Nowhere357

I agree with both points. But again, the criminal sentence can be based on the actions and intentions only. The information provided by the actual outcome can be used to determine what the intentions and actions were.

The actual outcome is accounted for in civil court.

Can you think of a reason or example why this would lead to greater injustice?

Yes I think so too, but my point is the potential disparity of sentences. Not necessarily in that particular case.

Notice that if she DID call for help, that is included in her actions.

Where is the flaw in the idea that justice is best served by criminally punishing for intent and action only?

Nowhere357

I think the idea of criminal punishment for intent and action only, adequately satifies justice in both of these cases. And the potintial miscarriages of the failed assassin gaining release, or the innocent carpenter going to prison, are avoided.

In the first case, we've found a violent sociopath and he should be dealt with accordingly (whether he succeeded or not) and in the second case, he'll avoid unfair prosecution and pay for his bad luck by covering damages.

Sharif

I believe that in the US we have no Good Samaritan laws, that is, one cannot be punished crimanally because one did not help somebody out irrespective the situation.

Also, with regard to the Mallard case, most "experts" claimed that any decent defense attorney would have been able to avoid the murder charge and instead get a manslaughter conviction. I believe that this has relevence to the abscene of Good Samaritan laws as noted and intent, which is being discussed. Apparently, Mallard had horrendous representation.

Nowhere357

Another example of random luck involved in our justice system. Reform of our legal system is overdue. Imo.

Calzaer

I always figured that having "attempted murder" be less of a crime than "murder" is an encouragement for the perpetrator to keep on trying. Eventually, you'll get it right, but until you do we'll just keep sending you back onto the street with a (relative) slap on the wrist. If at first you don't succeed!

Tom Sawyer

Even if two people had the exact same intent in committing a crime, when the outcome is different the person who ended up committing a worse crime through pure random chance deserves to be punished more because he did more harm to society.

Laws exist to enable us to live together in societies and when someone does something that breaks this social contract and causes harm to members of his society, they deserve to be punished based upon the amount of harm done to that society. That is why both intent and outcome are taken into account.

If somebody is driving too fast and accidently kills someone, that person is less harmful to society because even though someone died as a result of his actions, there is not a lot of chance that he will do the same thing again and society won't be harmed much by his return to it a few years later. If someone hunts another person down and murders them in cold blood, society is much safer with him out of it permanently. The first person didn't break the social contract we live by - he simply made a mistake; the second person broke that contract and in order for us to be able to coexist, we cannot tolerate that sort of action in our society. This is why intent is taken into account.

The outcome is also important. If somebody speeds and hits a pedestrian, breaking the pedestrian's leg, society isn't harmed all that much by this action, since the pedestrian can easily recover from the incident and will be able to continue to contribute to it. If the driver kills the pedestrian, then the pedestrian cannot continue to contribute ot society and the society is harmed as a result of the incident. Thus the driver is punished more severely for the second incident than he is for the first, even though his intentions are identical and the only difference is whether the pedestrian survuved.

So, both intent and outcome are important to determining the harm to society that a crime causes and that is why they are both included in determining punishment. Both more serious intents and more serious outcomes harm society to a greater degree, so they are both taken into account in determining how the person who committed the crime ends up being judged.

Nowhere357

So the crime is worse, due to the greater damage in the outcome. If we punish for actions, while the damage is paid for by the guilty in civil action - how does this not serve justice here?

They deserve to be punished for their actions - why should the random factor of luck enter into it? I would say that an attempted murder identifies a danger to society just as surely as an actual murder.

Yes I agree both action and intent must be considered.

Yes, I agree with the point. Now, why is it that civil penalty based on the outcome is insufficient to remedy this? They both committed the same act - carelessness - and should be punished for that. The greater damage caused in the latter case is dealt with by the increased civil penalties!

I understand the idea behind the current system. The challenge is to show how criminal penalties based on intent and action only, necessarily lead to greater injustice. So far, that hasn't been done. For a fact, our current system leads to gross unfairness.

agnawstick

Here is one that gets me. Prisons have had the system of "good behaviour time" that lets prisoners who behave get out early.

You have 2 guys. One is a child molester, one is brawler. Their crime is basically their main pathology. The child molester doesn't molest kids in jail, so he gets out early, the brawler gets in a couple fights, he serves his full term.

Is that fair? I can not for the life of me understand how people who don't have an opportunity to commit the crime they love get out early mainly because of lack of access. If there were 500 children hanging around the prison, ya know the molester would re-offend, but there aren't, so they have been a good boy.

ohwilleke

In the real world, we start with outcomes and work our way back from that. Someone is dead, or has a hurt shoulder, or has minor whiplash. We then determine what consequences that outcome should have to those involved.

In practice, we presume that when there are consequences that someone should pay, and allow an innocent intent as a defense, even though that is not the way the rules formally read.

The simply reason, is that it is administratively much easier to chase down what actually happened, and filter this morally through intent, than it is to predict what might have happened. An intent based system is too subject to conjecture, and abuse.

Nowhere357

Yes. And the idea I'm trying to look at here is to base criminal justice on the actions of the perp, and not on the outcome.

Note that here, "actions" include the "intentions' also - we determine the latter from the former.
Note also that civil penalties are a seperate matter, and would be based on the outcome.

The question is whether this would lead to greater injustice.


Okay. In the system under consideration, the consequences (essentially damages, I think) would be dealt with in civil court. Innocent intent would still be a defense against the criminal charges.

I understand the point. Recall that here, the system is action based. Also, thought experiments aren't subject to very many administrativel problems!

So I agree with everything you've said, and none of it contradicts or opposes the action based system, afaics.

I guess I'm missing something, and I need an example, using the action based system, which leads to misjustice.