is attempting murder ridiculous?

tacofries

Right is it just me or should there be no such charge as attemped murder?

If somebody tries to kill someone but fails they should be charged as if they did succeed. Its ridiculous that they are given a lighter sentence just because they couldn't murder someone properly. In fact they should nearly be given an even bigger sentence because they were too stupid to did it properly.....

Opinions?

The Backwards Man

If I attempted to kiss you but you brushed me off, and you got cooties from somebody else, should I get the blame for it?

SweetCaliber

tacofries wrote: »

Right is it just me or should there be no such charge as attemped murder?

If somebody tries to kill someone but fails they should be charged as if they did succeed. Its ridiculous that they are given a lighter sentence just because they couldn't murder someone properly. In fact they should nearly be given an even bigger sentence because they were too stupid to did it properly.....

Opinions?

Your username makes me hungry...

Oh how i'd "murder" a taco fry right now...

tacofries

" a taco fry right now...[/quote]
Taco fries god dammit, frieeess

3rdDegree

You know something OP, you make a good point. I shall rethink my life.

endacl

The sentence should be higher for a failed attempt IMHO. Lower sentencing for attempted murder, as opposed to actual murder, is simply rewarding incompetence.

Vito Corleone

In before inevitable Sideshow Bob quote. But yeah, I'd agree apart from the bit about getting a longer sentence.

wandatowell

yawn

the dark knight rises is a great show

RachaelVO

Most likely depends on the Mod

kraggy

Somebody might attack a person but have second thoughts out of conscience and then get charged for attempted murder. As opposed to actually killing someone. Case A is clearly not as bad as case B.

So there should be a difference.

DEFTLEFTHAND

The maximum sentence is life. It doesn't appear too often anyway, it's very hard to prove. It's not as clear cut an offence as you'd think.

pharmaton

kraggy wrote: »

Somebody might attack a person but have second thoughts out of conscience and then get charged for attempted murder. As opposed to actually killing someone. Case A is clearly not as bad as case B.

So there should be a difference.

That's hardly attempted murder, unless you can prove they were attempting to actually commit murder.

Hank Scorpio

It's circumstantial imo

Chucken

wigbltgtsanwu wrote: »

You can never be sure of the guilty verdict, but especially if the would-be victim didn't actually die. Therefore on these grounds I think it's a necessity that attempted murder have a significantly more lenient charge than successful murder.

I bet you do.

Peregrine

They should be charged for murder..which is exactly what they intended to do, whether they succeeded or not is irrelevant.

SweetCaliber

wigbltgtsanwu wrote: »

In the year 4077, the human inhabitants earth had interbred with another elephant species from a planet similar to earth in another universe. You see, the 'multiverse' theory being investigated in modern day science was correct, and each universe within the multiverse contains one single planet exactly like earth, except where another breed of animal had reigned supreme in the evolution game. Also in each universe are rakomengaiikashiums, a vile alien species whose sole purpose in it's existence is to projectile defecate poison faeces on anything it deems has value. The inhabitants of the universe and planet where pigs are dominant had successfully travelled through their universal portal in 2059 to reach the universe and planet ruled by rhinoceroses. These "Rhino-humans" were as horny sexually as they are in appearance. They began to capture the pig-humans as sex slaves, and breed them for that purpose. This grisly practice occurred for generation after generation until in the late 32nd century a large spaceship of rakomengaiikashiums made an attack on Rhino-planet. Everything was poisoned via rakomengaiikashium ****, and the entire rhino-human species was wiped out. However, the pig-humans who were operating as sex-slaves on rhino-planet survived the onslaught and sought to gain entry back to their home through that universe's portal.

Whut?

Chucken

wigbltgtsanwu wrote: »

You can never be sure of the guilty verdict, but especially if the would-be victim didn't actually die. Therefore on these grounds I think it's a necessity that attempted murder have a significantly more lenient charge than successful murder.

SweetCaliber wrote: »

Whut?

Attention seeking, Ignore it.

kneemos

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

They should be charged for murder..which is exactly what they intended to do, whether they succeeded or not is irrelevant.

