4 ms·

I think attempted crimes should get the same sentence as successful crimes. Imagine two people stabbed identical twins in the same spot with the same intent at

by temuze 11y ago

I think attempted crimes should get the same sentence as successful crimes. Imagine two people stabbed identical twins in the same spot with the same intent at the same time. One dies, one lives. Should they get different sentences? It's just a roll of the dice.

derekp7 11y ago
What if you turn this around -- two people punch two identical twins in the face. One twin dies from his injuries, and the person who punched him now faces at least involuntary manslaughter, whereas the other person just has a light assault charge. Should both people get charged with involuntary manslaughter, or should they both just get the lighter assault charge?
- kazinator 11y ago
  They should be treated differently because a fist is not considered a priori a deadly weapon. Punching someone isn't the use of lethal force. Death is almost certainly an unintended consequence of a punch. Whereas, by contrast, the absence of death is the unintended consequence of, say, a shooting or stabbing (in any vital area of the body). We can't go easy on an attempted murdered just because, luckily, the victim didn't die. We also can't go easy on someone who killed using a punch just because death was unintended; the fact is that the victim died, and the fact is that not all punches are the same. They vary in intensity and area of delivery. A punch which kills (directly) must be quite a wallop, backed by a lot of rage.
  - askafriend 11y ago
    Well friend, you haven't met my fists then. You might change your mind on fists not being a deadly weapon.
    - mahyarm 11y ago
      Long time ago, someone told me that assaulting someone as a trained black belt martial artist makes your assaults 'assault with a deadly weapon'. So they actually might of made the adjustment in those cases. I was 10 years old when I was told this, so big grain of salt.
      - askafriend 11y ago
        That's the point I was trying to make but I guess it flew over a bunch of people's heads. If you watch MMA, fists are absolutely deadly and can knock people out and severely hurt them in seconds.
- bzz01 11y ago
  Good point. One answer is that manslaughter is already a special case, as it doesn't require intent to kill anyway, only negligence.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Crimes requiring some mental state other than specific intent are fairly common, not a special case (note that this includes murder of the depraved indifference sort.)
    - bzz01 11y ago
      That one sounds fairly similar to manslaughter, no? My understanding is that logically there's that basic framework of required specific intent, then there are a few crimes that allow prosecuting for negligence, then very few crimes with strict liability. I'm originally not from US so I'm probably still getting used that the latter two categories are quite common in US law (and that strict liability is even possible).

by temuze 11y ago

derekp7 11y ago

What if you turn this around -- two people punch two identical twins in the face. One twin dies from his injuries, and the person who punched him now faces at least involuntary manslaughter, whereas the other person just has a light assault charge. Should both people get charged with involuntary manslaughter, or should they both just get the lighter assault charge?

kazinator 11y ago
They should be treated differently because a fist is not considered a priori a deadly weapon. Punching someone isn't the use of lethal force. Death is almost certainly an unintended consequence of a punch. Whereas, by contrast, the absence of death is the unintended consequence of, say, a shooting or stabbing (in any vital area of the body). We can't go easy on an attempted murdered just because, luckily, the victim didn't die. We also can't go easy on someone who killed using a punch just because death was unintended; the fact is that the victim died, and the fact is that not all punches are the same. They vary in intensity and area of delivery. A punch which kills (directly) must be quite a wallop, backed by a lot of rage.
- askafriend 11y ago
  Well friend, you haven't met my fists then. You might change your mind on fists not being a deadly weapon.
  - mahyarm 11y ago
    Long time ago, someone told me that assaulting someone as a trained black belt martial artist makes your assaults 'assault with a deadly weapon'. So they actually might of made the adjustment in those cases. I was 10 years old when I was told this, so big grain of salt.
    - askafriend 11y ago
      That's the point I was trying to make but I guess it flew over a bunch of people's heads. If you watch MMA, fists are absolutely deadly and can knock people out and severely hurt them in seconds.
bzz01 11y ago
Good point. One answer is that manslaughter is already a special case, as it doesn't require intent to kill anyway, only negligence.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Crimes requiring some mental state other than specific intent are fairly common, not a special case (note that this includes murder of the depraved indifference sort.)
  - bzz01 11y ago
    That one sounds fairly similar to manslaughter, no? My understanding is that logically there's that basic framework of required specific intent, then there are a few crimes that allow prosecuting for negligence, then very few crimes with strict liability. I'm originally not from US so I'm probably still getting used that the latter two categories are quite common in US law (and that strict liability is even possible).