Abolish "Attempted Murder"

[RichieMcD]

We had a debate the other day in school on the abolishment of attempted murder and I though I'd create a thread for it as it seems a topic for good debate / discussion.

 

 

 

My view on it would be if someone sets out to kill someone, does not fully succeed in it and their victim/s still manage to live they still should not be entitled to a lesser jail sentence, they set out to kill someone and if they succeeded they would receive a lengthy sentence, mandatory life sentence in most countries but just because they failed at doing something so monstrous they are entitled to a lesser sentence? That's inhumane to the victims.

 

 

 

Of course there is the argument to it when they were going through the act of murder a sudden "impulse" occurred to stop and they didn't follow through with it, I.e they were planning to kill the person but couldn't pull themselves to it but I feel this isn't an adequate excuse to allow someone a lesser sentence, if anything it should come under "severe bodly harm" with a much more severe sentence.

 

 

 

I'll try to expand on the various arguments later on, but for now I suppose discuss and debate.

[purfishx]

I say give them the full sentence.

 

 

 

They tried once and failed/stopped, next time it might not be that way.

 

 

 

...........unless they have a really good reason. :-k

[Zierro]

Just because they failed that doesn't justify a lighter sentence. They still complied to their intentions. There should probably be a more strict criteria on what is considered attempted murder though.

[RichieMcD]

Potentially the criteria could just follow the differences between murder / manslaughter. Under Irish law anyway murder is the intention to kill, Ie premeditated while manslaughter is intention to cause severe bodly harm without intending to kill or reckless endangerment which leads to death Ie drunk driving.

 

 

 

If they were to follow the lines of murder, as in the criminal was intending to kill then charge them with attempted murder which should have the same charge, unfortunately though it would probably be easy enough for the criminal to plead guilty under manslaughter in certain cases, Ie intending to cause severe bodly harm without the intention to kill.

[dragoonson]

"Murder" as we know it is always premeditated.Its a premeditated KILLING.

 

 

 

Now in the old days there was nothing wrong with this.There were no laws and [cabbage].We'd run around naked,rape women wherever and kill the bastard that raped your woman.

 

 

 

But now?According to Wiki,and personal experience,cases that you will not be charged with murder-insanity,infanticide provided said infant is below a year.

 

 

 

Self-defence,which would NOT be premeditated,unless the attacker was all "Hey,I'm going to attack you tomorrow at six,kill me,eh?",Manslaughter,which is already known as unintentional,and something about diminished capacity,whereby you disrupt your own plan.That is attempted murder as it should be.

 

 

 

This "A year and a day" rule,where if the victim survives the accused is automatically not guilty=[cabbage].If the victim survives,its not murder,its attempted murder.A year and a day does not apply because attempted murder is still an offence,albeit less "serious",because you failed.Simple as that.

 

 

 

You had a plan to kill the person,said person is alive.HOWEVER,you should still be charged in court.Attempted murder,to me,is just as malicious as murder,except the accused is a lot stupider when it comes to killing.While attempted murder as a charge should not be abolished,the punishment system should,wherein your penalty is similar as to if you had actually succeeded in following through your plan.

 

 

 

As for the degrees of murder?

 

 

 

[hide=]Murder - (10 to 20 years) Killing a person when no aggravating circumstances apply.(Take as normal,without a number.)

 

Qualified murder (15 to 25 years). Aggravating circumstances:(Take as 1)

 

a) with premeditation

 

B) concerning a material interest

 

c) against spouse or close relative

 

d) taking advantage of victim's impossibility of self-defence

 

e) when putting in danger the lives of multiple persons

 

f) concerning job attributions of the victim

 

g) for facilitating or hiding another crime

 

h) in public

 

Extremely grave murder (15 to 25 years or life imprisonment). Aggravating circumstances:(Take as 2,but in actuality is similar to 1)

 

a) committed in a cruel way

 

B) against two or more persons

 

c) by a person who had already committed a murder

 

d) in order to hide a robbery

 

e) against a pregnant woman

 

f) against a policeman, gendarme, magistrate or soldier (in connection with their public duties)

 

Negligent or accidental murder (1 to 5 years in simple form). Aggravating circumstances:(Take as 3,include infanticide)

 

a) Caused by a professional in connection with his job for not respecting the legal dispositions (2 to 7 years)

 

B) By a vehicle driver with blood alcohol concentration (BAC) above legal limits or in a drunk state (5 to 15 years)

 

c) By a professional in a drunk state - in connection with his job duties (5 to 15 years)

 

d) When causing the death of two or more persons (5 to 15 years)

 

Infanticide (2 to 7 years)[/hide]

 

 

 

Now the first,is actually exactly what murder is,a premeditated killing of one specific person.The second,is either made against defenceless,to hide a crime or in a perverted sense of justice.These are either serial killings,homicide or just murder,again.

