3 ms·

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 t

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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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.

homonculus1 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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.