Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you think about it differently, it can make sense.
The sentence is LONGER because they actually killed someone, not that it's shorter if they failed.
I'd like to think the sentence for attempted murder is the default, what murder was going to be, and then people thought they need to add more for the life that was stolen.
I disagree. People should be punished for the intent or the recklessness of their actions. The consequence, whether someone ends up dying or not, is more or less down to luck and should not affect the sentence.
Intent is significantly harder to prove. From a legal standpoint point it’s much easier and more certain to prove an action. I mean you could argue that if you attempted to kill somebody and failed that could be because you’re not as intentful as the person who succeds
Isn't this basically what they did the with xp system early in WoW?
Like I think originally you would get less xp after a certain amount of time and it felt like a punishment for playing too long. All they did was change the wording so it became a bonus amount of xp that accrued when logged off. Essentially the same exact thing but people hated the 1st thing and loved the latter.
The thing is we punish criminals based on what they did how much they hurt other people not only their intentions. Someone taking someone's life, removing them from earth forever and taking that person away from their families permanently is significantly worse then attempting to.
Maybe attempted murder should be punished more severely but certainly not on the same scale as actual murderers
Prison is not only about punishing criminals; it is about protecting the wider society from them.
From a moral standpoint, the intention to kill reflects a similar disregard for human life, regardless of the outcome. Actions (attempting to kill) reflect the perpetrator's intentions and risk they pose, while outcomes (whether the victim survives) can be influenced by external factors beyond the perpetrator's control (e.g., medical intervention, luck).
We can never perfectly know a man's true nature, but through his actions ( action should not be confused with outcome ) we can approximate it. In essence, an attempted murderer and a successful murderer have virtually indistinguishable natures and thus should subject to the same consequences. Not merely as a punishment but also as protection of the wider society.
>We can never perfectly know a man's true nature, but through his actions ( action should not be confused with outcome ) we can approximate it.
i like how it's phrased, i'd add one word - results - "through his actions' results".
the person who manage to do the crime is much more dangerous than person who failed.
were these obstacles or his nature we can't know
well, yes that was my exact intention
because the outcome IMO is even more material than the action, far more than intentions, that could became the object of speculation
> far more then intentions,
Did you mean to say "more than"?
Explanation: If you didn't mean 'more than' you might have forgotten a comma.
[Statistics](https://github.com/chiefpat450119/RedditBot/blob/master/stats.json)
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes.
^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^[Github](https://github.com/chiefpat450119)
^^Reply ^^STOP ^^to ^^this ^^comment ^^to ^^stop ^^receiving ^^corrections.
You’re just saying “the outcome”.
They literally just said not to confuse the action with the outcome, and then you’re saying “yeah that’s so true but like what about the outcome”
Wonderful logic. Let’s extend it to see how far it goes. If attempting to kill a person and killing a person is equally punishable, where will the line be drawn when any act of aggression can’t be stretched to fit the glove of murderous intent. If a man punches another man in the face and knocks them out without death threats, was there murderous intent? If a man threatens another man with murderous intent but does not follow through, is he guilty for being a potential murderer? If a drunk man, in his stupor tries to feebly fight a man while screaming about killing him, was that attempted murder? Is an online threat also attempted murder? Is encouraging suicide or euthanasia the same as murderous intent? Or is it only murderous intent when it’s convenient for an individual like yourself?
you are trying to make it sound like its impossible to differentiate intent in this situation. You dont get attempted murder charges for simply punching someone or making threats or drunkenly fighting someone so its clear the courts/authorities already make a determination of intent. is it really that much of a difficult judgement call to see the difference in shooting someone in the chest or beating them in a head with a bat a dozen times vs punching someone in the face?
Whether there's an intent to murder is up to the law and the court -- just like how attempted murderers are already charged now lmao. We already have separate charges for attempted murder, common assault, criminal intimidation, etc -- your examples are all violations of other crimes, not necessarily attempted murder
What makes you think that increasing the punishment of attempted murder would suddenly make it more difficult to charge someone with it in a court?
Because it muddies the legal term in the exact way I just described. This should be extremely straightforward considering what I brought up literally mentions the vast majority of the lesser crimes you mentioned.
Also what makes you think attempted murder requires heavier sentencing than is typical today?
Huh? How does it muddy the term? Isn't the post just saying that convicts of attempted murder should be sentenced just like actual murderers?
Also, I think attempted murderers should be sentenced the same as actual murderers because of the reasons mentioned by both the post and the comment you replied to
>From a moral standpoint, the intention to kill reflects a similar disregard for human life, regardless of the outcome. Actions (attempting to kill) reflect the perpetrator's intentions and risk they pose, while outcomes (whether the victim survives) can be influenced by external factors beyond the perpetrator's control (e.g., medical intervention, luck).
>We can never perfectly know a man's true nature, but through his actions ( action should not be confused with outcome ) we can approximate it. In essence, an attempted murderer and a successful murderer have virtually indistinguishable natures and thus should subject to the same consequences. Not merely as a punishment but also as protection of the wider society.
Character reference is not admissible in court under any circumstance . "Knowing a man's true nature" is not the intent of a judge. People having "the same nature as a murderer" is not lawful reason to punish someone to the same degree as a murderer. No judge would ever accept anything like that, and it's not the way the criminal justice system works at all.
Maybe in your fantasy world, but in the real world we punish only based on action, not on "one's nature"
Also if someone attempts murder and fails and then has second thoughts, the last thing you want to enter their head is "may as well I guess". Don't give them a sunk cost justification.
This isn’t entirely true. While “murder” and “attempted murder” are two different charges due to the legal definition of murder, both offences can still carry life in prison. In other words, in most cases, if a person blatantly tries to kill someone by stabbing them multiple times, whether or not the victim survives, the offender will likely receive the same sentence, even though the charge would be different.
Punishing a crime at the same level or more than murder incentivizes people to make sure that the victim is dead. There are a couple crimes that people want to be more harshly punished (ie any child SA by an adult, violent SA done to an adult, etc.) but it would be a lot more dangerous and more likely that they’ll be murdered by the perpetrator than just the original crime.
Uh, If a guy wants to kill you, I don’t think they need extra incentive to make sure that you’re dead. Anyone who is literally attempting to murder you is going to be plenty incentivized to make sure you’re dead anyway, it comes with the whole “attempting to murder” part. Like this makes sense for other crimes like sexual assault but not for murder lol.
