3 ms·

> That probably depends on how reckless you were. Let's assume the most generous interpretation possible. I.e. one where I'm at no fault whatsoever by any reas

by avar 11y ago

> That probably depends on how reckless you were. Let's assume the most generous interpretation possible. I.e. one where I'm at no fault whatsoever by any reasonable definition and pose no future risk to society. My point is that most people do recognize the importance of intent and future outcomes. > Results surely must play some role. The more I think about it I don't think they should. Why do we put people in prison at all? Revenge is not an actual reason, which is where outcomes would matter. Future deterrence and security is a good reason. Killing someone isn't primarily a crime against /them/, but a crime against society made up by people who'd like to not live their lives surrounded by likely murderers. If that's the goal it makes no sense to say "oh he stabbed that guy, but missed the heart by an inch, that's OK then". No it isn't. > if he was trying to kill you using voodoo magic Now you're just entering the realm of the absurd. I'm talking about cases where actual people actually want to kill you (successfully or not) and what we should actually be doing about that. Let's stay on topic and not bring up silly contrived scenarios.

gnaritas 11y ago
> Now you're just entering the realm of the absurd. Which is a valid form of argument. He's showing you how absurd what you're saying is if applied literally. You don't get to duck out and claim he's off topic, you need to address his point which is perfectly valid. If intent is all that matters, then a superstitious person who believes voodoo works should according to you be charged with attempted murder; that's the logical outcome of your position, you owe him a real answer.
scotty79 11y ago
>> Results surely must play some role. > The more I think about it I don't think they should. Murder is very extreme example because it's very easy to kill a human if you decide to do it and even if you fail with a bit of luck things might have played out differently. Also murder is sharp. You can't kill a person just a little. But consider theft. Someone who stole your insulin pump should be treated differently from someone who took some money or someone who tried to enter your house but couldn't open the lock and gave up. Or consider assault. Trying to hit someone shouldn't be punished same as hitting. I think mostly because you can hit someone to no effect (should be punished somewhat anyway) or you can kill with one hit. You'd have a problem to estimate what was attempted and what the punishment for attempt should be. ... you could have a rule that attempt is punished same as most harmless possible outcome. ...unless you are making a point just about murder and attempted murder. Then I'm inclined to agree that serious attempt and murder should be treated same if you can show that the attempt was to murder not just wound. At least until we have technology that will make most deaths just temporary nuisances and there will be spectrum of how much you can murder someone. >> if he was trying to kill you using voodoo magic >Now you're just entering the realm of the absurd. You are right. I just wanted to bring into focus some (very small fraction) of murderers that are so stupid that they attempt to use methods that couldn't possibly kill anyone and suggest that as technology progresses there might be more such people. > Why do we put people in prison at all? Revenge is not an actual reason That's the actual reason we put imprisoned people to death.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
> The more I think about it I don't think they should. And I agree. In a perfect world, justice would be only about intent. But we can't read people's hearts, and we can't explore all circumstances that would lead one to a punishable act. Worse, imperfect attempts at this can easily be abused by evil people to harm innocents. Therefore our legal system sticks to the only thing it can reliably measure - outcomes, sprinkling in some consideration for intent when the latter is obvious. In a perfect world, we could probably also separate compensating victims from punishing the perpetrators. If I steal and wreck your car to save my wife who needs to get to the hospital ASAP, then in a perfect world I should go free and pay exactly nothing, but you should get a new car (or monetary equivalent) plus some reasonable opportunity costs compensation. Who would pay? The society, out of "shit happens" fund. But to work, this again would require probing intent, in order to avoid turning stealing cars into a replacement for taxi service. Since we can't reliably probe intent, we're stuck with punishing outcomes and creating incentive structures preventing such perversions from developing.

by avar 11y ago

gnaritas 11y ago

> Now you're just entering the realm of the absurd. Which is a valid form of argument. He's showing you how absurd what you're saying is if applied literally. You don't get to duck out and claim he's off topic, you need to address his point which is perfectly valid. If intent is all that matters, then a superstitious person who believes voodoo works should according to you be charged with attempted murder; that's the logical outcome of your position, you owe him a real answer.

scotty79 11y ago

>> Results surely must play some role. > The more I think about it I don't think they should. Murder is very extreme example because it's very easy to kill a human if you decide to do it and even if you fail with a bit of luck things might have played out differently. Also murder is sharp. You can't kill a person just a little. But consider theft. Someone who stole your insulin pump should be treated differently from someone who took some money or someone who tried to enter your house but couldn't open the lock and gave up. Or consider assault. Trying to hit someone shouldn't be punished same as hitting. I think mostly because you can hit someone to no effect (should be punished somewhat anyway) or you can kill with one hit. You'd have a problem to estimate what was attempted and what the punishment for attempt should be. ... you could have a rule that attempt is punished same as most harmless possible outcome. ...unless you are making a point just about murder and attempted murder. Then I'm inclined to agree that serious attempt and murder should be treated same if you can show that the attempt was to murder not just wound. At least until we have technology that will make most deaths just temporary nuisances and there will be spectrum of how much you can murder someone. >> if he was trying to kill you using voodoo magic >Now you're just entering the realm of the absurd. You are right. I just wanted to bring into focus some (very small fraction) of murderers that are so stupid that they attempt to use methods that couldn't possibly kill anyone and suggest that as technology progresses there might be more such people. > Why do we put people in prison at all? Revenge is not an actual reason That's the actual reason we put imprisoned people to death.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

> The more I think about it I don't think they should. And I agree. In a perfect world, justice would be only about intent. But we can't read people's hearts, and we can't explore all circumstances that would lead one to a punishable act. Worse, imperfect attempts at this can easily be abused by evil people to harm innocents. Therefore our legal system sticks to the only thing it can reliably measure - outcomes, sprinkling in some consideration for intent when the latter is obvious. In a perfect world, we could probably also separate compensating victims from punishing the perpetrators. If I steal and wreck your car to save my wife who needs to get to the hospital ASAP, then in a perfect world I should go free and pay exactly nothing, but you should get a new car (or monetary equivalent) plus some reasonable opportunity costs compensation. Who would pay? The society, out of "shit happens" fund. But to work, this again would require probing intent, in order to avoid turning stealing cars into a replacement for taxi service. Since we can't reliably probe intent, we're stuck with punishing outcomes and creating incentive structures preventing such perversions from developing.