4 ms·

It similarly sucks that our justice system punishes the clumsy criminals and lets the really skillfully sneaky ones go unpunished. Nobody has yet faced charges

It similarly sucks that our justice system punishes the clumsy criminals and lets the really skillfully sneaky ones go unpunished. Nobody has yet faced charges for robbing the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
BeFlatXIII 4y ago
That's why I find the fact that real murder and attempted murder have different sentences to be a grave injustice. Criminals should not receive a discount on their sentence because they happened to be a bad shot or because the good trauma surgeon was on duty that night.
- homonculus1 4y ago
  Unfair as it may seem, it's better that the legal system limit itself to actual occurrences and not extrapolate to hypotheticals
  - version_five 4y ago
    Interesting, I see both sides. I agree completely with you that they shouldn't extrapolate. But in the case of attempted murder, wouldn't this just mean proving beyond doubt that someone tried to kill? If there is doubt that the accused meant only to harm, for example, then I get it. But if they provably tried to kill, however you prove that, then I see the argument that it's irrelevant whether they succeeded or not. Anyway, it's moot imo because I don't believe in a retributive justice system, I think the only concern should be preventing recidivism. But your post has made me think a bit, I'm still not sure what the "right" answer is here
    - BeFlatXIII 4y ago
      > in the case of attempted murder, wouldn't this just mean proving beyond doubt that someone tried to kill? I'd assume yes. Otherwise, it would be a charge like gross negligence or assault+battery.
- everforward 4y ago
  From what I've been told, the reason for the disparity is to discourage trying again or escalation. If attempted murder and murder have the same penalty, there's no reason for a psychopath to not attempt it again. On the net, it might even be better for them since dead people can't testify. I've heard a similar argument for why we should lower penalties for drug crimes. When people routinely have enough drugs laying around to be charged equivalently to murder, the law ceases to be a deterrent. There's no additional penalty for more crimes, because we've already maxed out the punishment. It's not like we're going to make them live to 270 so they can serve out their full sentence.
throwaway2037 4y ago
FYI: There is a famous robbery from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in 1990. Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_Stewart_Gardner_Museum_theft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_Stewart_Gardner_Museu...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

BeFlatXIII 4y ago

That's why I find the fact that real murder and attempted murder have different sentences to be a grave injustice. Criminals should not receive a discount on their sentence because they happened to be a bad shot or because the good trauma surgeon was on duty that night.

homonculus1 4y ago
Unfair as it may seem, it's better that the legal system limit itself to actual occurrences and not extrapolate to hypotheticals
- version_five 4y ago
  Interesting, I see both sides. I agree completely with you that they shouldn't extrapolate. But in the case of attempted murder, wouldn't this just mean proving beyond doubt that someone tried to kill? If there is doubt that the accused meant only to harm, for example, then I get it. But if they provably tried to kill, however you prove that, then I see the argument that it's irrelevant whether they succeeded or not. Anyway, it's moot imo because I don't believe in a retributive justice system, I think the only concern should be preventing recidivism. But your post has made me think a bit, I'm still not sure what the "right" answer is here
  - BeFlatXIII 4y ago
    > in the case of attempted murder, wouldn't this just mean proving beyond doubt that someone tried to kill? I'd assume yes. Otherwise, it would be a charge like gross negligence or assault+battery.
everforward 4y ago
From what I've been told, the reason for the disparity is to discourage trying again or escalation. If attempted murder and murder have the same penalty, there's no reason for a psychopath to not attempt it again. On the net, it might even be better for them since dead people can't testify. I've heard a similar argument for why we should lower penalties for drug crimes. When people routinely have enough drugs laying around to be charged equivalently to murder, the law ceases to be a deterrent. There's no additional penalty for more crimes, because we've already maxed out the punishment. It's not like we're going to make them live to 270 so they can serve out their full sentence.

throwaway2037 4y ago

FYI: There is a famous robbery from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in 1990. Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_Stewart_Gardner_Museum_theft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_Stewart_Gardner_Museu...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]