I think the works on logic so if there's no body it can't be murder.Makes sense if you think about it.

SweetCaliber

Chucken wrote: »

Attention seeking, Ignore it.

Oh I know that haha just trying to come to terms with what he posted

Sinfonia

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

They should be charged for murder..which is exactly what they intended to do, whether they succeeded or not is irrelevant.

Intent is very hard to prove, and it could be easily used to impose unfair sentences. For example, punching someone in the face could kill them; if a jury could be convinced that the punch was intended to kill (even if it wasn't), someone could be sentenced as though they had murdered someone, when all that definitely (if even) happened was that the defendant punched someone in the face.

MadsL

SweetCaliber wrote: »

Oh how i'd "murder" a taco fry right now...

"I hate tacos" said no Juan ever.

kneemos

Sinfonia wrote: »

Intent is very hard to prove, and it could be easily used to impose unfair sentences. For example, punching someone in the face could kill them; if a jury could be convinced that the punch was intended to kill (even if it wasn't), someone could be sentenced as though they had murdered someone, when all that definitely (if even) happened was that the defendant punched someone in the face.

There is an actual charge of attempted murder as far as I know,if somebody shot you five times for example it would clearly be attempted murder.

Sinfonia

kneemos wrote: »

There is an actual charge of attempted murder as far as I know,if somebody shot you five times for example it would clearly be attempted murder.

Not if they only shot you in the leg :P

zenno

tacofries wrote: »

Right is it just me or should there be no such charge as attemped murder?

If somebody tries to kill someone but fails they should be charged as if they did succeed. Its ridiculous that they are given a lighter sentence just because they couldn't murder someone properly. In fact they should nearly be given an even bigger sentence because they were too stupid to did it properly.....

Opinions?

Manslaughter is the real problem, "I killed a man/woman" but i admit to it and i get a lesser sentence or feck all of a sentence.

Attempted murder or thinking of doing it is the minority report, but in the end i wasn't really going to kill the person because i took a lot of time to go over my actions if i did, but i'm imprisoned for it anyway.

Thought murder. I tried to open this bottle of beetroot to add to my healthy dinner earlier on but i could not for the life of me open the jar, so i used a strong end of a spoon to prise the lid off.

As doing this, the glass cracked and forwarded it's shard deep into my hand of which hit a vein and exploded with blood, or beetroot not sure as they both look the same colour, but i really wanted to kill that jar of beetroot bigtime.

Should I be put in prison for attempted murder of a beetroot jar and it's contents ? Well in 50 years time this will be the law and penalty for doing or thinking of doing such a thing.

PizzamanIRL

If I race in a 100m sprint and lose, do I still get the gold medal because I attempted the race?

MadsL

zenno wrote: »

Manslaughter is the real problem, "I killed a man/woman" but i admit to it and i get a lesser sentence or feck all of a sentence.

Attempted murder or thinking of doing it is the minority report, but in the end i wasn't really going to kill the person because i took a lot of time to go over my actions if i did, but i'm imprisoned for it anyway.

Thought murder. I tried to open this bottle of beetroot to add to my healthy dinner earlier on but i could not for the life of me open the jar, so i used a strong end of a spoon to prise the lid off.

As doing this, the glass cracked and forwarded it's shard deep into my hand of which hit a vein and exploded with blood, or beetroot not sure as they both look the same colour, but i really wanted to kill that jar of beetroot bigtime.

Should I be put in prison for attempted murder of a beetroot jar and it's contents ? Well in 50 years time this will be the law and penalty for doing or thinking of doing such a thing.

Not like you were trying to eat the beetroot or anything...oh wait.

Sunnyisland

The mens rea (Latin for the "guilty mind") for murder includes an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm where there is virtual certainty of death resulting, whereas attempted murder depends on an intention to kill, and an overt act towards the homicide. Attempted murder is only the planning of a murder and acts taken towards it, not the actual killing, which is the murder. This makes the offence difficult to prove and it is more common for a lesser charge to be preferred under the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

First, acting deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life, the person attempted to kill someone; and the person did something that was a substantial step toward committing the crime. [Mere preparation is not a substantial step toward committing a crime.]

