Punishments for 'Attempted' crimes

[John Dibble]

If someone attempts to commit a crime, but for whatever reason fails in their attempt and gets caught, should they receive the same punishment they would have gotten if they had successfully commited the crime? For example, if someone attempts to commit murder and fails(is fended off or restrained, only ends up wounding the victim but the victim doesn't die, ect.) should they receive the same punishment a successful murderer would receive all other things being equal?

[John Dibble]

Either of the two 'no' votes care to give a reason?

[John Dibble]

Are discussing is the entire category of ante actus crimen (solicitation, attempt and conspiracy) or just attempt?

For the purposes of the poll I was only thinking of an actual attempt.


Also we've got six 'no's so far and no responses from them still - any of you folks want to give your reasons? I really would like to hear them.

[John Dibble]

Depends on the crime doesn't it?

Well, yeah, but the poll isn't asking if all crimes should be punished the same, just whether attempting a crime and failing should get the same punishment as attempting and succeeding at the same crime. Meaning if you get 25 to life for murder you would get 25 to life for attempted murder, or if you got 2 to 5 years for robbing a liquor store you'd get 2 to 5 years for attempting to rob a liquor store and failing.

[John Dibble]

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.

[John Dibble]

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.

And I can tell you that I have good reasons to believe that someone intended to kill another person, even if they failed in the attempt - that's the point Gabu and I are trying to make. Those reasons are what we call evidence! You have evidence that the probability the sun will set tommorow approaches 100%, though by your own admission you can't know for sure. Does that mean you should be skeptical about the sun coming up tommorow?

We might not know for 100% certain, but then again as you said we can't know for absolute certain of a lot of things. That's why we have courts, juries, and evidence in the first place.

[John Dibble]

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?

[John Dibble]

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.

You can go back and confirm that since it's written down.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Murder is an intentional act, not an unintentional one. That's not to say someone who kills someone accidentally can't be held liable, but they should not be treated in the same manner as someone who does it on purpose. Punishment may still be warranted, but not necessarily the same one as the intentional act.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is why I mentioned the burden of proof being on the state - the prosecution must show intent beyond a reasonable doubt. The question assumes the burden of proof has been met to a sufficient degree. In a situation where no damage is actually done(like the one you describe) the burden of proof is likely greater than one where damage is done.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps the perpetrator was caught, heard someone coming and left, or mistakenly thought the victim was dead(or that he would die from the wounds). I didn't give specifics, but again - if someone stabs someone multiple times how am I to think that murder wasn't the intention? Unless you can show me that every stab wound was in the arms or legs or something, I don't think the idea that it wasn't holds much weight.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, we can use logic and evidence to deduce intent, and of course the further the attempted action goes the easier it is to deduce. Yes, it's all theory when it comes down to it, but if the evidence is sufficient to quell reasonable doubt about the intention then I see no reason not to believe that the theoretical action was going to occur. In the case you presented where the man was stalking another man with a knife and is caught before anything happens there is not likely enough evidence to dispel reasonable doubt, thusly a lesser charge is likely appropriate. If an attempted crime warrants the same punishment as the successful version of the crime, the burden of proof must be at least as high if not higher.

[John Dibble]

Did you, by any chance, get this idea from the 'Minority Report'? 

No, rather from some novel I read some time ago where the idea was discussed, forgot which one. Basically a guy tries to kill a woman while she's sleeping - stabs her in the bed she's sleeping in but it turns out she's not even in the bed, he stabbed a fake. He's caught in the act and his intentions were quite clear, so he get's executed for it. Some people question why since nobody actually died, and the reasons discussed are similar to some of the discussion in this thread.