brighid

I guess I don't understand why this confuses people so much because there are legal distinctions to address these concerns such as involuntary manslaughter, manslaughter, attempted murder, murder 1, etc.

If the victims life is saved, or if the criminal isn't able to complete the "job" he cannot be charged with murder but will be charged with attempted murder where his/her intent will be integral to sentencing, etc.

We shouldn't allow a person to die so another can be convicted of murder, and I think it is our ethical obligation to attempt to save the life of the victim without regard to the outcome of the criminals legal trial.

Brighid

Jamie_L

I think maybe you misunderstand. Yes, there are legal distinctions between these crimes. The question is: Should there be distinctions between these crimes?

Here's how the system could work instead:
Only actions are crimes. There is no crime of "murder". Only attempted murder, which has the usual 1st degree, 2nd degree etc. classifications. In this system, the crime is the action committed, regardless of the outcome. Succeeding in killing someone with premeditation becomes the same crime as attempting to kill someone with premeditation but failing.

Given that our system does consider outcome a significant part of the crime, I ask the question "Why?"

Does it serve to deter? Does it protect society?

Deterence can only be argued for small crimes (like stealing the stop signs or running the red light) which could become more serious crimes. But in the alternative system, these crimes could carry much stiffer penalties, because they become the same crime as the crime that causes an accident and/or death. So the same level of deterence can be created by including the potential outcome and not the actual outcome.

Protecting society also seems unlikely. People who have the same intentions as others can get off lighter because they are incompetent, or because of circumstances beyond their control.

So why include outcome? The most obvious reason seems to be vengence. The guy who causes the fatal accident when running a red light deserves to be punished, because people died! The kids who stole the stop sign got people killed! We can't treat them like those other kids who stole stop signs! It's not fair to send a drunk driver away for years in prison if he didn't hurt anybody - but if people got killed, hell, lock that vile killer away.

Then the last questions become: Should vengence be a part of our legal system? Is vengence moral? Is it a proper function of government? Is it just? And lastly, does it serve society's best interests.

Maybe it does serve society's interests. But to me, it's not obvious that it does.

Jamie

Vylo

I believe the issue with outcome may be the fact that an attempted murder may indicate that either the person was incapable of the act, or that even though they may seem like they had ruthless attempt, there was enough restraint or doubt in their may to cause their failure.

Dr Rick

So, if I'm caught speeding, I'll likely get a traffic ticket. If, in the process of speeding, I strike and kill a pedestrian, should I still just get a ticket?

What about this fine human being:
Chante Jawan Mallard 27, reacts to hearing the jury's ruling of guilty to the charge of murder, in the final moments of her trial in state district court in Fort Worth, Texas, Thursday, June 26, 2003, in this image from a pool video feed. Mallard was found guilty of murder after pleading guilty earlier on a charge of tampering with evidence. Mallard hit a homeless man, Gregory Biggs, 37, in the predawn hours of Oct. 26, 2001, and then drove home with his mangled body still lodged in the windshield andleft him to die in her garage.. (AP Photo/Pool)

Since she had no intent to hit the victim, what should her punishment be?

Pyrrho

long winded fool already answered this. It is a practical matter. In the law, it can be difficult enough to prove what actually happened, but proving what people intend is even more difficult. What you are advocating is punishing people even if they don't actually do anything at all, only "intend" to do something. This is extremely problematic. When you consider the fact that many religious people imagine that atheists all have bad intentions, you have a perfect setup for a new Inquisition.

No, I don't want to be punished because others imagine I have certain intentions; people should be punished for their actions.

This has been discussed before in another thread:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...10#post1022110

Pyrrho

Well, she apparently did not intend to hit the victim, but she broke more laws than whatever action she did to hit the man. After hitting him, she failed to stop, and drove away from the scene of the accident. That is an additional violation of the law. Since she hit a person and drove off, it is known as "hit and run", which is a serious offence. If she had stopped immediately and called the police, there is a good chance she would never spend a day in jail (depending on what she did in hitting him). But instead, she chose to break the law and leave the scene of the accident.

Furthermore, she took the man with her; that could be considered kidnapping, as he obviously did not consent to what was happening. He then dies a horrible death while in her custody, due to injuries she inflicted. I'd say finding her guilty of only murder is letting her off easy.

And, for those who want to consider only intentions, what was her intention in leaving the scene of the accident? What was her intention in leaving the man in her garage? I'd say her intentions were anything but good after the accident.

Dr Rick

Her intention was not murder, however, but she killed somebody and was convicted of killing him, just the same. If only intent, and not outcome mattered, she wouldn't have been convicted of murder.

Pyrrho

Okay, but what were her exact intentions? Did she expect magic pixies to come into her garage and remove him?

I say, she intended to let him die due to injuries she inflicted, and she intended to hide him in her garage, so that others could not see him and help him. Her intentions were anything but innocent.

Dr Rick

...Probably not; but it's even more certain that she didn't intend to kill the guy. If only her intentions mattered under the law, she could not have been convicted of murder.

No one is claiming that her intentions were good, but they were not murderous. Nonetheless, the evil woman killed him, and she should be punished for the murder, not just hit and run or kidnapping.

That's the point of bringing her up on this thread; intentions and outcome both matter.

Jamie_L

Pyrrho:
Intent is already a key element of our legal system. That's why we have distinctions like manslaughter, 2nd degree murder, 1st degree murder as well as distinctions like assault, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, etc. Determining motive, is part and parcel of criminal law. We already determine if a criminal intended to kill someone when we charge and convict them of attempted murder instead of assault. I'm simply proposing we follow the same process, up to the point where we consider the outcome of the actions.

I also don't advocate considering only intentions. I'm proposing to consider the actions taken and the motive behind them. The actual outcome has no bearing on the the actions taken by the criminal.

Dr. Rick:
Obviously a system that does not consider actual outcomes must use a different yardstick to meter out punishment. Probably the punishment for some crimes would lie somewhere between the current two extemes (criminal act with no serious consequences vs. same criminal act with horrible consequences). Running a red light becomes a more serious crime, because there is the potential to cause serious harm (and, I'd argue it ought to be a much more serious crime now). Likewise drunk driving. Attempted murder would become identical to murder.

As much consideration would be required to set up such a system as went into the current system we have.

As for the Mallard case, Pyrrho has already said most of what I would have said about it. Her trial was all about intent. By convicting her of murder, the jury determined that there were murderous intentions. That case was never about her intent to hit the man or not hit the man. I would imagine under a system that doesn't consider outcomes, she'd still have been convicted of Attempted Murder (i.e. Murder). In other words, the exact same result.

Now, if 5 minutes before the homeless man died, a volunteer fireman had come to her house soliciting donations, somehow discovered the man, and saved his life, should Mallard have received less punishment? Would her actions have been less criminal and less deserving of punishment?

Jamie