There must be more than merely preparatory acts and, although the defendant may threaten death, this may not provide convincing evidence of an intention to kill unless the words are accompanied by relevant action, e.g. finding and picking up a weapon, and making serious use of it, or making a serious and sustained physical attack without a weapon.....wiki


And good morning

Sir Humphrey Appleby

endacl wrote: »

The sentence should be higher for a failed attempt IMHO. Lower sentencing for attempted murder, as opposed to actual murder, is simply rewarding incompetence.

At least one irish Judge agrees with you, I think in his sentencing he also said he would not reward the accuseds incompetence.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0504/88664-larkind/

"Larkin, he said, would have got life if his murder attempt had been successful and it would be an absurdity not to hand down the maximum penalty in this case."

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2007/0505/ireland/life-sentence-for-man-in-attempted-shotgun-murder-31998.html
Sentencing Larkin to the maximum sentence of life imprisonment for the attempted murder charge, the judge said he failed to see why he should "avoid a life sentence because Darren Larkin is a bad shot".

long range shooter

Third time lucky,then jail

elefant

If I remember correctly, for inchoate offences (not fully completed offences) the same penalties are applicable as if the offence was actually committed. The only difference is that it is sometimes quite difficult to prove when something is 'attempted', as it rightly should be. There is an inherent dilemma about the fairness of charging people with something they haven't actually completed, and giving out the same punishment.

If someone enters a bank with a weapon but is stopped by security before they can actually get hold of any cash then it should be relatively easy to prove attempted robbery. If someone is walking along the road across from a bank with a weapon and is stopped by police it might be more difficult.

So with attempted murder, the exact same penalty is applicable as is applicable to murder.

johnny_knoxvile

wandatowell wrote: »

yawn

the dark knight rises is a great show

No, it's sh!te.

And why does Batman talk like he has throat cancer?

floggg

tacofries wrote: »

Right is it just me or should there be no such charge as attemped murder?

If somebody tries to kill someone but fails they should be charged as if they did succeed. Its ridiculous that they are given a lighter sentence just because they couldn't murder someone properly. In fact they should nearly be given an even bigger sentence because they were too stupid to did it properly.....

Opinions?

Do you not think prosecutors would find it hard to convince a jury that the accused killed John Doe if the accused could call John Doe as a witness to testify that he is in fact still alive?

sbsquarepants

endacl wrote: »

The sentence should be higher for a failed attempt IMHO. Lower sentencing for attempted murder, as opposed to actual murder, is simply rewarding incompetence.

Using your logic, we'd actually be rewarding people for sucessfully murdering someone

Peregrine

Sinfonia wrote: »

Intent is very hard to prove, and it could be easily used to impose unfair sentences. For example, punching someone in the face could kill them; if a jury could be convinced that the punch was intended to kill (even if it wasn't), someone could be sentenced as though they had murdered someone, when all that definitely (if even) happened was that the defendant punched someone in the face.

But that's the same way as attempted murder works at the moment.

I'm saying that if they can prove it was attempted murder like now, they should be charged with murder.

If some asshole stabbed someone to kill but the person didn't die, he/she would be charged for attempted murder here and in most countries. Why the **** should the criminal spend less time in prison?

kneemos

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

But that's the same way as attempted murder works at the moment.

I'm saying that if they can prove it was attempted murder like now, they should be charged with murder.

If some asshole stabbed someone to kill but the person didn't die, he/she would be charged for attempted murder here and in most countries. Why the **** should the criminal spend less time in prison?

Because nobody is dead.The consequences of his actions led to an injury not a death.

Peregrine

kneemos wrote: »

Because nobody is dead.The consequences of his actions led to an injury not a death.

But he/she very much intended the other person to die.

But the person didn't die because of maybe their own luck and work of emergency response staff.


Why should a criminal's punishment depend on pure luck and ER services?

Skylinehead

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

I'm saying that if they can prove it was attempted murder like now, they should be charged with murder.

