5 ms·

How can you take substantial steps to commit a crime against someone that doesn't exist?

by trentmb 13y ago

Jagat 13y ago
Coming next: NSA pre-crime division (powered by AI precogs)
rayiner 13y ago
In the U.S. the theory of attempts is largely based on the Model Penal Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code) (MPC). The MPC has a somewhat unintuitive but very rationally consistent theory of criminal guilt. The MPC focuses on personal culpability. It finds someone guilty of an attempt when: 1) with intent to commit a crime; 2) he proves himself willing to carry out that intent by taking a substantial step towards committing that crime. The focus is on subjective culpability: what the criminal is thinking and what actions he takes. The focus is not on what happens. Thought experiment: three people go out and buy a gun, and take a shot through an apartment window at who they think is their ex-wife. First one hits and kills her. Second one misses because of a sudden gust of wind. Third one hits what turns out to be a mannequin. From the point of view of moral culpability: aren't the three people equally guilty? Each had the same murderous intent, and each took exactly the same actions to carry out that intent. Now, if you think the three aren't equally guilty, because the same thing didn't happen in the three cases, consider this hypothetical: three men are driving down the road. They see their ex-wife at a bus-stop. The first man is driving very carefully, but drives over a nail, blows out his tire, and veers into his ex-wife, killing her. The second man is playing a video game on his iPad, and veers into his ex-wife, killing her. The third man is still bitter from the divorce, and veers into his ex-wife on purpose, killing her. If the focus is on what happens rather than on what the actor thought and did, should all three be prosecuted as murder?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- statictype 13y ago
  Those are good thought experiments that really bring clarity to the issues. Thanks for taking the time to lay it out. Is it naive of me to say that you should weigh in both the outcomes and the intentions to determine the degree of punishment? So in the first case, the guy who actually hit his target gets a more severe punishment than the other two. In the second case, the guy who demonstrated clear malicious intent deserves a more severe punishment than the other two.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    The law does weigh both.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    It's not naive, it's in fact how attempts are punished in most real jurisdictions, which, unlike the MPC, punish attempts less than actual crimes.

How can you take substantial steps to commit a crime against someone that doesn't exist?

by trentmb 13y ago

How can you take substantial steps to commit a crime against someone that doesn't exist?

Jagat 13y ago

Coming next: NSA pre-crime division (powered by AI precogs)

rayiner 13y ago

In the U.S. the theory of attempts is largely based on the Model Penal Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code) (MPC). The MPC has a somewhat unintuitive but very rationally consistent theory of criminal guilt. The MPC focuses on personal culpability. It finds someone guilty of an attempt when: 1) with intent to commit a crime; 2) he proves himself willing to carry out that intent by taking a substantial step towards committing that crime. The focus is on subjective culpability: what the criminal is thinking and what actions he takes. The focus is not on what happens. Thought experiment: three people go out and buy a gun, and take a shot through an apartment window at who they think is their ex-wife. First one hits and kills her. Second one misses because of a sudden gust of wind. Third one hits what turns out to be a mannequin. From the point of view of moral culpability: aren't the three people equally guilty? Each had the same murderous intent, and each took exactly the same actions to carry out that intent. Now, if you think the three aren't equally guilty, because the same thing didn't happen in the three cases, consider this hypothetical: three men are driving down the road. They see their ex-wife at a bus-stop. The first man is driving very carefully, but drives over a nail, blows out his tire, and veers into his ex-wife, killing her. The second man is playing a video game on his iPad, and veers into his ex-wife, killing her. The third man is still bitter from the divorce, and veers into his ex-wife on purpose, killing her. If the focus is on what happens rather than on what the actor thought and did, should all three be prosecuted as murder?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
statictype 13y ago
Those are good thought experiments that really bring clarity to the issues. Thanks for taking the time to lay it out. Is it naive of me to say that you should weigh in both the outcomes and the intentions to determine the degree of punishment? So in the first case, the guy who actually hit his target gets a more severe punishment than the other two. In the second case, the guy who demonstrated clear malicious intent deserves a more severe punishment than the other two.
- tptacek 13y ago
  The law does weigh both.
- rayiner 13y ago
  It's not naive, it's in fact how attempts are punished in most real jurisdictions, which, unlike the MPC, punish attempts less than actual crimes.