Punishments for 'Attempted' crimes

[Gustaf]

I voted no. I don't like the idea that we can decide these things for other people, because it goes against my idea of personal responsibility. Take for instance a person creeping up on someone with a knife. But before he can do anything he is discovered and arrested. Now, this was an attempted murder. But how do we know that he was actually going to do it? I don't think anyone else has a right to call someone a murderer if that person did not actually murder anyone. And don't give me any of the "but if we're really sure"-stuff. When can we ever be really sure of something like that? Note, that even if a person gets shot, knifed, etc and survives, we wouldn't be able to tell whether the perpetrator did not, perhaps subconsciously, miss intentionally.

So, attempted crimes should be punished and punished severely. But not as if they of equal weight.

To those who voted yes, I was once given an interesting example of drunk driving. Imagine two people who have been to a party and got real drunk. They come out of the place and get into their respective cars. Both think "what the hell, cabs are expensive" and drive home, despite being intoxicated. One hits a little girl on the way, one doesn't. Now, shouldn't both be convicted of killing the girl? Imagine that everything is exactly the same, except the circumstance that the girl was there in one case and not in the other. One of the drivers got lucky, but why should he get off the hook? Their INTENTIONS were, after all, exactly identical.

[Gustaf]

I voted no. I don't like the idea that we can decide these things for other people, because it goes against my idea of personal responsibility. Take for instance a person creeping up on someone with a knife. But before he can do anything he is discovered and arrested. Now, this was an attempted murder. But how do we know that he was actually going to do it? I don't think anyone else has a right to call someone a murderer if that person did not actually murder anyone. And don't give me any of the "but if we're really sure"-stuff. When can we ever be really sure of something like that? Note, that even if a person gets shot, knifed, etc and survives, we wouldn't be able to tell whether the perpetrator did not, perhaps subconsciously, miss intentionally.

So, attempted crimes should be punished and punished severely. But not as if they of equal weight.

To those who voted yes, I was once given an interesting example of drunk driving. Imagine two people who have been to a party and got real drunk. They come out of the place and get into their respective cars. Both think "what the hell, cabs are expensive" and drive home, despite being intoxicated. One hits a little girl on the way, one doesn't. Now, shouldn't both be convicted of killing the girl? Imagine that everything is exactly the same, except the circumstance that the girl was there in one case and not in the other. One of the drivers got lucky, but why should he get off the hook? Their INTENTIONS were, after all, exactly identical.

Sorry Gustaf,

You analogy is fallacious as what are involved in the drunken driver scenario are two different crimes.

Presuming both drivers meet the legal standards of the jurisdiction(s) involved, they may both be guilty of 'driving under the influence.'

However, the driver who hit the little girl would be charged with additional offenses (depending upon the severity of the injury to thge child).

How can my analogy be fallacious when it isn't an analogy? In Sweden I believe the punishment for killing someone in a traffic accident is someting like that of third degree murder. That is what the example is about. 

[Gustaf]

I voted no. I don't like the idea that we can decide these things for other people, because it goes against my idea of personal responsibility. Take for instance a person creeping up on someone with a knife. But before he can do anything he is discovered and arrested. Now, this was an attempted murder. But how do we know that he was actually going to do it? I don't think anyone else has a right to call someone a murderer if that person did not actually murder anyone. And don't give me any of the "but if we're really sure"-stuff. When can we ever be really sure of something like that? Note, that even if a person gets shot, knifed, etc and survives, we wouldn't be able to tell whether the perpetrator did not, perhaps subconsciously, miss intentionally.

So, attempted crimes should be punished and punished severely. But not as if they of equal weight.

To those who voted yes, I was once given an interesting example of drunk driving. Imagine two people who have been to a party and got real drunk. They come out of the place and get into their respective cars. Both think "what the hell, cabs are expensive" and drive home, despite being intoxicated. One hits a little girl on the way, one doesn't. Now, shouldn't both be convicted of killing the girl? Imagine that everything is exactly the same, except the circumstance that the girl was there in one case and not in the other. One of the drivers got lucky, but why should he get off the hook? Their INTENTIONS were, after all, exactly identical.

There largely are two different reasons to punish someone for a crime.  The first is to protect the general public from the person, if he or she is deemed to be a threat to their general well-being.  This is the dominant motivation in crimes such as murder, rape, etc., where there was a directed and intentional effort to kill, hurt, or otherwise damage the life of another individual.

