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?

Pyrrho

I agree; see my posts above for comments on some of the reasons why I think outcome is important.

brighid

Yes, because the man would not have died. She would be punished for everything she did, except the death of this man via her actions. Her actions aren't any less criminal, or any less deserving of punishment but she only deserves punishment for what she did and the results of her actions. She would still get convicted of drunk driving, hit and run, attempted murder (most likely) and whatever other applicable legal violations apply to her situation.

Brighid

Pyrrho

In any case, I would not mind if people like her were locked up for life. She is obviously a danger to society.

From reading some articles online, it seems that she is not the only one who could use some jail time; Titilisee Fry should probably join her for a while:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in560226.shtml

There is no excuse for Titilisee Fry not calling 911 herself when she saw the man in the garage. If that is not a crime, it should be.

For those of you with knowledge of such things, could she be charged as an accessory after the fact?

Nowhere357

I was expecting to learn WHY justice is served by considering the outcome. In the case of the Chante Mallard, the random addition of the fireman changed the outcome. Why should that affect the penalty? She was precisely and exactly guilty of her same actions, yet the penalty becomes (potentially) drastically reduced.

Beyond a desire for revenge, HOW does that serve justice?

Nowhere357

I think we can agree that including the outcome can result in unfair punishment - two people, with the same intentions and the same actions, can cause different results. So one rots in prison, the other goes home.

I can accept that no system is perfect. What I'm hoping to see is how basing punishment on intents and actions only, necessarily leads to even greater unfairness.

Pyrrho

Clearly, there are a variety of opinions being expressed in this thread, and I will only speak for myself regarding this.

For a specific case, justice may not be served by punishing someone more for the person dying then if someone had stumbled upon the victim and managed to save him. But laws need to follow definite rules or they will be even more problematic. So the general rules need to be always followed, even if some specific cases do not have the best outcome. Of course, we need to be careful about what our general rules are, but that is another matter.

In my opinion, the reason to use the outcome as a basis for punishment is because the outcome is easier to determine than most other aspects of the case. True, we take intent into consideration, but intent is never something that we can really be certain about (see my comments above). Also, we judge intent by what happens, so what happens is the ultimate determinant in any case.

Also, in this specific case, if someone had stumbled upon the victim and saved him, we would not know whether the criminal would have called 911 fifteen minutes later or not. She may have decided to come clean or not, and we would have no way of determining that if the victim had been saved. As the victim was not saved, we know absolutely that she did not report the matter in time to save his life. So we know she is a piece of shit, who did not change her mind about letting him die.

Either way, though, she is obviously a danger to society, and should be prevented from harming others in the future. Jail seems the best way in her case. I hope she never knows freedom again. Not only did she kill him, she had time to think about whether or not to call for help, but she never did. That is really cold, letting a man suffer and die like that, and we don't need any people running around loose who are like that.

One could also argue that it is good to reward failure in committing crimes, so attempted murder should get a lesser punishment than actual murder. I find that somewhat unconvincing, but others have disagreed. In any case, I have no particular wish to argue about this possibility.

Nowhere357

I understand and agree with your comments on intent.
It makes sense to use the outcome to help determine intent, and also to help determine the actions commited.
But it doesn't seem to follow that we must base criminal penalty on the outcome.

Yes, good point. Still, her actions seem sufficient to determine a just punishment. She had time to come to her senses and failed to do so.

Pyrrho

With the outcome being bad, one is generally more certain that the person had bad intentions. I think that the greater the certainty of guilt, the more severe the sentence can be. (Obviously, one should be fairly certain before the person is punished at all, but the more certainty one has, the more one can be sure that the person deserves a severe penalty.) I have no idea what legal scholars would say about this reasoning, but I think it is a part of our system regardless of whether it has been consciously chosen.



I think she would be spending a lot of time in jail even if someone had stumbled upon the victim in her garage and saved him. I don't think too many jurors would be sympathetic to someone who behaved as monstrously as the criminal did in this case. Attempted murder still can get you a long jail sentence, and she could also be charged with other things as well, so that more time could be added to just what she would have gotten for attempted murder. And I think she may not get much sympathy from parole boards, either, as she had time to think about what she was doing as the man was dying, and she never called for help. If he had been saved in her garage, they would still know she didn't call for help up to that point, which would still mean very bad things for her. But if she had called the police after he had been in her garage for, let us say for the sake of argument, half an hour, then many would be more likely to feel some sympathy for her, as it would mean that although she did not do the right thing at first, she later regretted her mistake and did what she could to correct it. I think this kind of thing has a significant impact on the sentences many judges will give; it certainly should. (This is NOT to say that she should then not be punished; I only mean to suggest that the severity of the punishment might be lessoned because of it if she had changed her mind and eventually called for help.)

It is one thing to kill someone quickly, as you can't change your mind about it and save the person, but when they are slowly dying, you have time to reconsider and change your mind. Plus a slow death is much worse than a quick one, so the crime itself is more serious. I think this tells us a lot about her as a person.

paul30

Obviously, both intent and outcome are taken into consideration in different circumstances.

If I rush up to the President with a pistol but do not shoot him because I am wrestled to the ground by Secret Service, obviously I must be tried on my intent. In fact I have caused no harm, only a scare.

Many, no doubt, would be in favor of withholding my medal.

But if I am pounding a nail and the hammer head flies off and hits a neighbor, I have caused harm but without intent--so I probably won't suffer criminal punishment.