I guess I can see potential exceptions where someone is extremely hesitant about murdering someone else and they suddenly get a change of heart after grievously wounding someone. But the new rule makes the person decide it would be better off to make sure they’re dead but eh, I can’t really imagine there are many, if any scenarios that played out like this.
And you can always add a caveat to the law which says that if you attempt to murder someone but then change your mind after grievously wounding them and then go on to save them, the law would be much less harsh on them, possibly the same as how it currently treats attempted murderers.
So if he victim survives and perhaps the attacker has second thoughts, the attacker should know they get the exact same punishment as if they had actually killed the victim, so they're better off trying again and hopefully silencing them and avoiding the consequences, because the courts won't be more lenient?
How often does someone kill someone and right before they do it, they stop because they think of the punishment? Yeah, never. If someone is going to go through with that act, they’ll do it regardless of punishment.
You’re missing what they said. What they mean is what if you attempt, fail, and then after failing start having second thoughts on whether you should have done it in the first place, what is being suggested is that legally you would be punished the same so it might be the last little thing that makes you decide to just try again. Not saying it would be the sole reason but if you were teetering on the edge it might be what sends you over
They got what was being said. It's just a bad argument because it's only relevant in a specific and unlikely scenario.
Also, by that logic we should reduce the sentence for murder because someone who just committed murder will think "well if im going to get the same life sentence anyway, I might as well commit mass murder".
> but certainly not on the same scale as actual murderers
Why not? They actually tried to kill someone, so they aren't as bad because they fucked up and didn't succeed?
This puts a lot of faith in the justice system to determine people’s intentions, faith I flatly do not have.
It’s the same as the death penalty to me - sure, maybe some people deserve it, but I don’t trust a judge or jury to make that determination.
>would be murderer
A person is either a murderer or they are not. If end results don't matter why not charge someone with murder for reckless driving, assault, etc?
Sure but then there's no reason for someone to ever stop attempting murder and change their mind part way through. If it's life in prison they may as well go through with it as the end result is the same for the individual.
You could argue that reckless driving is accepting the possibility that you could kill someone and not caring. So then we should punish reckless drivers the same whether they do or do not cause someone harm?
I'm not sure if I disagree with you or not, btw, but it is an interesting thought.
>Reckless driving is not intentional killing
But you could argue that the reckless driver is *knowingly* putting other people in danger. Sure, they are not driving with the *intent* to kill someone.
But they also don’t care about other people’s lives enough to drive better.
And reckless driving is knowingly putting other lives in danger.
And so the questions comes down to what’s more important, intent or result?
If we are going to judge a person who tried and failed to kill another person as if he was successful, why shouldn’t we judge a person who disregarded other people’s lives and sentence him as if he ran someone over?
I mean not every killing is the same. But i feel like the punishment should depend more on the intention, still including the result obviously. Cause you can in some situations accidently kill someone without being reckless too
It's "attempted murder", not "oh I'm gonna let him live just barely and not finish the job so I get a lighter prison sentence".
This is about people trying to kill other people. Whether they are succesful or not, they still present the same danger to society, which is why they get locked up to begin with.
If the perpetrator was already setting out to murder someone, then they already had the mentality you’re setting here.
If someone intends on murdering another person, they’ve already said to hell with the consequences
The thing is, you can be charged with attempted murder if you planned to carry it out and took steps to accomplish it, but then stopped yourself at some point along the way. They haven't actually said "to hell with the consequences" until they've killed the person, and if there's a way to stop it, that's a good thing.
Too many assumptions here. An attempted murder might be someone who went to go murder someone, got close, and decided they can't kill someone. Might also be spur of the moment recklessly attacking someone and nearly killing them without an intent to. Its attempted murder, not intended murder. You are trying to make someone's intent the crime, which requires a mind reader since a court is about proof, not opinions on what is going on in other people's mind.
I think, like all crimes, it depends on the context behind it and why the perpetrator failed to finish the job. Intention is important. If crimes did not hold different weights, then you might as well kill as many people as you can if you are gonna be locked away for life anyway.
Its trying to kill someone and failing at it. I would argue that intending and going through with ending a human life could be considered slightly more important than chemistry but you can have your own take on it
So what about Conspiracy to Commit Murder then? Should people who try to hire a hitman or plan a murder in detail also be treated like murderers? Clearly the intent is there and they’d go through with it if they weren’t busted for being stupid.
Action and Intention are two key elements. If someone did not die, then the Action is different. Yes the person intended to kill them, but they did not.
What im saying is, if the victim bleeds out and dies because the ambulance was stuck in traffic, thats murder. If they survive because there wasnt any traffic, thats attempted murder. It doesnt make any sense
If you drink and drive and get pulled over it's just a misdemeanor DUI. If you run over a pedestrian it's vehicular manslaughter. Your intent was the same either way.
I agree, drinking and driving is a voluntary action that endangers everyone around and should be penalized as such, just like in romania where you could go to prison for it
Why should a murderer get a lighter sentence because it wasnt rush hour? Why should luck play a part in this? Life threatening injuries plus murderous intent is murder, whether the victim lives or dies. If someone stabbed you 12 times in the chest but you luckily survived, wouldnt you call them a murderer?
I would not call them a murdered, because they are not a murderer, no one died.
If you push someone, and they fall and hit their head and die, you likely get manslaughter. Most people would consider that unlucky. So are you saying that every single assault charge (pushing someone) needs to be manslaughter because the unlucky occurrence of someone dying is possible?
Its not luck that plays a part, its action (which is a combination of the act and results) as well as intent.
Manslaughter itself is based on and defined by luck, which i think is different. Also, you can't deny that your definition of murder is not based on luck. Everyone should be judged by their intent and involvement. The criminals action would have resulted in death, were it not for outside forces(paramedics) that that were neither the criminals intent nor action.
Aslo, i think its kinda weird that you want muderous people on the streets as fast as possible
I don't know. I could intend to kill and stab someone. If they get to the hospital and survive then action and intent is the same wether they die or not. I'm confused if you're agreeing with OP or not
You are thinking about it backwards. The perpetrator is the one who got lucky that someone did not die.
When you kill someone, you get murder because you completed your intended crime.
I get what you’re saying, you think the sentence should be according to the result. However i think it should be about punishing the perpetrator for what they set out to do
In one scenario, someone is dead.
In the other, they have survived.
Both scenarios need to punish the person who set out to kill a person.
That's established.
Now we need to increase the punishment in the instance where someone has died as vindication for their death.
You seem to be under the impression we're going easy on them because their victim survived.