The second is to punish the person for negligence or some other lack of foresight.  It naturally follows if you're intended to punish the person rather than protect those around the person that, in this case, the worse the actual outcome, the worse the punishment meted out.  In this case, no intentions were present at all (or it could even be said that there was the intention not to have the accident occur).

Crimes that can be "attempted" fall under the top category; the rest fall under the bottom category.  Hence, the two are largely uncomparable because the reasons for punishment are not the same.  It's a complete contradiction in terms to discuss "attempted manslaughter".

To address a few specific points:

I don't like the idea that we can decide these things for other people, because it goes against my idea of personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility?  I don't understand what you mean by that.

Take for instance a person creeping up on someone with a knife. But before he can do anything he is discovered and arrested. Now, this was an attempted murder. But how do we know that he was actually going to do it?

Depends on the context.  If the guy was poor and if the person had a wallet in plain sight, it could be the case that he was simply going to rob the person, and a judge would likely listen to this argument by the defense attorney and take it under consideration.

I don't think anyone else has a right to call someone a murderer if that person did not actually murder anyone. And don't give me any of the "but if we're really sure"-stuff. When can we ever be really sure of something like that? Note, that even if a person gets shot, knifed, etc and survives, we wouldn't be able to tell whether the perpetrator did not, perhaps subconsciously, miss intentionally.

By that logic, we should never, ever convict anyone at all, because we can never be sure beyond the shadow of any doubt.  In a court of law, there's a very well-established guideline: something can be accepted if it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  If a girl runs away to the police saying that her boyfriend tried to murder her, and if, upon inspecting her house, they find a knife inches away from her head on the bed with her boyfriend's fingerprints on it, and if they find a note in his journal saying "I hate my girlfriend and I am going to murder her", and if the boyfriend freely admits that he was trying to murder her, I think it can be fairly determined that it was, in fact, an attempted murder.

Of course, this is an extreme example, but you get the idea.  Of course you won't be able to prove intent in every case.  But there are some where you can be awfully sure of it, to the point that you can say it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  I don't see how the boyfriend should be treated any better just because he was unlucky enough to mess up the murder.

First off, you're stating YOUR opinion of why we should punish people. That is not at all the only possible opinion. I don't share it, and hardly anybody does, once they realize what that position means exactly. But that is a whole other discussion.

As to your other point that is the point of the example. If you break the law, taking the risk of killing someone, why exactly should it matter what the actual consequences are? If intention is all that matters, as you have argued there is even less reason to do so. It may be another case if you have shown no negligence of course, but that is not the case here.

By personal responsibility I mean the notion that we can take personal responsibility for our actions. I came up with that idea discussing the example above, so, granted, it is more relevant to situations concerning negligence and such, than other cases. But ultimately it is my decision whether I perform an act or not (such as a murder). I take responsibility for my actions and can thus be condemned for them. But I cannot be asked to take responsibility for things that I have not done. In the case of drunk driving, if I calculate the risks and decide that I can drive home, despite intoxication, and avoid accidents and it succeeds then I don't think someone else has the right to tell me "you could have killed someone". If I do screw up and runs over a person, then I'm fair game.

When it comes to the third point I'm not sure if you understood my point. You can leave out wallets or whatever, that isn't really relevant to the example.

Fourthly, if a murder HAS been commited you don't necessarily need the motive. Of course, if it is clear that the act was going to lead to death, and it did, then it will pre-meditated. That isn't really the issue though. Why, for instance, did the boyfriend in that case miss with the knife? Maybe he didn't deep-down want to kill her, so that in the end he missed. That is not uncommon to occur, especially in sucides. If that was the case convicting him for murder would be pretty unfair, IMO.

And it isn't about reasonable doubt, because that pertains mostly to objective facts. We can discuss whether Mr. X pulled out a gun at a certain time, in a certain place and fired a bullet that hit a certain person. Those are all facts. We can establish them "beyond reasonable doubt". We can also establish whether Mr. X knew that people die if they are hit by bullets and whether he knew what he was doing, more or less at that specific time. But can we ever say that we know what the intentions of another human being are? I don't really think so. If you consciously kill someone you have to face the consequences of that, but if you haven't other people don't really have a right to tell you what you would have done. What I would have done is something only I myself can know (and maybe not even I).

