Jamie_L

In an effort not to further derail the thread where I started thinking of this (here), I'm starting this new thread.

The question is: Should the outcome of a crime weigh heavily in determining the legal penalties? Or should the action taken and the intent involved exclusively (or near exclusively) determine the punishment.

Examples:

Example 1(From the previous thread)
Two people run red lights under similar circumstances. Each hits another car. In one case, the other driver is in a Geo Metro and dies. In the second driver is in a Hummer H2, and suffers only minor injuries. Should the punishments be different? If so, why? What is the purpose of additional punishment for the motorist who hits the Geo? What is the purpose of lesser punishment for the motorist who hits the H2.

Example 2
Two people decide to kill their spouses, with malice and premeditation. They each take a gun and shoot their spouse in their home. One person hits their spouse in the chest and kills them. The other person hits their spouse in the shoulder, and the spouse survives. Why should the assailant who happened to only strike their spouse in the shoulder be charged with a lesser crime?

This really gets to another question: what is the function of legal punishment? What goals should the criminal justice system be trying to achieve. Certainly in the civil arena, where the purpose is to compensate for losses, a defendant who kills someone is liable for different damages than a defendant who wounds someone or merely damages property. But should that be part of the justice system?

Should the criminal penalties for running the red-light and hitting a Mercedes be more than running a red-light and hitting a Hyudai (assuming no one dies)? After all, the first crime causes more damage (i.e. a worse outcome). Or, perhaps we should take into consideration how much the driver needs the car that was damaged, or how well they can afford to repair it.

I'm not actually sure what the alternative is, and I'm not exactly sure where I stand on this issue. But it's something that came to my attention recently, and made me think. Is this the right way to run a justice system? Maybe so. But why?

Jamie

brighid

Because he didn't actually kill her and therefore could only be charged with attempted murder! There are appropriate legal distinction beyond the basic "murder" and "manslaughter" that carry different penalties. Aggrevated battery (1. A person who knowingly or intentionally inflicts injury on a person that creates a substantial risk of death or causes serious permanent disfigurement, protracted loss or impairment of the function of a body part or organ) is different then battery (A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, disrespectful, or angry manner commits battery., etc. )

(http://www.nasro.org/members/lessons/TypesofBattery.doc)

One cannot be charged with murder if one did not actually murder some one. Intent (including malice, etc.) is considered during charging and sentencing of a criminal, if intent can be proven (and this can be very difficult to do with the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.)

http://accident-law.freeadvice.com/d..._accidents.htm

Reckless Conduct

http://accident-law.freeadvice.com/reckless_conduct.htm

Brighid

ZiprHead

That's something I've always wondered. Why should someone that *tried* to murder someone but failed get off lighter then someone that succeeded? If the intent can be proven, and I believe intent should be judged based upon the actions of the defendant, I think the convicted should get the same punishment as a person that actually did kill someone.

Vylo

In the case of a crime involving an guilty party and a victim, 3 things must be taken into account:

1. intent of guilty - did they accidently or carelessly do harm, or was it planned out and malicious?
2. situation of victim - Was victim putting themselves legally at risk? provoking, not using proper legal safety measures?
3. outcome - what resulted? merely hurt feelings or small property damage? Or was it loss of life adn the destruction of large amounts of property?

All of these should be weighed to decide upon how the guilty should be sentenced.

long winded fool

This is generally the way the legal system works, and it works more or less effectively, but the question is: Why should the outcome be a factor? Once intent is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, why should the consequences of the action (or for that matter, the situation of the victim) factor in at all?

I think the practical reason is that intent is too difficult to prove. "Sure I confessed that I really wanted to kill Joe and that I tried to but failed, but I was not in my right mind when I admitted this. I retract my statement. There was never any intent on my part. Now what are you going to do?" The examination of the consequences of the crime basically enable us to prosecute good liars, (or people who do not satisfactorily communicate their intent to the investigators in some way.) Since "intent" is a fairly subjective and nebulous thing for anyone other than the criminal himself, the outcome of the action is almost always a safe, albiet sometimes inconsistent, way to pass judgement on a person. Intent can sometimes simply be assumed and applied based on the situation and the consequences alone. Not all bad people face justice, but the clumsy ones do at least. This may often appear to be a cop out to morally aware people, but it seems to me that the alternative would create more problems than it would solve. All other things being equal, (as in the case of running a red light) consequences could sometimes be said to outweigh intent solely because consequences are empirical.

njhartsh

It doesn't apply to Jamie_L's particular hypothetical, but one reason attempt exists as an independent category is to convince people to give up criminal schemes after they've started but before the final dirty deed has been done.

At common law, to prove attempted X, the prosecution has to establish (a) that the defendent took "a substantial step beyond mere preparation" in the direction of committing X and (b) that when she took that step, the defendant had the "specific intent" to commit X itself.

What this means is that sometimes, after a criminal has taken "a substantial step" toward committing a crime (say, bank robbery), she will have the chance to abandon her plan and get a lesser sentence. And that's the rational calculation that (supposedly) the creators of the common law wanted half-finished criminals to make.

This issue can apply in murder cases--but of course, once you've pulled a trigger with murderous intent, abandonment isn't on the table anymore (at least with regard to that particular gunshot). So the point isn't going to answer Jamie_L's conundrum #2.

- Nathan

Nowhere357

I'm glad you ask this, I've had the same thoughts.

When used to determine punishment, there is an inherent unfairness in the luck factor that is hard to rationalize away.

It seems unfair to punish for something that hasn't happened. People may change their minds, for example. But it makes sense to include intent in the criminal process.

Intent and actions should determine criminal liability.
But the outcome looks like a civil matter. Why should a dice roll determine criminal penalty?

Yes. But why doesn't the civil remedy suffice? Criminal law can deal with the action taken.

In the case of the red light, a law was broken. Why should the random factor of damage be used to determine criminal punishment? Assume no intent beyond carelessness, and a clean record: the runner may hit nothing, or kill a busload of honor students. Why should the former get at worst a ticket, while the latter may put in prison for years? The former already dodged a bullet for a few bucks, while the latter may lose house, assets, everything.

How does the additional criminal prosecution in this case serve justice?

Ovazor

Because whatever the reason for the failure was, the fact remains that the assailant did not actually kill anybody. No murder was committed if the victim did not die. I don't understand why a person should be punished for a crime that did not happen!

nermal

This is a problem I've had with the law (problem, not run-in) for some time. It started with a specific case in Denver some years ago:

Normally kids who steal stop signs are charged with theft, vandalism, endangerment, so on. In one instance, the stolen stop sign resulted in a car accident involving death. The kids were eventually caught and charged with manslaughter.
Their actions were no more severe than those of others who stole stop signs, but the consequences of their actions were much more severe, therefore they were charged accordingly.
I have a problem with this, though I'm not sure what I would do to resolve the problem, since someone did indeed die through the actions of others, and therefore someone must be held accountable. It is something I've wondered about off and on over the years since.

Ed

ZiprHead

I didn't say they should be convicted of the crime of murder if they didn't commit murder, I said their punishment should be the same based upon the intent to murder. Example: someone says I'm going to kill someone and sticks a gun in a persons chest and shoots that person. The intent to kill is pretty clear. If for some reason the victiom's life is saved through extensive medical treatment, the criminal gets a much lighter sentence then if the victim had died.

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.