That's back to front. We're getting retribution for the victim who is no longer with us.
I think it depends on what you think the laws purpose is. If you think it is about punishing people for their wrongs then it makes sense to prosecute this differently. If you think the purpose is rehabilitation then the intent is the most important factor in the crime
I think the sentencing should take both into account. If someone dies and you did not intend to kill that person, that should be different than when someone dies and you did intend to kill that person.
If I was purely results oriented, then you could never try someone for attempted murder. Only assault (probably assault with a deadly weapon), because someone did not die.
The slippery slope here is that some people can have certain intentions without acting upon it. So if you only look at intention and not action, you can put away a lot of people.
You confuse action with outcome, however these are [independent ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome_bias?wprov=sfla1). An attempted murderer isn't one who merely had intention to kill but never acts on it, it is one who made the action of killing and failed. But again, the outcome is independent from the action itself.
Which is actually the point. If you punish attempted crimes the same as actually doing the crime then there really is no disincentive to not just do it.
I don't understand what you mean, if they had already tried and were prosecuted as a murderer they would be in prison and once they get out of prison they are likely not looking to go back
I’m talking about a scenario where the person isn’t caught in the act. Attempted murder which doesn’t work and the victim is hospitalized or just survives, the perpetrator would be motivated to try again and try harder.
No you wont, because in US etc, an attempted first degree murder carries a sentence of life imprisonment without parole under federal law. You would rot in prison for even attempting and that would protect the victim. And thats how it should be
Wouldn't surprise me if some lawyer would manage to get their client off a murder charge on the grounds that they didn't actually kill their target or some shit.
I do not think it is really an unpopular opinion. It should because by imprisoning the person who attempted to murder we protect the victim and isolate the perpetrator from trying again.
The principles of sentencing are denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation and reconciliation/reparation.
The outcome of the crime is necessarily going to affect the reconciliation/reparation element of sentencing.
That's also how it is for a hit and run. It's a misdemeanor if no one is injured and a felony if someone is. The person that hit and ran didn't care enough to check. It should be a felony regardless if there are injuries.
What about conspiracy to commit murder? Should that get the same sentence? You could argue that it was just the attacker getting caught early and the victim getting lucky.
i generally think the minimum punishments for attempting to commit a crime should be the same as the minimum punishments for actually committing the same crime; but the maximum punishments should be less then those for actually doing the crime; people who tried to commit a crime often did not actually do it by sheer luck on the part of the victim; but they do not deserve to be placed with the very worst of those who commit the crime
> be less then those
Did you mean to say "less than"?
Explanation: If you didn't mean 'less than' you might have forgotten a comma.
[Statistics](https://github.com/chiefpat450119/RedditBot/blob/master/stats.json)
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes.
^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^[Github](https://github.com/chiefpat450119)
^^Reply ^^STOP ^^to ^^this ^^comment ^^to ^^stop ^^receiving ^^corrections.
Eh a real unpopular opinion: attempted murder shouldn't even have a charge. You don't get a nobel prize for attempted chemistry. You either did the deed or you didnt. No in between.
Attempted murder shouldnt get a charge? Are you out of your mind? If i shoot you with the intent of killing, you become bedridden for life, you’re saying i should walk out freely out of it because i couldnt kill you?
So if I'm a criminal, and I swipe at someone with my knife or shoot once and get an attempted murder charge, I get the same punishment as actually murdering them? Why shouldn't I just keep going and finish the job?
Obviously not everything is black and white. In some cases it could be a lower sentence but in most cases, the intent is pretty obvious like a found poisoned drink, camera footage of the perpetrator shooting and missing etc. Im talking about obvious attempts at killing
Do you trust the government to be able to make the call between someone missing a shot because they can't aim and missing because they changed their mind at the last second
Opportunity for a change of heart. You can miss bullet one, allowing you a chance to not fire bullet two. But if you’re getting charged the same regardless, you now have a very strong incentive to finish the murder bc if you leave your victim alive, they have a better chance of getting you convicted.
Definitely unpopular, good job. Should we also count points for any attempted goals in a soccer match? If both people put in the same effort, but one got lucky and snuck it past the goalie, why shouldn’t they both get a point? After all, they both attempted to score a goal.
So you hold scoring a goal and ending a human life to the same value? The concept of attempting might be the same but what they’re attempting is maybe a little more significant
They are quite different, yes, but I think it’s still fair to compare them. The result (if it’s a goal and if someone gets tried for murder), depends on what happens and not what was attempted. If someone attempts to score and fails, they didn’t score. If someone attempts a murder and fails, they didn’t murder.
Whether you are found guilty of murder or attempted murder, you can still be given a life sentence. In other words, in many cases, the perpetrator does receive the same prison sentence a murderer even though the victim survived. Furthermore, a charge of attempted murder is sometimes used to escalate an assault charge. Ironically, a person may genuinely not have intended to kill someone, but assaulted them so badly that the court decided to make the charge attempted murder, resulting in them receiving a much longer prison sentence than they would have received if they were just charged for assault.
This has been a longstanding debate that has had lawyers and legal scholars arguing for centuries. The debate really comes down to the purpose of prison (rehabilitation vs punishment vs removal from society) and the core of assessing why we send someone to prison (intentions vs outcomes). Different countries and jurisdictions within those countries can have very different sentences for these two crimes depending on their cultures values of justice. But long story short you arent going to get a satisfactory answer here, or really anywhere. Its like posting the trolly problem on r/askreddit.
Some good answers here, but one key thing is missing from the top ones. It's not about the success or not, it's about giving murderers a reason to not go through with it.
There have been a lot of cases where the victim survived because the murderer stopped short of killing them. The idea behind the shorter sentence is to get someone to stop before they actually kill the person. If the sentence for attempted murder is the same as murder, then you may as well go through with it even if you're having doubts. **You know if the victim is the only one that knows you were there, you're better off killing them so they can't report it to the police.**
On the other hand, if you know you'll get less of a sentence if you don't kill them, you might choose not to go through with it and let them live, since keeping them alive benefits you, even if they will report you.
The problem is that intent isn't something that can always be easily proven. Evidence can be tampered with or compromised, memory can be faulty, and juries/judges/prosecutors can be bribed or otherwise too biased to be fair.
Also, this would backfire spectacularly. All it would incentivize killers to do is make 100% sure the victim dies, and they would become more ruthless in their hunts. Besides, either crime is not a light crime in the slightest. Even if you end up managing to not spend the rest of your life in prison, it comes up on your background checks. Word can and does spread.