[Gustaf]

I voted no. I don't like the idea that we can decide these things for other people, because it goes against my idea of personal responsibility. Take for instance a person creeping up on someone with a knife. But before he can do anything he is discovered and arrested. Now, this was an attempted murder. But how do we know that he was actually going to do it? I don't think anyone else has a right to call someone a murderer if that person did not actually murder anyone. And don't give me any of the "but if we're really sure"-stuff. When can we ever be really sure of something like that? Note, that even if a person gets shot, knifed, etc and survives, we wouldn't be able to tell whether the perpetrator did not, perhaps subconsciously, miss intentionally.

So, attempted crimes should be punished and punished severely. But not as if they of equal weight.

Of course you can't be 100% sure in all cases, but that is why the burden of proof lies upon the state. The person creeping up to the other person with a knife might not provide enough evidence as to their intentions - for instance they might simply be trying to sneak up behind them and rob them at knife point. If there's reasonable doubt as to an intent to murder then we can charge them with some lesser crime. But if the police find sufficient evidence that the intent was indeed murder we can make the proper charge. And there are other situations where the intent is much more clear - catching someone in the act of shooting, stabbing, ect. One instance I once read about was a woman intentionally ran over a teenager a couple times for some asinine reason. He survived but I'd say her actions made her intentions clear enough.

To those who voted yes, I was once given an interesting example of drunk driving. Imagine two people who have been to a party and got real drunk. They come out of the place and get into their respective cars. Both think "what the hell, cabs are expensive" and drive home, despite being intoxicated. One hits a little girl on the way, one doesn't. Now, shouldn't both be convicted of killing the girl? Imagine that everything is exactly the same, except the circumstance that the girl was there in one case and not in the other. One of the drivers got lucky, but why should he get off the hook? Their INTENTIONS were, after all, exactly identical.

No, because for both of them neither of them actually made an attempt to kill the girl - it was an accident. This is not the type of situation I am referring to for this poll. An attempt involves a conscious intent to try an action. Their only intentions were to drive home, not to kill anyone.

They intentionally broke the law. The argument you have deployed is that intent rather than consequences is what matters. Thus, it shouldn't matter whether a person actually dies from intended negligence or not.

But neither you or Gabu seems to be getting my point. This is not about evidence in a court of law. We can, in one sense of the word, never knoe anything for sure. I believe that the sun will set tomorrow, but I don't know for sure, etc. When it comes to trials we have to get as close to the truth as possible, because we'd rather see some guilty people get off than innocent ones punished, the burden  of proof lies with the prosecution, etc, etc.

But what a person would have done is not, imo, among those things. I can say that I know the sun will set tomorrow, because there are good reasons for it. But since I belive in free will I don't think I can say that I know that you will block-headedly continue to disagree with me. For all I know, you could suddenly see the light.

[Gustaf]

I voted no. I don't like the idea that we can decide these things for other people, because it goes against my idea of personal responsibility. Take for instance a person creeping up on someone with a knife. But before he can do anything he is discovered and arrested. Now, this was an attempted murder. But how do we know that he was actually going to do it? I don't think anyone else has a right to call someone a murderer if that person did not actually murder anyone. And don't give me any of the "but if we're really sure"-stuff. When can we ever be really sure of something like that? Note, that even if a person gets shot, knifed, etc and survives, we wouldn't be able to tell whether the perpetrator did not, perhaps subconsciously, miss intentionally.

So, attempted crimes should be punished and punished severely. But not as if they of equal weight.

To those who voted yes, I was once given an interesting example of drunk driving. Imagine two people who have been to a party and got real drunk. They come out of the place and get into their respective cars. Both think "what the hell, cabs are expensive" and drive home, despite being intoxicated. One hits a little girl on the way, one doesn't. Now, shouldn't both be convicted of killing the girl? Imagine that everything is exactly the same, except the circumstance that the girl was there in one case and not in the other. One of the drivers got lucky, but why should he get off the hook? Their INTENTIONS were, after all, exactly identical.

Sorry Gustaf,

You analogy is fallacious as what are involved in the drunken driver scenario are two different crimes.

Presuming both drivers meet the legal standards of the jurisdiction(s) involved, they may both be guilty of 'driving under the influence.'