 

 

 

The third just seems to be their own fault,but not premeditated,thus manslaughter.

 

 

 

However,these are just brief overviews,since I couldn't be bothered to go through all the subsections of each class.

 

 

 

My conclusion still stands,murder is premeditated against a specific person,or people.Random killing in the open is homicide,random killing with set pattern (murder,but without actually knowing said people,or the months of planning) is serial killing.Accidental killing,is manslaughter.Classification should be clear in order to give out proper penalties,which if I had a say,should not be in place,for I'm sure whoever the omnipotent being is,he will want to be the punisher.Having said that,since I have no such say,I would think that no,attempted murder's classification should not be abolished,while the way it is punished,should be merged with regular murder's.

[warren211]

If attempted murder was abolished, then assassins would have nothing to lose. You can shoot the president, but if you miss and get caught, they can't hold much against you unless you violate some gun policies and you probably won't get decades in prison for it.

 

 

 

For that matter, every murder would have nothing to lose. If you fail in your murder then the most you can get charged with is perhaps gun possession issues, breaking and entering (unless your a sniper, then you don't have to even enter the house or area of your victim), and maybe assault if you actually injure the person. But even with the chance of a long sentence for an assault charge, there's still going to be plenty of failed murderers who can walk home free because they were stupid with their rifle and didn't do any damage to the person.

 

 

 

What's funny is that you can possibly be given prison time if you attack or kill the guy who breaks into your house. The system seems to be more concerned with the wellbeing of the criminal rather than the wellbeing of the victim. If someone breaks into my house, I'm not going to wait to see if he had a threatening weapon that could justify me beating the [cabbage] out of him if I still have the element of surprise on my side.

[purfishx]

 

What's funny is that you can possibly be given prison time if you attack or kill the guy who breaks into your house. The system seems to be more concerned with the wellbeing of the criminal rather than the wellbeing of the victim.

 

 

 

So true. Criminals can actually sue homeowners for getting injured while breaking into their house and WIN. #-o

[oegly41]

Attempted murder that doesn't succeed because of an unexpected error is just as bad as murder. It's the Thought That Counts.

[Wouter828]

 

What's funny is that you can possibly be given prison time if you attack or kill the guy who breaks into your house. The system seems to be more concerned with the wellbeing of the criminal rather than the wellbeing of the victim.

 

 

 

So true. Criminals can actually sue homeowners for getting injured while breaking into their house and WIN. #-o

 

That's messed up.

 

 

 

I think that if the person set out to kill someone but stopped themselves from doing it they should get a lesser punishment than a guy who tried it and tripped over a needle and thus missing the target, for example.

[RichieMcD]

If attempted murder was abolished, then assassins would have nothing to lose. You can shoot the president, but if you miss and get caught, they can't hold much against you unless you violate some gun policies and you probably won't get decades in prison for it.

 

 

 

For that matter, every murder would have nothing to lose. If you fail in your murder then the most you can get charged with is perhaps gun possession issues, breaking and entering (unless your a sniper, then you don't have to even enter the house or area of your victim), and maybe assault if you actually injure the person. But even with the chance of a long sentence for an assault charge, there's still going to be plenty of failed murderers who can walk home free because they were stupid with their rifle and didn't do any damage to the person.

 

 

 

What's funny is that you can possibly be given prison time if you attack or kill the guy who breaks into your house. The system seems to be more concerned with the wellbeing of the criminal rather than the wellbeing of the victim. If someone breaks into my house, I'm not going to wait to see if he had a threatening weapon that could justify me beating the [cabbage] out of him if I still have the element of surprise on my side.

 

 

 

You've completely misunderstood me, what I mean by abolishing is that if you attempted to murder to someone and fail you should still be charged with murder or attempted murder has the same punishment as murder, not the abolishment of it so that if you fail at murder you get off free.