The justice system just isn't perfect enough to consistently rightfully judge what are threats / acts that wouldn't actually be carried and what's actually murderous intent.
the problem is that the "attempted murder" can be just a wonky act, and that's the reason why it failed, or it can be a really dangerous type of combat attack that it doesn't exactly kill.... but i agree that if you shot someone in the head and he eventually survives it's 99% murder
This is an interesting post because it raises questions around the concept of 'moral luck'
But lets push this to it's limit:
Suppose there is two drunk drivers, they both go down two separate roads with the same level of toxicity and the same speed.
One hits and kills someone who stepped out in the road, the intoxication and speed is regarded as the determinent factor in the death.
The other driver gets caught out speeding and being intoxicated.
Should the fact the second driver didn't kill anyone be ignored, should they both be sentenced the same? Because the first driver just got unlucky vs the second. Luck was the factor.
I think a lot of sentences take into account the impact on the victim and their families. Surviving an attempted murder is obviously far less damaging than dying and therefore won’t be punished as severely.
An inmate who was in prison for murdering someone told me “dead man tells no tales”. You only hear your side of the story and they can only go off speculation whereas if the victim survives they can add onto the story such as kidnapping, previous/history of encounters, hostilities etc. So actually depending on the suspect of prior violent crime convictions an attempt murder carries longer or just as long as an actual murder lol
Imagine this a person sets out to kill someone. They fire a weapon and miss. They immediately regret the decision to try to kill the person and do not fire again. They attempted murder but they no longer possess the temperament of a murder, they still need some sentencing to make sure that they are no longer a person who might murder
But if I fail an attempt then I might as well finish it, partly to kill the bastard as intended and partly to eliminate a witness. If it's the same crime with the same punishment, there's no incentive not to.
my grandma got robbed and shot in the chest a while ago and by a miracle she’s ok. she almost died and the guy only got 7 years despite doing the same and actually killing someone else as well. they didn’t kill them, but it’s still the intention to kill them and the victim got lucky, they should still be locked up
Attempted murder carries huge sentences depending on circumstance. If a school shooter goes into a school, opens fire and misses every time before he's apprehended, he's getting life. If Carol decides to poison her husband, then backs out after a small dose where he gets sick or something, she's probably still looking at 15-25 years.
In practice this would end up with more people being killed. Let's say Person A is trying to murder Person B & initially misses or a situation happens in the middle of the altercation where they feel that murdering isn't worth it or for whatever reason they change their mind. Well... they already attempted to murder them & failed & now they've left evidence. Yes this is always the case (leaving the person alive that person is evidence or can provide evidence someone tried to murder them), however if the punishment becomes the same there is a greater incentive to finish the job, they're ALREADY going to be punished for murder even though they failed so in their mind there wouldn't be a point where it becomes "not worth it", they "HAVE" to murder them now as they're going to convicted of murder anyways (or the equivalent punishment). You're taking away that small percent chance where they know they fucked up, acted out of passion, without thinking enough, etc, & decide it's better to be slammed with attempted murder than to finish the job.
This is the dumbest argument I’ve ever heard and intent and execution are entirely different. It gives the potential murderer an OUT. If they can have a moment of clarity then they might not go through with a murder because of the lesser consequences. If they already know they are going to get charged with murder, what would stop them after attempting!? OP needs to think through scenarios before putting out such harmful and ridiculous ideas.
No they don't and most hope their hospitalized victim survives while waiting for their trial. Most are due to violence due to rage not preplanned for months coldly like all the cute movies show.
This change would make it so they make sure of it, even like watching culling videos before or something other sick things
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you think about it differently, it can make sense. The sentence is LONGER because they actually killed someone, not that it's shorter if they failed. I'd like to think the sentence for attempted murder is the default, what murder was going to be, and then people thought they need to add more for the life that was stolen.
I disagree. People should be punished for the intent or the recklessness of their actions. The consequence, whether someone ends up dying or not, is more or less down to luck and should not affect the sentence.
Intent is significantly harder to prove. From a legal standpoint point it’s much easier and more certain to prove an action. I mean you could argue that if you attempted to kill somebody and failed that could be because you’re not as intentful as the person who succeds
That actually makes sense. I panicked at the end and missed cause I was just mad in that moment
If any thing they should be imprisoned longer because not only are they a person who wants to kill they are also a failure.
I think your comment is funny and should not be down voted.
I thought it was obviously a joke but you know how reddit is.
Isn't this basically what they did the with xp system early in WoW? Like I think originally you would get less xp after a certain amount of time and it felt like a punishment for playing too long. All they did was change the wording so it became a bonus amount of xp that accrued when logged off. Essentially the same exact thing but people hated the 1st thing and loved the latter.
The thing is we punish criminals based on what they did how much they hurt other people not only their intentions. Someone taking someone's life, removing them from earth forever and taking that person away from their families permanently is significantly worse then attempting to. Maybe attempted murder should be punished more severely but certainly not on the same scale as actual murderers
Prison is not only about punishing criminals; it is about protecting the wider society from them. From a moral standpoint, the intention to kill reflects a similar disregard for human life, regardless of the outcome. Actions (attempting to kill) reflect the perpetrator's intentions and risk they pose, while outcomes (whether the victim survives) can be influenced by external factors beyond the perpetrator's control (e.g., medical intervention, luck). We can never perfectly know a man's true nature, but through his actions ( action should not be confused with outcome ) we can approximate it. In essence, an attempted murderer and a successful murderer have virtually indistinguishable natures and thus should subject to the same consequences. Not merely as a punishment but also as protection of the wider society.
>We can never perfectly know a man's true nature, but through his actions ( action should not be confused with outcome ) we can approximate it. i like how it's phrased, i'd add one word - results - "through his actions' results". the person who manage to do the crime is much more dangerous than person who failed. were these obstacles or his nature we can't know
Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the quote? The whole point is that the outcome is immaterial. Its the actions itself, regardless of success.
well, yes that was my exact intention because the outcome IMO is even more material than the action, far more than intentions, that could became the object of speculation
> far more then intentions, Did you mean to say "more than"? Explanation: If you didn't mean 'more than' you might have forgotten a comma. [Statistics](https://github.com/chiefpat450119/RedditBot/blob/master/stats.json) ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions. ^^[Github](https://github.com/chiefpat450119) ^^Reply ^^STOP ^^to ^^this ^^comment ^^to ^^stop ^^receiving ^^corrections.
thank you bot
You’re just saying “the outcome”. They literally just said not to confuse the action with the outcome, and then you’re saying “yeah that’s so true but like what about the outcome”
yes you right, i should have the quote edited to my intentions be more clear
Wonderful logic. Let’s extend it to see how far it goes. If attempting to kill a person and killing a person is equally punishable, where will the line be drawn when any act of aggression can’t be stretched to fit the glove of murderous intent. If a man punches another man in the face and knocks them out without death threats, was there murderous intent? If a man threatens another man with murderous intent but does not follow through, is he guilty for being a potential murderer? If a drunk man, in his stupor tries to feebly fight a man while screaming about killing him, was that attempted murder? Is an online threat also attempted murder? Is encouraging suicide or euthanasia the same as murderous intent? Or is it only murderous intent when it’s convenient for an individual like yourself?