However, the driver who hit the little girl would be charged with additional offenses (depending upon the severity of the injury to thge child).

How can my analogy be fallacious when it isn't an analogy? In Sweden I believe the punishment for killing someone in a traffic accident is someting like that of third degree murder. That is what the example is about. 

Perhaps I was not clear enough.

Lets suppose both of the intoxicated drivers were apprehended.  Both would be charged with driving while under the influence.

In addition, the driver who struck the little girl would face additional charges (would depend upon the severity of the injury to the little girl and the jurisdiction involved),

So, while both would be liable for DUI, the driver who struck the girl would ALSO be subject to additional charges.

Perhaps in your country the lump the seperate charges together by having different levels of DUI, but in my state (Arizona) and other states with which I am familiar, there would be at least two charges for the driver who struck the girl.

I know, and I consider it to be a good system. The argument of the example (which I do not myself agree with) is that both drivers should be charged equally because the difference is simply luck. Whether both should be judged as having killed someone or neither is another issue.

[Gustaf]

Gabu,

Why we punish people is a much broader discussion. There are generally considered to be three reasons: preventing crime, rehabilitating criminals and punishing criminals. These are three different philosphies about justice. You put forward the one you believe in as if it were a given, and I honestly think that was your mistake. Me pointing that out is not a "vague attack". But, allright, if you want to go there, we can go there.

If the purpose of justice, as you hold, is to prevent crime from occurring there a number of things to consider. There are two sides of prevention: on the individual level and on the general level. The last one is what is usually meant, so I will focus on that for now. Now, the first principle that goes is the notion that punishment should stand in proportion to the crime committed. The purpose of punishing is to deter people from committing crimes, so if slapping down hard does the job, why not? Secondly, there is the idea that only guilty people are to be punished. But if our goal is to deter people from committing crimes, convicting as many as possible is much more efficient. That way, people will go out of their way and keep as far away from crimes as possible. Thirdly, there is no real point in caring about factors such as intoxication, or even intent. If we want to prevent people from committing murders while being drunk the best way is probably to let them know that they will get just as harsh a punishment as if they were sober for everything they do. That way they will think twice before getting drunk in the first place.

Now, if we're talking about the individual level the easiest way is probably death penalty for every crime. That is the safest way of guaranteeing that the criminal does not strike again.

But what makes the preventionist stand really interesting is when we get to people who we can quite safely say will not relapse. Dictators are usually the best examples here. Imagine, for instance, the trials against the Nazi leaders. Was there any risk of Goebbels, Hitler, Goering et al restarting the Third Reich? Not really. Looking at other dictators, most tend to live quite, peaceful lives after they lose power. In many cases perpetrators from these regimes become productive members of society.

But we still punish them, and the reason is that our legal systems, all over the world, throughout history are based on the retributive principle. If you've done something wrong you deserve punishment for it. That is why we consider it essential that only the guilty are punished, that a good excuse can get you off the hook, the the severity of the punishment is proportional to the crime and so on. And most people, once they realize how important the retributivist principle is to our concept of justice, accept that I think. Stating that is not being sinister, it is merely refuting your stating your own position as a given, when it in fact isn't. Now, if you want to debate the principles underpinning the legal systems in the world, that is fine by me, but it isn't what the topic was about exactly, and I hence did not think it fully appropriate. Now, I have some work to attend to, so I won't have time with all the rest just now, unfortunately.

[Gustaf]

The example was obviously not tailor-made to suit the current discussion. It was not constructed by me and not for that purpose.

It is however linked to the idea that the results of an action should not matter but only the intent. The intent in this case is the intentional drunk driving. The question is whether persons should be judged differently if their intentional action (drunk driving) leads to different consequences.

And, Carl, I can't help but get the impression that both you and Sam are talking an awful deal about what the law currently says. I understand that there are various provisions for covering all these things. The question at hand is what it should be like, not how it actually is.

And I would also like to point out, because almost everyone here seem to be referring to it, that there is a difference between motive and intent. We've had a long discussion before where everyone except me believed motive was of no consquence to the status of a crime. I find it amusing that so many of you now believe it is of vital importance in trials. Intent and motive are two different things. If I do something and I'm not intoxicated, insane, etc and the consequences of my actions are such that I should be able to foresee them then I am acting intentionally. Intention can thus be relatively easily established. Motive is a whole other issue. What motivates people to do what they do is much harder to establish and it is never really vital to the process of justice. Motive is what prosecution tends to use when they lack substantial evidence but is never really of chief importance. Everyone has a motive to kill someone else, but they do not necessarily do it. So establishing a motive does not carry the weight that, say, establishing the means of the accused to have committed the crime.