[123_x_pac]

I say give them the full sentence.

 

 

 

They tried once and failed/stopped, next time it might not be that way.

 

 

 

 

This. If the murderer got out and tried to kill the victim again, in a way it is the law's fault for not sentencing him for a longer time.

[Ginger_Warrior]

There seems to be a complete breakdown of common sense here.

 

 

 

Let's compare consequences:

 

 

 

Murder: Someone's dead

 

Attempted: No one's dead.

 

 

 

OK, it's not that black and white, but the impact of the crime has to be a factor in the sentence. Quite clearly, the impact of attempted murder is not equal to the impact of a successful one, therefore, the punishments should NOT be equal.

 

 

 

Secondly, prison is not a rehabilitation camp. People generally don't just murder for the sheer Hell of it. They murder because they have a motive, and being put behind bars does not instantly remove that motive. You can keep someone locked up for 5 years or 20 years, unless the motive has gone, they might try it again anyway. Hence, you either keep them locked up until they die (to prevent them doing it), or you accept that the amount of time spent behind bars in comparison to murder does not really matter in stopping the crime from happening again.

[ThurinEthir]

Quoting myself from another thread - "It's the attitude, the intention, rather than the actual actions."

 

Murderers and failed murderers have the same intention. Though their actions were different, they still wanted to do the same thing. So same punishment.

[llcoolguy972]

There seems to be a complete breakdown of common sense here.

 

 

 

Let's compare consequences:

 

 

 

Murder: Someone's dead

 

Attempted: No one's dead.

 

 

 

OK, it's not that black and white, but the impact of the crime has to be a factor in the sentence. Quite clearly, the impact of attempted murder is not equal to the impact of a successful one, therefore, the punishments should NOT be equal.

 

Exactly; they're separate crimes. If a someone has a revelation or something right before they kill their victim and decide not to kill them, they shouldn't be punished the same as if they had.

[Roberthree]

you know that really annoying kid that does really annoying stuff all the time. you remember that one time you were like half a second away from beating the crap out of him? but then you didn't because your conscience had a last second intervention.

 

 

 

if someone attempts murder and fails (not because the victim escaped, but because the guy couldn't bring himself to do it) he doesn't have the balls to kill a man and as such doesn't deserve as much punishment as a true murderer.

 

 

 

imo tbh

[Nenga]

Just kill 'em all. Seriously, if they set out to kill a person but didn't succeed they won't let the person live, they will keep trying until they succeed. What if you tried to kill someone but didn't succeed? You had enough motive the first time, whats gonna stop you the second time? Or the third time? Humans ARE animals, with the same basic instincts. Animals do that all the time.

[baalboy5]

Your all acting like the reason they didn't kill the person if because they failed.

 

Ever think that the person might've been ' This is wrong/ I changed my mind' ?

[RichieMcD]

Your all acting like the reason they didn't kill the person if because they failed.

 

Ever think that the person might've been ' This is wrong/ I changed my mind' ?

 

 

 

Not sure about American law, but under Irish that wouldn't be attempted murder, it's just severe bodly harm. Attempted murder only is a placeable charge when the person was intent on killing but didn't succeed.

[dragoonson]

Did no one read the nice,long post on the first page? #-o

[oegly41]

There seems to be a complete breakdown of common sense here.

 

 

 

Let's compare consequences:

 

 

 

Murder: Someone's dead

 

Attempted: No one's dead.

 

 

 

OK, it's not that black and white, but the impact of the crime has to be a factor in the sentence. Quite clearly, the impact of attempted murder is not equal to the impact of a successful one, therefore, the punishments should NOT be equal.

 

 

 

Secondly, prison is not a rehabilitation camp. People generally don't just murder for the sheer Hell of it. They murder because they have a motive, and being put behind bars does not instantly remove that motive. You can keep someone locked up for 5 years or 20 years, unless the motive has gone, they might try it again anyway. Hence, you either keep them locked up until they die (to prevent them doing it), or you accept that the amount of time spent behind bars in comparison to murder does not really matter in stopping the crime from happening again.

 

What does it matter whether someone's dead or not? If someone's dead, it won't help to put the killer behind bars, just like it won't help to put someone behind bars when no-one's dead. I believe that rehabilitation is necessary and that punishment serves nothing. Therefore, someone who kills someone and someone who fails in killing someone should be treated equally. The outcome is completely irrelevant.