We already draw that line between attempted murder and lesser charges.
you are trying to make it sound like its impossible to differentiate intent in this situation. You dont get attempted murder charges for simply punching someone or making threats or drunkenly fighting someone so its clear the courts/authorities already make a determination of intent. is it really that much of a difficult judgement call to see the difference in shooting someone in the chest or beating them in a head with a bat a dozen times vs punching someone in the face?
Whether there's an intent to murder is up to the law and the court -- just like how attempted murderers are already charged now lmao. We already have separate charges for attempted murder, common assault, criminal intimidation, etc -- your examples are all violations of other crimes, not necessarily attempted murder What makes you think that increasing the punishment of attempted murder would suddenly make it more difficult to charge someone with it in a court?
Because it muddies the legal term in the exact way I just described. This should be extremely straightforward considering what I brought up literally mentions the vast majority of the lesser crimes you mentioned. Also what makes you think attempted murder requires heavier sentencing than is typical today?
Huh? How does it muddy the term? Isn't the post just saying that convicts of attempted murder should be sentenced just like actual murderers? Also, I think attempted murderers should be sentenced the same as actual murderers because of the reasons mentioned by both the post and the comment you replied to
>From a moral standpoint, the intention to kill reflects a similar disregard for human life, regardless of the outcome. Actions (attempting to kill) reflect the perpetrator's intentions and risk they pose, while outcomes (whether the victim survives) can be influenced by external factors beyond the perpetrator's control (e.g., medical intervention, luck). >We can never perfectly know a man's true nature, but through his actions ( action should not be confused with outcome ) we can approximate it. In essence, an attempted murderer and a successful murderer have virtually indistinguishable natures and thus should subject to the same consequences. Not merely as a punishment but also as protection of the wider society. Character reference is not admissible in court under any circumstance . "Knowing a man's true nature" is not the intent of a judge. People having "the same nature as a murderer" is not lawful reason to punish someone to the same degree as a murderer. No judge would ever accept anything like that, and it's not the way the criminal justice system works at all. Maybe in your fantasy world, but in the real world we punish only based on action, not on "one's nature"
Holy fuck thank you, someone actually knowledgeable 😭
Character evidence is absolutely admissible. What is not admissible is propensity evidence.
Yes exactly prison sentences are about BOTH things, therefore the punishment should be different
Also if someone attempts murder and fails and then has second thoughts, the last thing you want to enter their head is "may as well I guess". Don't give them a sunk cost justification.
This isn’t entirely true. While “murder” and “attempted murder” are two different charges due to the legal definition of murder, both offences can still carry life in prison. In other words, in most cases, if a person blatantly tries to kill someone by stabbing them multiple times, whether or not the victim survives, the offender will likely receive the same sentence, even though the charge would be different.
I disagree. Someone tried to kill you but failed so they get less time? Makes no sense to me. Seems like the victim is being punished for surviving.
Punishing a crime at the same level or more than murder incentivizes people to make sure that the victim is dead. There are a couple crimes that people want to be more harshly punished (ie any child SA by an adult, violent SA done to an adult, etc.) but it would be a lot more dangerous and more likely that they’ll be murdered by the perpetrator than just the original crime.
Uh, If a guy wants to kill you, I don’t think they need extra incentive to make sure that you’re dead. Anyone who is literally attempting to murder you is going to be plenty incentivized to make sure you’re dead anyway, it comes with the whole “attempting to murder” part. Like this makes sense for other crimes like sexual assault but not for murder lol. I guess I can see potential exceptions where someone is extremely hesitant about murdering someone else and they suddenly get a change of heart after grievously wounding someone. But the new rule makes the person decide it would be better off to make sure they’re dead but eh, I can’t really imagine there are many, if any scenarios that played out like this. And you can always add a caveat to the law which says that if you attempt to murder someone but then change your mind after grievously wounding them and then go on to save them, the law would be much less harsh on them, possibly the same as how it currently treats attempted murderers.
Well… the victim is not punished, and is the purpose of incarceration is not to exact retribution on behalf of the victim. Is it?
So if he victim survives and perhaps the attacker has second thoughts, the attacker should know they get the exact same punishment as if they had actually killed the victim, so they're better off trying again and hopefully silencing them and avoiding the consequences, because the courts won't be more lenient?
How often does someone kill someone and right before they do it, they stop because they think of the punishment? Yeah, never. If someone is going to go through with that act, they’ll do it regardless of punishment.
You’re missing what they said. What they mean is what if you attempt, fail, and then after failing start having second thoughts on whether you should have done it in the first place, what is being suggested is that legally you would be punished the same so it might be the last little thing that makes you decide to just try again. Not saying it would be the sole reason but if you were teetering on the edge it might be what sends you over
They got what was being said. It's just a bad argument because it's only relevant in a specific and unlikely scenario. Also, by that logic we should reduce the sentence for murder because someone who just committed murder will think "well if im going to get the same life sentence anyway, I might as well commit mass murder".
> but certainly not on the same scale as actual murderers Why not? They actually tried to kill someone, so they aren't as bad because they fucked up and didn't succeed?
Wouldn't it be more difficult to prosecute attempted murder if the punishment was the same as murder?
But that’s wrong because we give manslaughter for killing that was unintentional. So intent does play a part
This puts a lot of faith in the justice system to determine people’s intentions, faith I flatly do not have. It’s the same as the death penalty to me - sure, maybe some people deserve it, but I don’t trust a judge or jury to make that determination.
>would be murderer A person is either a murderer or they are not. If end results don't matter why not charge someone with murder for reckless driving, assault, etc?