[Gustaf]

They intentionally broke the law. The argument you have deployed is that intent rather than consequences is what matters. Thus, it shouldn't matter whether a person actually dies from intended negligence or not.

They intentionally broke the law against drunk driving - for that their punishment should be equal. However they had no intent of killing anyone. If we were to punish them for every conceivable consequence of their actions it would be quite silly. Another drunk driver rammed into a building killing a family of five. Should we punish the other two the same? Another one caused a ten care pile up killing twenty or thirty people - should we punish the others for killing that many? Of course not. That would be going too far. We punish drunk driving because the potential consequences are likely and we can use the law to discourage the behavior, but the consequences themselves should be treated as a seperate matter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does "treated as a separate matter" mean here? These consequences were unintentional. Your argument here has been that unintended consequences do not matter. Whether you choose to let the guy who killed 30 off with the same punishment as the one who caused nothing or slam down with latter with the same harsh punishment as the former is another issue. You may use an average of the effects if you like. But I do not see how you can treat them differently, given that there is no difference in intent.

The funny thing is that it wasn't very long ago that you argued that the difference between motive and intent was enormous. Now you don't seem to recognize that anymore. I agree that we can establish whether an act was intentional or not. But I disagree that we can do anything beyond speculate when it comes to motive. And it's not the kind of speculation on which you can convict a person.

[Gustaf]

Gustav:

You are presuming that I am quibling with your opinion of how "attempt" crimes should be punished.  I have not said anything on this subject.  Actually, at common law, attempt crimes were punished as misdemeanors, so your position has support in Anglo-American criminal history, not to mention for a number of policy.

What I am quibling with is your example of drunk drivers.  If there are two persons who go into a bar and get themselves voluntary intoxicated, they are both clearly doing each action intentionally.  Similarly, if each gets into a vehicle and starts driving, each one is pursuing the act intentionally, if under the influence of intoxication.

However, if one driver strikes a little girl and the other one doesn't, you cannot hold one driver for vehicular homicide or manslughter and the other for attempt.  Attempts, by their nature, require "intent" and there is no evidence that either driver intended to run over that particular little girl.  To hold that one could "intend" what is inherently a "reckless" act (driving while intoxicated) in this situation would constitute a gross miscarriage of justice.  Besides, logically, it is just facially ludicrous to make such an assertion.  You can't intend to do a reckless act.

I don't know if I made that assumption. Since I'm basically debating 4 people and you're all pursuing somewhat different lines of reasoning AND I am too lazy to quote everyone's posts in a clear manner my responses become somewhat mixed.

Now, I understand that one person cannot be held responsible for intentionally killing a girl while driving drunk and the other cannot. Yes, one cannot intend to do something like that. That is exactly the point. The question is how one then assigns blame. If we believe that the two drivers should be punished differently we're essentially saying that the consequences matter, not just the intent. I don't know whether you read all the posts, but the argument put forth by Gabu and others was that intent was the sole basis of punishment, so that the consequences had no importance at all. Thus, someone could get executed despite not having harmed anyone in the slightest. This is an example where I would say the consequences of this principle becomes absurd.

Of course, if you take a real negligence crime, such as not driving well enough and causing an accident, etc one could argue then that there should be no penalty because there was no intent. However, I would say that there is always a point of intentional action that carries responsibility with it. So, if I'm a poor driver I should never have gotten into the car and so on.

[Gustaf]

What does "treated as a separate matter" mean here? These consequences were unintentional. Your argument here has been that unintended consequences do not matter. Whether you choose to let the guy who killed 30 off with the same punishment as the one who caused nothing or slam down with latter with the same harsh punishment as the former is another issue. You may use an average of the effects if you like. But I do not see how you can treat them differently, given that there is no difference in intent.