No, they shouldn't be charged with murder because they didn't murder anyone. The sentences should be the same, sure,

Peregrine

Skylinehead wrote: »

No, they shouldn't be charged with murder because they didn't murder anyone. The sentences should be the same, sure,

Oh yes. Sorry.

Charged with attempted murder like now but sentenced to the same punishment as murder.

corktina

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

They should be charged for murder..which is exactly what they intended to do, whether they succeeded or not is irrelevant.

kind of obvious get out clause there isn't there?

"M'Lud this man is charged with murder..."

" who did he kill?"

"Um no one"

"case dismissed"

Peregrine

corktina wrote: »

kind of obvious get out clause there isn't there?

"M'Lud this man is charged with murder..."

" who did he kill?"

"Um no one"

"case dismissed"

Sorry I meant handed the same punishment as murder

corktina

punishment should be a deterrent and therefore there needs to be a more severe sentence for a successful job as it may stop an attempting murderer delivering the coup de grace with the second bullet through the head....thus saving a life....if the sentence was the same, then the "what the heck" factor comes into play

downonthefarm

And what about diminished responsibility?
I am called the bank and telling them I'm not paying my mortgage anymore on the grounds I was of unsound mind at the time I was suffering from ideasabovemystationitis

Leftist

johnny_knoxvile wrote: »

No, it's sh!te.

And why does Batman talk like he has throat cancer?

because he's talking with people who know him

Gary oldman and his lifelong mates couldn't twig it either

really don't get that question, it's obvious.

--Kaiser--

Sideshow Bob
"Attempted murder, I mean what is that really? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry?!"

Gbear

In principle, it should be no more difficult to differentiate between attempted murder and assault, or whatever lesser crime they'd try to get away with, than between murder and manslaughter.

You're trying to prove intention in both.

If, for example, you get a crazy person who wants to stab some celebrity to death with a knife, but there's no plausible way for him to actually do it (because of armed bodyguards, for example), then the crazy person still needs to be locked up for the same amount of time as he would for murder. The point isn't to punish but to protect society. Society needs to be protected from people who want to murder, irrespective of how good they are at perpetrating it.

If your argument is that you can't prove intention, like I said above, we already do that when we differentiate between murder and manslaughter.

tacofries

floggg wrote: »

Do you not think prosecutors would find it hard to convince a jury that the accused killed John Doe if the accused could call John Doe as a witness to testify that he is in fact still alive?

It doesnt matter that johny boy isnt dead... it matters that a serious attempt of taking John doe's life was made.The guilty party tried to kill him but failed, his ontentipn was to commit murder however and so that is what his sentence should be based on

kneemos

tacofries wrote: »

It doesnt matter that johny boy isnt dead... it matters that a serious attempt of taking John doe's life was made.The guilty party tried to kill him but failed, his ontentipn was to commit murder however and so that is what his sentence should be based on

I think the law deals with facts intentions are more difficult to prove.

MonaPizza

tacofries wrote: »

Right is it just me or should there be no such charge as attemped murder?

If somebody tries to kill someone but fails they should be charged as if they did succeed. Its ridiculous that they are given a lighter sentence just because they couldn't murder someone properly. In fact they should nearly be given an even bigger sentence because they were too stupid to did it properly.....

Opinions?

Well a different charge does have its advantages what with double jeopardy and all that. Let say you shoot someone and they are critical in hospital .... say in a coma and you get done for attempted murder and you get off. Then the victim dies.....you can then be retried on a new charge of murder and hopefully the prosecution will do a better job and send your sorry ass to the gallows.

Capt'n Midnight

nuxxx wrote: »

It's circumstantial imo

Murder is much more likely to be circumstantial seeing as how the victim can't be called on to testify.



But if you were intending to kill or seriously harm person A and you wind up killing person B because your aim was off then IMHO it's still murder rather than manslaughter.

General General

<Mexican accent>Taco.</Mexican accent>

Elbaston

Im sure im taking/paraphrasing this from some film i watched some time ago.

No its not fair to charge for attempted murder, theres no pulitzer prize for best attempted book, your bank doesn't let you off for attempted payments.


(also yoda - there is no try)