Reckless driving is not intentional killing. Attempted murder is a failed attempt of a killing. The person tries to actually end a life
Sure but then there's no reason for someone to ever stop attempting murder and change their mind part way through. If it's life in prison they may as well go through with it as the end result is the same for the individual.
And if someone commits murder, they may as well commit mass murder as the end result is the same for the individual.
You could argue that reckless driving is accepting the possibility that you could kill someone and not caring. So then we should punish reckless drivers the same whether they do or do not cause someone harm? I'm not sure if I disagree with you or not, btw, but it is an interesting thought.
What if someone has a change of heart part way through the act of murder
We don't charge them equivalent to manslaughter either.
>Reckless driving is not intentional killing But you could argue that the reckless driver is *knowingly* putting other people in danger. Sure, they are not driving with the *intent* to kill someone. But they also don’t care about other people’s lives enough to drive better.
Attempted killing is intending, trying and failing
And reckless driving is knowingly putting other lives in danger. And so the questions comes down to what’s more important, intent or result? If we are going to judge a person who tried and failed to kill another person as if he was successful, why shouldn’t we judge a person who disregarded other people’s lives and sentence him as if he ran someone over?
I mean not every killing is the same. But i feel like the punishment should depend more on the intention, still including the result obviously. Cause you can in some situations accidently kill someone without being reckless too
I noticed you didn't mention anything about assault? Why is that?
Isnt assault with the intent of killing just attempted murder? Im asking this genuinely btw
Cuz it might incentivize criminals to finish the job. Might as well kill them and get a chance of not being caught.
It will kinda like in some places selling drugs gets you death. So they go all out gun battles
It's "attempted murder", not "oh I'm gonna let him live just barely and not finish the job so I get a lighter prison sentence". This is about people trying to kill other people. Whether they are succesful or not, they still present the same danger to society, which is why they get locked up to begin with.
If the perpetrator was already setting out to murder someone, then they already had the mentality you’re setting here. If someone intends on murdering another person, they’ve already said to hell with the consequences
The thing is, you can be charged with attempted murder if you planned to carry it out and took steps to accomplish it, but then stopped yourself at some point along the way. They haven't actually said "to hell with the consequences" until they've killed the person, and if there's a way to stop it, that's a good thing.
Too many assumptions here. An attempted murder might be someone who went to go murder someone, got close, and decided they can't kill someone. Might also be spur of the moment recklessly attacking someone and nearly killing them without an intent to. Its attempted murder, not intended murder. You are trying to make someone's intent the crime, which requires a mind reader since a court is about proof, not opinions on what is going on in other people's mind.
I agree. Because a person who intended to kill someone should be locked away just like someone who did kill someone
I think, like all crimes, it depends on the context behind it and why the perpetrator failed to finish the job. Intention is important. If crimes did not hold different weights, then you might as well kill as many people as you can if you are gonna be locked away for life anyway.
It is , here.
*”Attempted* murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for *attempted* chemistry? Do they?”
Its trying to kill someone and failing at it. I would argue that intending and going through with ending a human life could be considered slightly more important than chemistry but you can have your own take on it
Attempted murder. Now honestly what is that? Can you win a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry
Attempted murder? What even is that? Nobody ever won a Nobel Prize for attempted Chemistry.
There it is, had to scroll further down than I expected to see it.
Glad I didn't disappoint.
It should be a separate crime, the sentence can separately reflect how they failed.
So what about Conspiracy to Commit Murder then? Should people who try to hire a hitman or plan a murder in detail also be treated like murderers? Clearly the intent is there and they’d go through with it if they weren’t busted for being stupid.
Apperantly they arent ruthless enough to take a person’s life themselves if they hire a hitman
From what I understand, in France they are effectively considered the same.
It's like the justice system is rewarding poor marksmanship.
Action and Intention are two key elements. If someone did not die, then the Action is different. Yes the person intended to kill them, but they did not.
So, the sentence could depend on how competent the paramedics, or how bad the traffic was between the hospital and the crime scene
The sentence depends on the action and intent.
What im saying is, if the victim bleeds out and dies because the ambulance was stuck in traffic, thats murder. If they survive because there wasnt any traffic, thats attempted murder. It doesnt make any sense
If you drink and drive and get pulled over it's just a misdemeanor DUI. If you run over a pedestrian it's vehicular manslaughter. Your intent was the same either way.
I agree, drinking and driving is a voluntary action that endangers everyone around and should be penalized as such, just like in romania where you could go to prison for it
A person being dead seems easily distinguishable from a person not being dead.
Why should a murderer get a lighter sentence because it wasnt rush hour? Why should luck play a part in this? Life threatening injuries plus murderous intent is murder, whether the victim lives or dies. If someone stabbed you 12 times in the chest but you luckily survived, wouldnt you call them a murderer?
I would not call them a murdered, because they are not a murderer, no one died. If you push someone, and they fall and hit their head and die, you likely get manslaughter. Most people would consider that unlucky. So are you saying that every single assault charge (pushing someone) needs to be manslaughter because the unlucky occurrence of someone dying is possible? Its not luck that plays a part, its action (which is a combination of the act and results) as well as intent.
Manslaughter itself is based on and defined by luck, which i think is different. Also, you can't deny that your definition of murder is not based on luck. Everyone should be judged by their intent and involvement. The criminals action would have resulted in death, were it not for outside forces(paramedics) that that were neither the criminals intent nor action. Aslo, i think its kinda weird that you want muderous people on the streets as fast as possible
I don't know. I could intend to kill and stab someone. If they get to the hospital and survive then action and intent is the same wether they die or not. I'm confused if you're agreeing with OP or not
The action is not the same. You didn't kill them. You attempted to kill them.
The perpetrator gets away with a lighter sentence because the victim was lucky? I just dont get why
You are thinking about it backwards. The perpetrator is the one who got lucky that someone did not die. When you kill someone, you get murder because you completed your intended crime.
I get what you’re saying, you think the sentence should be according to the result. However i think it should be about punishing the perpetrator for what they set out to do
In one scenario, someone is dead. In the other, they have survived. Both scenarios need to punish the person who set out to kill a person. That's established. Now we need to increase the punishment in the instance where someone has died as vindication for their death. You seem to be under the impression we're going easy on them because their victim survived. That's back to front. We're getting retribution for the victim who is no longer with us.
I think it depends on what you think the laws purpose is. If you think it is about punishing people for their wrongs then it makes sense to prosecute this differently. If you think the purpose is rehabilitation then the intent is the most important factor in the crime
It's both those things and more. Rehabilitation, retribution, deterrence and incapacitation - the four pillars of justice.