[Laura]

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. I think that saying fits in well with this. And I'm sure the criminals would think so to. If we don't hold it accountable, the murderers will continue to try until the victim is dead. At which point, the police could have done something to stop him, saving a mans life.

[Ginger_Warrior]

There seems to be a complete breakdown of common sense here.

 

 

 

Let's compare consequences:

 

 

 

Murder: Someone's dead

 

Attempted: No one's dead.

 

 

 

OK, it's not that black and white, but the impact of the crime has to be a factor in the sentence. Quite clearly, the impact of attempted murder is not equal to the impact of a successful one, therefore, the punishments should NOT be equal.

 

 

 

Secondly, prison is not a rehabilitation camp. People generally don't just murder for the sheer Hell of it. They murder because they have a motive, and being put behind bars does not instantly remove that motive. You can keep someone locked up for 5 years or 20 years, unless the motive has gone, they might try it again anyway. Hence, you either keep them locked up until they die (to prevent them doing it), or you accept that the amount of time spent behind bars in comparison to murder does not really matter in stopping the crime from happening again.

 

What does it matter whether someone's dead or not? If someone's dead, it won't help to put the killer behind bars, just like it won't help to put someone behind bars when no-one's dead. I believe that rehabilitation is necessary and that punishment serves nothing. Therefore, someone who kills someone and someone who fails in killing someone should be treated equally. The outcome is completely irrelevant.

 

Then you also have to get rid of serial murder. If consequences are not taken into consideration by a judge when sentencing then it frankly doesn't matter whether they've killed one person or ten. Under your logic, they've tried to kill someone, so should be treat equally.

 

 

 

You cannot expect normal citizens to accept responsibility for the consequences of their own actions, and then have the whole system refuse to take consequence into consideration during sentencing. It's quite blatant hypocrisy.

 

 

 

There are reasons for there to be a distinction between attempted murder and a successful one, and there is not only the justification of "they failed" for that distinction.

 

 

 

Secondly, your argument presumes rehabilitation is achieved in prison for a murderer. I'd like to see some sort of criminological report which supports that statement.

[oegly41]

 

Then you also have to get rid of serial murder. If consequences are not taken into consideration by a judge when sentencing then it frankly doesn't matter whether they've killed one person or ten. Under your logic, they've tried to kill someone, so should be treat equally.

 

 

 

You cannot expect normal citizens to accept responsibility for the consequences of their own actions, and then have the whole system refuse to take consequence into consideration during sentencing. It's quite blatant hypocrisy.

 

 

 

There are reasons for there to be a distinction between attempted murder and a successful one, and there is not only the justification of "they failed" for that distinction.

 

Attempting to kill ten people is worse than attempting to kill one, so serial killers or serial attempt killers should receive more rehabilitation than those dealing with fewer people. And you should take responsibility for your actions, but if an action has bad consequences, they cannot be undone. The only thing we can do is to try to prevent it from happening again.

 

 

 

Extreme example:

 

 

 

You are out walking one day, and suddenly slip and fall. Your backpack or handbag or whatever gets out of your control and lands out in the road. A bus hits the whatever, ignores all laws of physics, and it leads to unbalance which makes the whole bus fall, and everyone dies. Should you be kept responsible for that outcome?

[Da_Latios]

"Attempted murder" should not even be a "crime". No harm was done, there is not need for conviction.

[thrash-boy]

its depends on the case. if someone is clearly capable, both physically AND MENTALLY, of killing whoever they intended to and the only reason they didn't manage to was because a 3rd party came in and stopped them, then they deserve a full sentence.

 

however if someone is not capable, either physically, or mentally (ie extensive mental reviews determine that the person wouldn't be capable of killing another human being, no matter how much they would like to think they could) then they should get off with attempted murder.

 

 

 

"Attempted murder" should not even be a "crime". No harm was done, there is not need for conviction.

 

there would be alot of harm done to the person intended to be killed. eg they may become scared to leave there homes or something like that.

 

attempted murder can be given to people who have already started, or attempted murdering the person.

 

example: if i run you over with my car deliberately, and you go into as comma for a month, and eventually wake up and cant walk, cant talk, severely scared and damaged for life etc, then i could easily get off with attempted murder, but there would be alot of other charges aswell.

 

so yes, damage is done!