"Treated as a seperate matter" means just that. Getting into the car and driving it drunk is a crime of intent. Hitting the girl on accident is a result of the first action, yes, but it is a seperate crime by itself, and is a crime of negligence due to the fact that the driver is drunk. There was no intention to commit the crime of vehicular homicide, but it did happen. The driver would be charged with driving drunk and vehicular homicide, whereas the driver who just drove drunk but didn't hit anyone would only be charged with driving drunk.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're confusing me with someone else methinks - I never mentioned motive, though I do think the two are different. Motive is a reason to do something, not an intent to do it. Motive might give weight to deciding whether an intention existed, but it is certainly not the only factor to consider and if it's the only evidence you're not likely to convince a judge and jury.

But yes, I think we can establish beyond reasonable doubt whether an act was intentional or not. If someone stabs another person with a knife repeatedly would you doubt it was intentional? And after said multiple stabbings is death not the forseeable likely result of that action? I mean seriously, who stabs a person multiple times with the intent of that person surviving?

I am fairly sure you lectured me on it...I could be wrong but most of the posts directed at me at that time were from you, so the odds are on my side.

Now, to the point: if I understand you correctly you do mean that unintended consequences of one's actions is something one can be held accountable for then. In that case I don't see why you think it is so strange to apply this to murder? You seem to agree with me that consequences and not just intent matters when a punishment is decided.

As to the second part of your post...maybe part of the animosity here derives from the fact that I believe we're thinking of somewhat different cases. I'm not really imagining a case like the one you describe, but rather a case where nothing happens at all. Imagine for instance someone who is aiming with a gun, fires and misses. Saying that the perpertrator clearly would have murdered the victim and should be tried as a murderer would then be unfair.

In the case you present, some of my arguments disappear, I grant you that. But why was the deed not carried out in this case? My point has been, all along, that yes of course we can say that the stabbing was intentional. We can always establish (in theory) whether acts that HAPPENED were intentional. But you're not saying that. You're claiming that you can decide whether acts that never occurred would have been intentional, had they occurred. That's another issue for me. Maybe in an extreme case, yes, the penalty could be the same. If A stabs B, says "Damn, I missed the heart! Well, this time I'll get you" but is stopped in mid-stab by police officers, yeah, then maybe the difference isn't all that great. But I'm not fully convinced even of that. The idea that we can decide for other people what they would have done and then condemn them for what we believe they would have done bothers me all the same.

[Gustaf]

You're still not getting my point, though keeping a whole lot of arguments up at the same time is difficult.  I might not be making it clear enough.

First, in your example, we need to get the term "intent" off the board.  It is not present in vehicular homicide, nor any crime where voluntary intoxication is an issue.  It only confuses, it does not help.

Because "intent" is off the table, any "attempt" at a crime cannot occur, because an "attempt" requires an "intentional" mens rea.  Either the crime happens or it doesn't in that case.

Under modern standards of mens rea, three types exist:  "knowingly", "recklessly" or "criminally negligent".  Vehicular homicide is normally considered "reckless" under statute, because driving while drunk is considered dangerous to society. 

One could not knowingly commit vehicular homicide, unless one "knew" one's actions would cause the death of that specific girl, which is highly unlikely.  And then, voluntary intoxication would negate the "knowingly" mens rea.

Maybe you're arguing that there are different groups of crimes then? Because I see nothing inherently strange in saying that all crimes should be judged from intent and that acts currently considered crimes where intent does not play a part should not be considered crimes at all. Now, if I understand your agument correctly you're saying that there are areas where intent can be discussed (and where one can argue that consequences are of no importance) and areas where it cannot (and where one HAS to look at the consequences). I think you will have to come up with some sort of argument for that though, because I don't see it as a given.

And, yes, I understand that ATTEMPTED crimes aren't part of the drunk driving thing. The question of intent is still there though and is relevant. Are we only responsible for intentional actions and if so, where does intent end if intentional actions have unintended consequences, etc. See, the discussion isn't limited to attempted crimes because the underlying issue we're disputing is more about the link between intent and punishment.

[Gustaf]

You're still not getting my point, though keeping a whole lot of arguments up at the same time is difficult.  I might not be making it clear enough.

First, in your example, we need to get the term "intent" off the board.  It is not present in vehicular homicide, nor any crime where voluntary intoxication is an issue.  It only confuses, it does not help.

Because "intent" is off the table, any "attempt" at a crime cannot occur, because an "attempt" requires an "intentional" mens rea.  Either the crime happens or it doesn't in that case.