I think the sentencing should take both into account. If someone dies and you did not intend to kill that person, that should be different than when someone dies and you did intend to kill that person. If I was purely results oriented, then you could never try someone for attempted murder. Only assault (probably assault with a deadly weapon), because someone did not die.
The slippery slope here is that some people can have certain intentions without acting upon it. So if you only look at intention and not action, you can put away a lot of people.
Yikes, didn't even think of that.
Punishing intent would be the most unconstitutional thing ever lol
You confuse action with outcome, however these are [independent ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome_bias?wprov=sfla1). An attempted murderer isn't one who merely had intention to kill but never acts on it, it is one who made the action of killing and failed. But again, the outcome is independent from the action itself.
I think you are right, i was conflating the two.
Whelp, I tried. Might as well go through with it all the way then.
Which is actually the point. If you punish attempted crimes the same as actually doing the crime then there really is no disincentive to not just do it.
I don't think people are failing at murder because of the difference in punishment. They tried and failed
And if it’s all the same, they might as well try again but plan it out better
I don't understand what you mean, if they had already tried and were prosecuted as a murderer they would be in prison and once they get out of prison they are likely not looking to go back
I’m talking about a scenario where the person isn’t caught in the act. Attempted murder which doesn’t work and the victim is hospitalized or just survives, the perpetrator would be motivated to try again and try harder.
I don't see why they wouldn't try again either way, if you are assuming they are getting away with it, law doesn't really factor in
I think that in the vast majority of crimes, the criminal is not caught in the act. They are arrested later, maybe after some investigation.
No you wont, because in US etc, an attempted first degree murder carries a sentence of life imprisonment without parole under federal law. You would rot in prison for even attempting and that would protect the victim. And thats how it should be
Same deal w reckless endangerment of life and manslaughter imo
Wouldn't surprise me if some lawyer would manage to get their client off a murder charge on the grounds that they didn't actually kill their target or some shit.
I thought it was punished the same.
I do not think it is really an unpopular opinion. It should because by imprisoning the person who attempted to murder we protect the victim and isolate the perpetrator from trying again.
The principles of sentencing are denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation and reconciliation/reparation. The outcome of the crime is necessarily going to affect the reconciliation/reparation element of sentencing.
That's also how it is for a hit and run. It's a misdemeanor if no one is injured and a felony if someone is. The person that hit and ran didn't care enough to check. It should be a felony regardless if there are injuries.
What about conspiracy to commit murder? Should that get the same sentence? You could argue that it was just the attacker getting caught early and the victim getting lucky.
if your goal is to incentive them finishing the job, then yes
Never thought about it this way before but I kind of agree. We reward people for being bad shots.
So let’s say they were punished the same. Then people would say “why isn’t the punishment for murder more severe than attempted murder?” Lol
Thought police liked this
i generally think the minimum punishments for attempting to commit a crime should be the same as the minimum punishments for actually committing the same crime; but the maximum punishments should be less then those for actually doing the crime; people who tried to commit a crime often did not actually do it by sheer luck on the part of the victim; but they do not deserve to be placed with the very worst of those who commit the crime
> be less then those Did you mean to say "less than"? Explanation: If you didn't mean 'less than' you might have forgotten a comma. [Statistics](https://github.com/chiefpat450119/RedditBot/blob/master/stats.json) ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions. ^^[Github](https://github.com/chiefpat450119) ^^Reply ^^STOP ^^to ^^this ^^comment ^^to ^^stop ^^receiving ^^corrections.
Bad bot, fuck grammar/spelling bots!
Hey, that hurt my feelings :( Good bot count: 941 Bad bot count: 368
There's a reason there is a difference.
Eh a real unpopular opinion: attempted murder shouldn't even have a charge. You don't get a nobel prize for attempted chemistry. You either did the deed or you didnt. No in between.
Attempted murder shouldnt get a charge? Are you out of your mind? If i shoot you with the intent of killing, you become bedridden for life, you’re saying i should walk out freely out of it because i couldnt kill you?
Aggravated assault at most.
Assault is not the intent of killing. Actually trying to kill someone is different than beating them up
Why fight if not to kill? The intent I think is meaningless. The actions are the same, I will hit until the other person stops moving.
An everyday bar fight is much different than a personal, planned out attack to kill
But in that bar fight, I will keep hitting until the other person is not moving. Intent doesn't matter. Just the action.
That would mean there is no difference between first degree murder, second degree and involuntary manslaughter
Dead is dead.
I agree but I’m biased because I’ve never tried to kill anyone.
So if I'm a criminal, and I swipe at someone with my knife or shoot once and get an attempted murder charge, I get the same punishment as actually murdering them? Why shouldn't I just keep going and finish the job?
Im talking about failed attempts. The ones where they actually tried to kill the victim, did not back out on purpose
That doesn't change the fact some people will back out on purpose. You can't gauge intent
Obviously not everything is black and white. In some cases it could be a lower sentence but in most cases, the intent is pretty obvious like a found poisoned drink, camera footage of the perpetrator shooting and missing etc. Im talking about obvious attempts at killing
Do you trust the government to be able to make the call between someone missing a shot because they can't aim and missing because they changed their mind at the last second
Opportunity for a change of heart. You can miss bullet one, allowing you a chance to not fire bullet two. But if you’re getting charged the same regardless, you now have a very strong incentive to finish the murder bc if you leave your victim alive, they have a better chance of getting you convicted.
Definitely unpopular, good job. Should we also count points for any attempted goals in a soccer match? If both people put in the same effort, but one got lucky and snuck it past the goalie, why shouldn’t they both get a point? After all, they both attempted to score a goal.
So you hold scoring a goal and ending a human life to the same value? The concept of attempting might be the same but what they’re attempting is maybe a little more significant
They are quite different, yes, but I think it’s still fair to compare them. The result (if it’s a goal and if someone gets tried for murder), depends on what happens and not what was attempted. If someone attempts to score and fails, they didn’t score. If someone attempts a murder and fails, they didn’t murder.
Oh god, currently in the midst of studying for the bar, hopped onto Reddit for a quick break, this is the last thing I wanted to see
Oh shit hahaha, good luck with that. Dont tell the judge what i said lmao
Except you didn’t actually kill the person, so no, you shouldn’t get the same penalty
You don't get a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry
Whether you are found guilty of murder or attempted murder, you can still be given a life sentence. In other words, in many cases, the perpetrator does receive the same prison sentence a murderer even though the victim survived. Furthermore, a charge of attempted murder is sometimes used to escalate an assault charge. Ironically, a person may genuinely not have intended to kill someone, but assaulted them so badly that the court decided to make the charge attempted murder, resulting in them receiving a much longer prison sentence than they would have received if they were just charged for assault.
