4 ms·

I would argue that burning a voodoo doll should at least count for intent to harm. Lets say I am completely mistaken about how chemistry works and I think that

by Sunset 10y ago

I would argue that burning a voodoo doll should at least count for intent to harm. Lets say I am completely mistaken about how chemistry works and I think that adding salt to wine will somehow make it a deadly cocktail. With intent to kill you I make such a concoction and serve it to you. In that case I should still be able to be punished under the law.

schoen 10y ago
1991 article by David D. Friedman about this topic: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1565&context=facpubs http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
- Zak 10y ago
  The article assumes rational behavior with regard to everything except which methods of committing crimes are possible and concludes that punishing impossible attempts creates a rational disincentive to all attempts. It's right in a game-theory sense, but not a practical one. Proving intent to a jury is based on circumstantial evidence. Shooting a gun at someone is strong evidence of intent to murder because it is widely known that guns are lethal. Countering the weight of that evidence would require very convincing evidence that the shooter did not believe his actions would be lethal. Proving that someone believed burning a voodoo doll would be lethal would be very difficult since it is widely known that burning voodoo dolls is not lethal. Even apparent evidence that the voodoo practitioner had a genuine belief is easily played off as an act, and in criminal law, the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant. There's also the matter of people having mistaken beliefs about the probability of punishment.
Bartweiss 10y ago
So legally, I know the "salt in wine" example doesn't count as attempted murder, at least in states that require action towards the murder. Some states have much lower bars where you don't have to try a murder and could merely buy supplies and write out a plan, but even then I don't think guaranteed-to-fail plans count. It does seem like the sort of thing that ought to be illegal somehow, but I'd need an actual expert's input on what charges they would seek for that.

by Sunset 10y ago

schoen 10y ago

1991 article by David D. Friedman about this topic: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1565&context=facpubs http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...

Zak 10y ago
The article assumes rational behavior with regard to everything except which methods of committing crimes are possible and concludes that punishing impossible attempts creates a rational disincentive to all attempts. It's right in a game-theory sense, but not a practical one. Proving intent to a jury is based on circumstantial evidence. Shooting a gun at someone is strong evidence of intent to murder because it is widely known that guns are lethal. Countering the weight of that evidence would require very convincing evidence that the shooter did not believe his actions would be lethal. Proving that someone believed burning a voodoo doll would be lethal would be very difficult since it is widely known that burning voodoo dolls is not lethal. Even apparent evidence that the voodoo practitioner had a genuine belief is easily played off as an act, and in criminal law, the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant. There's also the matter of people having mistaken beliefs about the probability of punishment.

Bartweiss 10y ago

So legally, I know the "salt in wine" example doesn't count as attempted murder, at least in states that require action towards the murder. Some states have much lower bars where you don't have to try a murder and could merely buy supplies and write out a plan, but even then I don't think guaranteed-to-fail plans count. It does seem like the sort of thing that ought to be illegal somehow, but I'd need an actual expert's input on what charges they would seek for that.