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?

[MaC]

I think it's interesting that people get punished for 'attempting' suicide, but not for actually doing it.

[Gabu]

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?

If it can be definitively proven that the person was going to do the crime in question, I don't see why not.  The point of a punishment for a crime is, first and foremost, the protection of those around the criminal, and the criminal is no less a danger to those around him or her if the crime failed.

[John Dibble]

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

[angus]

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?

didn't I already bump the thread about ethical philosophy?

as indicated, I'm a Kantian. 

Although I still think weed, drugs, and whores should be legal.  so I guess I have some overlap with the yellow avatar types.  Don't confuse "attempted to sell somebody a gram of coke" with "attempted to bludgeon someone to death"  In my mind, those are two different crimes, and one of them shouldn't even be a crime, in my way of thinking.  But, yeah, if you attempt to be an asshole, basically, then you are an asshole.  So I'll vote yes (I) in your poll unless some weird change of heart occurs between this posting and my effort to vote. 

As a matter of fact, yellow georgia guy, it occurs to me that attempting, and failing, to be an asshole, is probably worse than accidentally being an asshole, all things considered.  But then I guess that's why accidentally scored Kantian. 

;0

[CARLHAYDEN]

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?

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

[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.

[Gabu]

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.

Me too, as I couldn't really think of a reason why not besides vague emotional reasons like "it doesn't really seem as bad if the person didn't actually kill anyone, even if the person's mindframe and threat level to those around him was identical".

[CARLHAYDEN]

Thank you for the clarification.

Given that the two critical elements of mens rea and actus reus are present in both 'attempt' and the crime attempted, the only difference would be in the sucess of the attempt.

As such, it seems to me that the same penalties should be avaiable to the trier of fact.

[Alcon]

I've thought about this.  I can't even rationalize it at the basest levels, so my poll answer is "yes."

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Depends on the crime doesn't it?

[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.

[opebo]

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

Obviously if they only 'attempted' it, that means it didn't come to fruition, did not take place.  Hence, no crime.

[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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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).

[Gabu]

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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

[Gabu]

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.

I think it's rather close to most justice systems I've heard of, and I don't appreciate the rather vague attack by implying that there's some sinister undertone such that that no one would support it if they actually understood it.  Just say what you're thinking.

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.

I never said that intent is all that matters in every case.  As I clearly stated, there are two cases that depend on whether or not there was intent to harm.

If there was, then intent is largely the biggest concern.  Why do you think that the different degrees of murder exist?  There is absolutely no difference in the outcome between them - the criminal killed someone else.  The only difference is in why the criminal did it.  And why does the justice system care about this?  Because of what I've already stated: the punishment depends on how much of a danger the criminal might pose to society at large if released too early.

If there wasn't intent, then, obviously, other things need to be examined, such as whether or not negligence was present and to what extent.  Unfortunately, it's rather hard to prove how much something was a freak accident and how much a person was not paying attention, so all you're left to go on is circumstantial evidence.  If a person was drunk and killed someone, there's a fairly good chance that the person's being drunk made the person unable to stop himself or herself from killing the person, although it could conceivably be proved otherwise.  If the person was not drunk and if the victim jumped off of an overpass or something like that, then you have the opposite extreme, where there is no indication that there was any negligence or anything that the person could have done to prevent the death whatsoever (and, thusly, that the person probably should not be charged with anything at all).

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.

Why can you not be asked to take responsibility for things that you didn't do?  In many cases there are situations where a person should be reasonably expected to take certain security precautions.  I think you may be giving humans a bit too much credit in terms of knowing their limits and what they can and can't do, especially when said humans are intoxicated.  No drunk person actually goes out at night thinking "I can't drive this car worth a damn in this state, but screw it, whatever".  They simply don't understand how impaired they actually are.

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.

What do you mean?  Of course motive matters.  That's the entire reason we have different degrees of murder, as I said.  Do you think that a serial killer should be given the same punishment as a guy who accidentally kills someone?  The only difference between those two situations is motive and intent.

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.

No offense, but that's a rather weak argument when put against the rest of the evidence, and I doubt it would hold up in court.  If it was the only piece of evidence, sure, maybe it'd hold.  Deciding these things is the whole job of the judge.

Also, on what do you base the claim that it's not uncommon for murderers to miss?

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).

Sorry, but that just isn't true.  The notion of reasonable doubt applies to motive and intent in a court of law just as it applies to objective facts.  If one person ran over another with a car, it's the court's job to determine whether or not it was a freak accident or whether it was a very purposeful crime.  For example, if there were no skid marks or any evidence of braking, and if the person was found to be of sound mind and not intoxicated, and if the person was well known to bear a huge amount of ill will towards the victim, then it could be reasonably stated that the person had every intent to kill the victim - thus, making the charge either first or second degree murder, rather than manslaughter.

[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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

I must respectfully disagree with your analysis.

There is extensive law on this matter (suggest you peruse Perkins).

If a person intentionally consumes alcoholic beverages to the extent that a reasonable man would determine would result in a blood level of alcohol in excess of the limit permitted by law to lawfully operate a motor vehicle, and then intentionally operates a motor vehicle, and as a consequence that action, another (the child in question) is injured, then legal intent is inferred as a matter of law.

Of course I am referring to American law, and am aware that much of europe uses a different system.

[Sam Spade]

A point or two:

The point at which the actus reus is formed for intent in attempts varies, but it is usually at a point in the planning of the commission of a crime called and defined the "substantial step", or some other test depending on the jurisdiction.  Establishing where that substantial step is a part of statute and establishing whether it has been reached is a function of circumstantial evidence in the case.  If a guy shoots at someone and misses, intent can usually be inferred through evidence presented (fill-in-your-own-evidence).

Drunk driving is a bad example of an attempt crime for a kind-of-obvious reason.  Attempt crimes require an "intentional" mens rea. 

Vehicular homicide only requires a "reckless" or "criminally negligent" mens rea; henceforth, you can't intentionally commit a reckless or negligent crime, so no "attempt" to commit these crimes can be made either. 

Furthermore, a reckless crime cannot be negated by voluntary intoxication.  Intent to commit a crime can be negated by voluntary intoxication, but it lowers your crime down to the reckless level.  The only intentional act that counts in the law is your consumption of alcohol.