to distinguish “crimes” in the stricter sense from offenses like reckless driving and, I think, securities fraud) is also subject to a charge of “attempting to…” One rarely sees “attempted burglary” and similar offenses, but a charge of “attempted armed robbery” or “attempted rape” is in the papers quite often.
Er… not exactly.
You’re thinking of felony murder, which is usually defined as causing any death during the commission of certain felonies. It’s not “any crime;” a death that somehow occurs during petit larceny is not automatically murder.
In Virginia, felony murder is second-degree murder. It certainly applies here. Better than manslaughter - but still not first-degree murder.
Felony-murder.
Too slow.
IMHO attempted murder should get an automatic life sentence. The intended victim should never have to worry about them making a second attempt.
Somebody told me the story today of a woman whose husband tried to kill her and he got a 12 year sentence. What is she supposed to do when he gets out? Should she really have to have a life expectency of 12 years?
They had the same intent as a murderer, they performed the same action as a murderer and they’re as dangerous as a murderer, on top of which there’s every reason to think they’ll try to kill their intended victim again. Life sentence, no parole.
I’m horrified at the sheer number of people who consider that attempted murder should be a severely punished crime.
People, slow down and think about it for a minute. Attempted murder should be tried as severe assault and nothing more. Everything else is essentially punishing thoughts, and everybody will agree that we, as a society, do not accept “thought-crime” as a possibility.
How does the justice system know that I intend to kill somebody if I fail? How do they prove what I was really intending to do? Say I shoot somebody in the foot. Maybe I missed, and it was attempted murder. Maybe I wanted to shoot them in the foot, an assault with a deadly weapon. How do you propose we tell the difference?
[QUOTE=ltfire]
Tee hee… I spy with my little eye…something beginning with ‘A’…!
I dunno. How do you explain the sting operations where the police masquerade as a 13-year-old girl in an AOL chat room to snag pedophile sexual predators, then arrest them when they show up for their tryst? I doubt you would find many people willing to let them off the hook because they “hadn’t actually done anything yet”.
And I don’ t see the connection between thinking about murder, and truly attempting murder but having the victim survive due to circumstances. “Attempted murder” is not thought-crime, it’s thwarted crime, and not due to any lack of trying on the attacker’s part.
Consider the widely publicized case from a month or two ago of the guy who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl in Florida, raped her, then buried her alive in a dumpster full of rocks. By purest luck, someone happened to look in there and find her an hour or two before she would have died.
Florida has the death penalty, and given the heinous and planned nature of the crime, I’m sure he would have gotten it had the girl not been found in time. By good fortune she survived, and now so will he. Is that justice?
…And my answer is, yes. Ultimately the law must deal with what was done and what resulted from it. The circumstances only come into play during sentencing. So while the death penalty does not come into play for attempted murder (I don’t think, even in Florida or Texas), I am sure he will get the maximum sentence if found guilty.
And just because I’ve been on too many Simpsons-related quote threads:
“Attempted murder, now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for Attempted Physics?” (Sideshow Bob)
Someone who attempts murder but fails should be charged with attemped murder as well as being a failure. Let them stew on that in a 5 x 8 cell for the rest of their life.
So if I understood this thread correctly, we’re saying that (1) we should eliminate the crime and charge of “murder” and then (2) only have attempted murder. This really does make a lot of logical sense. You can’t successfully execute a murder without making the attempt. The attempt, then, is the pivotal moment in the criminal’s behavior. The attempt is what’s important. Why should it be illegal to murder anyone? You get the same effect by making it illegal to attempt to murder someone, since you can’t do (a) without (b).
Yes, that’s my opinion exactly. It doesn’t matter whether you screwed it up or not, it’s the act of attempting to take a person’s life that deserves punishment. The only difference between an attempted murderer and a murderer is their competence.
The word does have unpleasant, dystopian connotations, but what is the problem with the idea itself? If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Joe Psycho intended to kill his neighbor, what does it matter whether he actually succeeded?
It’s not as if this would completely obliterate his possible defenses. He could claim that he didn’t intend to kill his neighbor, just scare him. He could claim he thought the gun was unloaded, and was just blowing off steam. The only difference I’m suggesting is that, if he is convicted on the charge of attempted murder, his ability to execute his plan does not determine his punishment.
The same way we do now. It’s up to the police, prosecutor and jury to determine intent, and differentiate between attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon. What I’m saying is that the intent and attempt is all that matters, not whether the attempt succeeded.
An attempted murderer and a murderer are the same in all but one respect. Their mindset is identical, their motives are identical, the danger they potentially pose to society is identical.
Why? Putting aside revenge, the purpose of the law is to maintain order in society by discouraging people from committing illegal acts. We should punish people for their criminal and negligent acts regardless of what the effects were.
Going back to the stop sign example, where Person A runs a stop sign and hits nothing, while Person B runs a stop sign and kills a bicyclist: how is it justice to punish B more than A when both of them made the same bad decision, both of them elected to risk the life of others in order to shave some time off their commute, but one of them was just unlucky?
