Abolish "Attempted Murder"

[dragoonson]

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

 

 

 

Shooting and missing the heart is attempted murder,I'm pretty sure some other part of his chest cavity would be harmed.

[Da_Latios]

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

 

 

 

Shooting and missing the heart is attempted murder,I'm pretty sure some other part of his chest cavity would be harmed.

 

Yes, but in your example, harm was done. If the assailant did not even manage to get anywhere near the person he/she intended to kill, I would not convict that person.

 

 

 

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.

 

Paranoia. I recommend a psychiatrist.

[baron8000]

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

 

 

 

Shooting and missing the heart is attempted murder,I'm pretty sure some other part of his chest cavity would be harmed.

 

Yes, but in your example, harm was done. If the assailant did not even manage to get anywhere near the person he/she intended to kill, I would not convict that person.

 

 

 

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.

 

Paranoia. I recommend a psychiatrist.

 

 

 

So, when a lunatic sends you threatening letters and messages and openly tries to murder you but doesn't make it say, into your house, you would be quite happy with the police saying "yeah, we're just going to let him go free, no harm no foul! Call us again when you're dead".

 

 

 

Also, this issue doesn't exist in the UK - attempted and actual murder can both be awarded with a life sentence if the facts require it (although actual murder always will be). Discretionary punishments, for ALL crimes, are the way forward - to say "you have done X so must serve Y jailtime/pay Z amount of fine" is such a blunt tool it should only be used in the most simple situations.

 

 

 

Also, if anyones going to argue what the law is, it would be really helpful if you state the jurisdiction - UK and US law may be very different on their definition of murder.

[Kiriyama]

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

 

 

 

They still attempted an attack with intent to kill, even if they didn't cause damage.

[RichieMcD]

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

 

 

 

Shooting and missing the heart is attempted murder,I'm pretty sure some other part of his chest cavity would be harmed.

 

Yes, but in your example, harm was done. If the assailant did not even manage to get anywhere near the person he/she intended to kill, I would not convict that person.

 

 

 

 

So they can be released again to have another go? Flight 93 didn't get anywhere near it's target and didn't harm it's target, might as well not charge those who helped carry out the act so they can train more suicide / hijacking crews :thumbup:

 

 

 

If they miss and don't cause physical harm doesn't mean mental harm isn't caused, any form of mental conditions could be formed from such event, paranoia, depression, not being able to leave ones home. Doesn't have to by physical for it to be harm.

 

 

 

I wonder how much your opinion would differ if someone shot at you, missed and got another go without any hassle? =D>

[Housepig]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It seems that you are basing the desired punishment on how "wrong" an action is. If you are religious, I can understand why you would do this, but personally, I believe that there is no source of absolute morals; every unbiased analysation of an event or action must be based on whether it causes (factoring in all levels of indirectness and all possibilities) morer pain than pleasure, or the opposite.

 

 

 

The purpose of punishment, therefore, basing it on that theory, is to minimise the suffering already caused, to prevent more from occuring in the future, and to prevent crime- determined by a Government to constiute acts that cause more pain than pleasure, when not the factoring the commiter's own feelings into it- from occuring in the first place.

 

 

 

Of course laws are not that simple there are no black and whites: sending someone to prison causes them to suffer, the other convicts (possibly) to suffer, it costs money, which has a vast amount of effects somewhere down the line; on the otherhand, it prevents the victim from feeling fear or being harmed again- but this barely scratches the surface.

 

 

 

When it comes down to it, therefore, attempted murder causes less pain than murder, but-generally- was cased by the same desire and intention; they can philosophically be considered the same using the above theory.

[doomy]

Prove it was their intention to kill?

 

If you can, then they deserve the same punishment, because if you can't how do you knwo what their intentions were?

 

Shooting somebody in the chest of head for me if proof of attempted murder, but a wound in the arm or a beating isn't proof enough that their inetion was really to murder.

 

 

 

But yeah, if it was definately attempted murder I see no reason why the punishment should be any less.

[l0l0lpur32]

Attempted murder is just as bad as successful murder.

[aquariusman]

If you knew very well that your actions may likely lead to the death of another, you should be tried for murder.