Under modern standards of mens rea, three types exist:  "knowingly", "recklessly" or "criminally negligent".  Vehicular homicide is normally considered "reckless" under statute, because driving while drunk is considered dangerous to society. 

One could not knowingly commit vehicular homicide, unless one "knew" one's actions would cause the death of that specific girl, which is highly unlikely.  And then, voluntary intoxication would negate the "knowingly" mens rea.

Maybe you're arguing that there are different groups of crimes then? Because I see nothing inherently strange in saying that all crimes should be judged from intent and that acts currently considered crimes where intent does not play a part should not be considered crimes at all. Now, if I understand your agument correctly you're saying that there are areas where intent can be discussed (and where one can argue that consequences are of no importance) and areas where it cannot (and where one HAS to look at the consequences). I think you will have to come up with some sort of argument for that though, because I don't see it as a given.

And, yes, I understand that ATTEMPTED crimes aren't part of the drunk driving thing. The question of intent is still there though and is relevant. Are we only responsible for intentional actions and if so, where does intent end if intentional actions have unintended consequences, etc. See, the discussion isn't limited to attempted crimes because the underlying issue we're disputing is more about the link between intent and punishment.

First Gustav, let me say that it has NOT been my intent to 'gang up' on you, and I think the other posters on this thread have been thoughful, informative and polite.

Second, let me agree with you in opposing strict liability felonies.  In my mind, no offense should be a felony without the requisite mens rea.

Third, it seems to me that you are looking at actions, more partictularly actions are criminal as a continuum with respect to penalties.  I on the other hand are looking at the actions to see if they fit the caterories of offenses for which NOTICE has been given.

Let me illustrate this with a few  old (and well known examples):

In hypothetical 1, an obnoxious turd (lets call him offender A) approaches another individual (lets call him victim B) and tells him that unless he gets out of A's way he will hit him.  B declines to move and A hits B.  Now unless A has some legal defense (not included in the facts cited), A would (in common law) be guilty of Assault (the threat couple with the present ability to accomplish it) and Battery (the actual blow). 

Hypothetical 2 includes facts in hypothetical 1, plus the additional fact that B had a 'glass jaw,' and dropped dead as a result of the blow.  In this example, A (again, provided no affirmative defenses to the contrary) would presumably be guilty of criminal homocide (murder or voluntary manslaughter).

In hypothetical 3, A not only threatens to hit B, but attempts to do so, unsucessfully (B ducks).  We would have a presumable assault, and attempted battery.

In hypothetical 4, all the facts in hypotherical 3. are included but, in addition, A is professional boxer, who has killed others with his fists, aned who was paid by C to kill B (and C testifies to the contract in the trial).  Here  a charge of attempted criminal homocide (murder or voluntary manslaughter) would be appropriate.

The key here is NOTICE.  As part of notice (in addition to the elements of the offense) is the classification of the offense (which involves the potential penalties for the offense).

Oh, BTW, this has been a very interesting thread.  You are to be commended for starting and sticking with it.

 

Yes, I don't feel persecuted or anything. I agree that everyone have been polite (with the possible exception of Gabu when he used words like vague and sinister. But he's usually nice so that's not a big deal )

I will answer Dibble as well in this post. I do not believe that we can honestly know what a person would have done and use our professed knowledge of that to judge him. If it can be established that the reasons for the murder only being attempted and not successfull were completely out of the control of the murderer, then yes, I would agree that as far as my argument goes there would be no reason not to give equal punishment.

However, another line of argument, is that the consequences of an act does matter. One could say, for instance, that part of the punishment is a sort of reward for the victim or the victim's family, and so on. In that case a death hurts more than a non-death, obviously, and that perhaps should warrant a higher penalty. This is where the reckless crimes and all that comes in. If we should charge people for things that happened on their watch or were caused by them, but were completely unintentional, it seems that we judge people not just based on their intentions (which may have been perfectly innocent) but also based on the consequences of their actions.

Of course, actual law is quite complicated and legal systems differ from country to country. I'm reasonably well educated on Swedish law, but I'll profess to not knowing a great deal about American law. So don't expect lucid answers from me regarding that. I'm looking at it in a much more general way. I do believe, however, that the legal systems of most countries, including the US, basically adhere to the principles I support.