What's Wrong With Attempted Murder?

[Wiglaf]

Should the law really punish attempted crimes? Should those punishments differ from successful crimes?

Criminal punishment only inflicts damages on the criminal equall to the damage they inflicted on society. In an attempted crime, there is no damage so there should be no punishment.

We also need to define what an attempt is. If I create what I think is a poisonous drink and give it to you, but in fact it is harmless, did I attempt to murder you? There is no harm, but my dirty little secret is that I tried to kill you.

Poker players:: Should the law be based on the results of the act?

Any action we commit can have a variety of outcomes. Should the law look at the average result and punish based on that outcome? The maximum possible result? The 70th percentile? If we ignore the actual results what should our metric of punishment be?

Prior to the final act, there is no attempt. If I try to poision your drink, but I take it away before you drink it, I did not try to kill you. The crime was correctable and I corrected it. Had I been arrested beforehand, I should not be allowed to claim I was going to. But the act of reversing the act should be a defense to the crime.

Pre-crime

[St Leo]

Ah, taking the argument against the concept of hate crime to its logical conclusion of eliminating all consideration of motive/mens rea, I see. Carry on.

[MrFun]

another drunk thread

[Imran Siddiqui]

Should the law really punish attempted crimes?

Yes.

We also need to define what an attempt is.

We have, in great detail.

If I create what I think is a poisonous drink and give it to you, but in fact it is harmless, did I attempt to murder you?

Yes.

But the act of reversing the act should be a defense to the crime.

It can be.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by MrFun
another drunk thread

Given the poster, how can you tell?

[MrFun]

good point

[Gibsie]

Why should we reward attempted criminals for failure? Nay, I say!

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Gibsie
Why should we reward attempted criminals for failure? Nay, I say!

Why punish criminals for having second thoughts? You can't prove intent.

And, Imran, if there's a video of me throwing a bomb into your house and then taking it out later, under current law I have no defense.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Why punish criminals for having second thoughts?

We don't punish the second thoughts-- What gets punished is the original thought when it manifests itself as an action.


If you point a gun at me and fire it, that could be attempted murder. But maybe not. If you intentionally pointed it so as to shoot off a portion of my foot, it would be Assualt of some variety, while if you INTENDED to miss the charges would be something else again.


All in all I am quire satisfied that "attempted" crimes be charged and punished severely

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
You can't prove intent.

So you believe that first-degree murder should be legally equivalent to involuntary manslaughter?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
And, Imran, if there's a video of me throwing a bomb into your house and then taking it out later, under current law I have no defense.

Why not? If you knew the bomb was set to go off in 30 minutes and you retrieved it 20 minutes before the deadline, I see no attempted murder there. I would find you guilty of tresspass to property and probably something along the lines of reckless endangerment ( it is inherently dangerous to throw explosives)

[Wiglaf]

When there's no harm, what the hell could the intent be? To test someone's defenses?

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Flubber


Why not? If you knew the bomb was set to go off in 30 minutes and you retrieved it 20 minutes before the deadline, I see no attempted murder there. I would find you guilty of tresspass to property and probably something along the lines of reckless endangerment ( it is inherently dangerous to throw explosives)

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m052.htm

MURDER, ATTEMPTED - In order for a person to be found guilty of attempted murder the government must prove:

First, acting deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life, the person attempted to kill someone; and the person did something that was a substantial step toward committing the crime. [Mere preparation is not a substantial step toward committing a crime.]

[JohnT]

And throwing a bomb into somebody's house is not a "substantial step"?

[Wiglaf]

It is under current law, but we can all see it is silly to punish someone for attempting to do something in the future. For all you know the bomb was a prank that I knew I would remove.