What the legal system does now is inflict severe punishment on a few unlucky people for crimes that would otherwise result in a slap on the wrist. We’ve been talking mostly about murder in this thread, but the difference in sentencing for attempted murder and murder is nowhere near the difference between Person A’s $100 traffic ticket, and Person B’s manslaughter conviction.
I think any stop sign-runner should be charged for violating the traffic laws and endangering the lives of other motorists. They should be punished for their actions, not the incidental results of their actions.
In this specific example, though, you’ve now got to distinguish between potential outcomes. Okay, someone could run the stop sign and kill someone. But what if there’s a 0% chance of that happening? Say I’m in the country, and I can see the intersection for miles and miles around. There’s no one coming, so I just run the stop sign. There’s no possibility of injuring anyone. In fact, I’m only caught because of the police helicopter hovering overhead. Should I be charged with attempted negligent homicide?
You could apply this to speeding. Going 5mph over isn’t a danger to yourself or anyone else if there’s no one else on the road (and conditions are good, blah blah blah). Attempted manslaughter?
Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?
If attempted murder is weighted the same as completed murder, then the murderer would have no reason to spare the life of the person he attempted to kill. You tried to shoot someone in the head but flinched in the last second and missed? Well, you’re fine if he didn’t see you, but if he did? Might as well finish the job, especially if there are no witnesses around. You might even get off totally.
True, this specific scenario almost never happens. But it’s a compelling argument.
As for the stop sign example, I think such a law would drive everyone in society completely insane. Some people slip and fall and die if there’s soapy water on the floor. Would we ban the use of soapy water? Stringently regulate the amount of water which can be on the floor at any one time? How do we know the janitor who accidentally left the grocery store floor in a hazardous condition didn’t MEAN to kill the next elderly person who walked by? He certainly knows that what he did is harmful, right? Yes, it is illegal (or at least, against safety regulations) to leave an area in a hazardous condition without warning, but if we’re to be charged for murder for doing it most of us would never leave the house. We’d all be too scared that little semi-illegal things (like say, littering, which could also lead to death if someone tripped or if a kid put the litter in their mouth) would land us in the gas chamber.
You wouldn’t be charged with attempted negligent homicide. You’d be charged with running a stop sign. As I said in another post, what the penalty for running a stop sign should be is a separate debate. I’d imagine it would be more severe than it is now, but less severe than negligent homicide. Maybe a one-week license suspension or something. It would be dependent on the judge, and how blatant your violation was - did you just technically violate the law and do a rolling stop, or blast through at 50mph? Obviously, one is more “criminal” and places the public at more risk than the other.
No. You would realistically not get charged with anything, because you weren’t putting anyone at risk. Perhaps a ticket if you get stopped by an asshole cop.
However, let’s say you’re doing ten mph over the speed of traffic in heavy congestion. If you’re stopped, your punishment (whatever it may be) should be as severe as it would be if you hit another car while doing so and injured/killed the occupant.
What I’m saying is that punishments for crimes should take into account all the possible outcomes of that crime, regardless of which occurred in a specific situation.
Note that this works both ways. Punishments for some “minor”* crimes now would be more severe, punishments for some “major”* crimes would be less severe. Speeding is another perfect example: to me, the guy who weaves between lanes in heavy traffic coming within inches of other cars (but avoiding a collision) is just as criminal, just as guilty as the guy with slightly slower reflexes who hits a car, spins it out, and sends it careening into the Grand Canyon.
- The point I’m trying to make is that the only reason these crimes are “minor” or “major” is the luck of the criminal. The central criminal act itself is the same, in the case of speeding on the roads, running a stop sign, or attempted murder.
The criminal could still spare the guy, and point this out during sentencing. Lots of criminals claim to have a change of heart, remorse, regret, whatever.
The situation you describe could happen today, too. Joe Psycho shoots someone and misses. Even if he has a change of heart, he still has incentive to finish the job and eliminate the witness. The only difference in my proposal is that he has slightly less incentive to finish the guy off. But I doubt that that tiny difference will be the tipping point for any criminal.
No. You would not be charged with murder for littering. You’d be charged with littering, and the sentence for littering would take into account the miniscule risk that someone might trip over your litter and die. Effectively, that risk is so small that the the sentence would remain unchanged.
In the case of the janitor, he would be charged with negligence or something, and the charge for negligence would take into account the possibility that someone might slip and die. It would also take into account the possibility that someone might slip and merely injure themselves. But the janitor’s punishment would be the same, regardless of what happened to the people, because his criminal act was the same in both circumstances, regardless of how sturdy the people who slipped on his soap were. Hell, it doesn’t matter if anyone slips on the soap at all, except it’s less likely for him to be charged if no one notices his negligence.
We have this problem already. That’s what the courts are for. If it can be proven that he intended to kill the next person who walked by, charge him with attempted murder even if someone only bruised their ass. If it can’t, charge him with ordinary negligence.
I left off part of my last post.
In summary, my position is this: punishments for crimes should take into account the perpetrator’s intent, and all the potential consequences of his actions. The actual results of his actions are determined only by luck, and not relevant to his punishment.
[Sideshow Bob]
Attempted murder, now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?
[/Sideshow Bob]
Negligence isn’t illegal. So instead of having Sears fire the guy for leaving the floors wet, we make it a legal issue?