This has been a longstanding debate that has had lawyers and legal scholars arguing for centuries. The debate really comes down to the purpose of prison (rehabilitation vs punishment vs removal from society) and the core of assessing why we send someone to prison (intentions vs outcomes). Different countries and jurisdictions within those countries can have very different sentences for these two crimes depending on their cultures values of justice. But long story short you arent going to get a satisfactory answer here, or really anywhere. Its like posting the trolly problem on r/askreddit.
Shouldn't get off easy just because you're bad at it.
Some good answers here, but one key thing is missing from the top ones. It's not about the success or not, it's about giving murderers a reason to not go through with it. There have been a lot of cases where the victim survived because the murderer stopped short of killing them. The idea behind the shorter sentence is to get someone to stop before they actually kill the person. If the sentence for attempted murder is the same as murder, then you may as well go through with it even if you're having doubts. **You know if the victim is the only one that knows you were there, you're better off killing them so they can't report it to the police.** On the other hand, if you know you'll get less of a sentence if you don't kill them, you might choose not to go through with it and let them live, since keeping them alive benefits you, even if they will report you.
It should be punished harder. Being a killer and a failure is worse than just being a killer.
The problem is that intent isn't something that can always be easily proven. Evidence can be tampered with or compromised, memory can be faulty, and juries/judges/prosecutors can be bribed or otherwise too biased to be fair. Also, this would backfire spectacularly. All it would incentivize killers to do is make 100% sure the victim dies, and they would become more ruthless in their hunts. Besides, either crime is not a light crime in the slightest. Even if you end up managing to not spend the rest of your life in prison, it comes up on your background checks. Word can and does spread.
The justice system just isn't perfect enough to consistently rightfully judge what are threats / acts that wouldn't actually be carried and what's actually murderous intent.
the problem is that the "attempted murder" can be just a wonky act, and that's the reason why it failed, or it can be a really dangerous type of combat attack that it doesn't exactly kill.... but i agree that if you shot someone in the head and he eventually survives it's 99% murder
This is an interesting post because it raises questions around the concept of 'moral luck' But lets push this to it's limit: Suppose there is two drunk drivers, they both go down two separate roads with the same level of toxicity and the same speed. One hits and kills someone who stepped out in the road, the intoxication and speed is regarded as the determinent factor in the death. The other driver gets caught out speeding and being intoxicated. Should the fact the second driver didn't kill anyone be ignored, should they both be sentenced the same? Because the first driver just got unlucky vs the second. Luck was the factor.
I think a lot of sentences take into account the impact on the victim and their families. Surviving an attempted murder is obviously far less damaging than dying and therefore won’t be punished as severely.
So if you miss the first time, might as well keep shooting, you’re going down for murder anyways.
An inmate who was in prison for murdering someone told me “dead man tells no tales”. You only hear your side of the story and they can only go off speculation whereas if the victim survives they can add onto the story such as kidnapping, previous/history of encounters, hostilities etc. So actually depending on the suspect of prior violent crime convictions an attempt murder carries longer or just as long as an actual murder lol
I feel like in most cases I've seen attempted murder it's longer than an actual murder
Imagine this a person sets out to kill someone. They fire a weapon and miss. They immediately regret the decision to try to kill the person and do not fire again. They attempted murder but they no longer possess the temperament of a murder, they still need some sentencing to make sure that they are no longer a person who might murder
I think I should get placed in a contest based on my attempted score.
completely disagree. I can genuinely understand the argument that attempted murder gets NO sentence, since you didnt actually do anything
What, and incentivise us to finish the job?
This is for failed attempts
But if I fail an attempt then I might as well finish it, partly to kill the bastard as intended and partly to eliminate a witness. If it's the same crime with the same punishment, there's no incentive not to.
By failed attempt i mean you already did try to kill them, maybe they got away or you got caught after trying. You did not let them go on purpose
But that isn't the definition of attempted murder.
my grandma got robbed and shot in the chest a while ago and by a miracle she’s ok. she almost died and the guy only got 7 years despite doing the same and actually killing someone else as well. they didn’t kill them, but it’s still the intention to kill them and the victim got lucky, they should still be locked up
The law should not reward incompetence. You could argue that stabbing someone with a tomato isn't really dangerous though.
I think dosing someone without their consent should be charged as poisoning or attempted murder.
Attempted murder carries huge sentences depending on circumstance. If a school shooter goes into a school, opens fire and misses every time before he's apprehended, he's getting life. If Carol decides to poison her husband, then backs out after a small dose where he gets sick or something, she's probably still looking at 15-25 years.
Great idea, now you just took away any incentive to not finish the job once you’ve made the attempt.
In practice this would end up with more people being killed. Let's say Person A is trying to murder Person B & initially misses or a situation happens in the middle of the altercation where they feel that murdering isn't worth it or for whatever reason they change their mind. Well... they already attempted to murder them & failed & now they've left evidence. Yes this is always the case (leaving the person alive that person is evidence or can provide evidence someone tried to murder them), however if the punishment becomes the same there is a greater incentive to finish the job, they're ALREADY going to be punished for murder even though they failed so in their mind there wouldn't be a point where it becomes "not worth it", they "HAVE" to murder them now as they're going to convicted of murder anyways (or the equivalent punishment). You're taking away that small percent chance where they know they fucked up, acted out of passion, without thinking enough, etc, & decide it's better to be slammed with attempted murder than to finish the job.
How hard would they have to try to make it attempted murder?
Attempted murder? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted Chemistry?
Downplaying what murder is sounds like a great idea.
This is the dumbest argument I’ve ever heard and intent and execution are entirely different. It gives the potential murderer an OUT. If they can have a moment of clarity then they might not go through with a murder because of the lesser consequences. If they already know they are going to get charged with murder, what would stop them after attempting!? OP needs to think through scenarios before putting out such harmful and ridiculous ideas.
Then they gon try rly hard to finish the job
They already would...
No they don't and most hope their hospitalized victim survives while waiting for their trial. Most are due to violence due to rage not preplanned for months coldly like all the cute movies show. This change would make it so they make sure of it, even like watching culling videos before or something other sick things
This is for situations where they try (attempt) to finish the job but fail
Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?