Attempted Murder

Victor

Why is sentencing more lenient for attempted crimes? Surely its rewarding people with a bad aim?

I can understand certain cases of more lenient sentencing like attempted rape, where the act isn't carried through.

orestes

I'd say attempted rape is a more serious offence than attempted murder, but that's just my opinion I guess.

I do agree that punishment shouldn't be more lenient on someone just because they tried to commit a crime and didn't get it done.

The intent is there, so they should still be punished for the crime, the only thing that prevented them from from committing the crime was another persons actions or their own incompetance, why should they be rewarded for that?!

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

Why is sentencing more lenient for attempted crimes? Surely its rewarding people with a bad aim?

I can understand certain cases of more lenient sentencing like attempted rape, where the act isn't carried through.

I don't think that as a rule an attempt is punished less than the comission of an offence, but I suppose in many cases the sentence would be lesser.

One obvious reason is that the impact on the victim is usually less than it would be had the offence been completed. A judge is entitled to take account of how the offence affected the victim when determining the severity of a sentence.

I suppose another reason is, as you point out, the inexperienced, rash or incompetent criminal is less of a threat to society than a professional, organised criminal.

There is also the possibility that such a person was about to commit the crime out of desparation, but at the last moment had an attack of conscience/nerves and would therefore be an appropriate candidate for rehabilitation.

Other arguments could be that an attempt is harder to prove, and the person was only convicted because of their co-operation with the Gardai or by their guilty plea, or that they didn't try to cover up their crime (and thus aggravate it).

mikemac

I do know when visiting our local jail (a heritage tour, not a resident;)), we were told in the 19th century you get the death penalty for

1. Murder
2. Attempted Murder
3. Conspiracy to commit murder

No distinction was made between the three. This must be only a recent thing

johnnyskeleton

micmclo wrote: »

I do know when visiting our local jail (a heritage tour, not a resident;)), we were told in the 19th century you get the death penalty for

1. Murder
2. Attempted Murder
3. Conspiracy to commit murder

No distinction was made between the three. This must be only a recent thing

In the 19th century, you'd be just as likely to be hung for [stealing] a sheep as for a lamb, so I don't think it's a good example. Back then you were hung for a wide variety of offences - pretty much everything other than minor summary offences. It didn't act as a deterrent, and there was much more crime then than there is now (albeit for other reasons).

Time Magazine

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It didn't act as a deterrent, and there was much more crime then than there is now (albeit for other reasons).

Your comparative statics are wrong and you admit it yourself in your final remark. Several factors influence crime, one of them being the penalty if caught. Others, such as poverty/labour market factors were far, far conducive to crime back then. For illustrative purposes, let's assume they were three times as bad and the deterrence effect may twice as much as it is now. The net effect: higher crime. But saying "it didn't act as a deterrent" is wrong, unless you have good evidence to back it up.

Regarding the topic, I have no idea why the sentence is lesser.

Tom Young

Attempt requires intent - so where the requisite intent is present and the act as intended is incomplete then the charge can be attempted - something.

As the act is incomplete the offence falls into the category of an inchoate offence or incomplete offence, thus it would not and should not attract a penalty of the gravity of the completed act.

Trojan911

Open to correction here but, an attempt could be construed as an act that was more than merely preparitry, thus the reason it carries the same penalty as actually doing it.

TJ911...

johnnyskeleton

Ibid wrote: »

Your comparative statics are wrong and you admit it yourself in your final remark. Several factors influence crime, one of them being the penalty if caught. Others, such as poverty/labour market factors were far, far conducive to crime back then. For illustrative purposes, let's assume they were three times as bad and the deterrence effect may twice as much as it is now. The net effect: higher crime. But saying "it didn't act as a deterrent" is wrong, unless you have good evidence to back it up.

First of all, I mentioned no statistics. My view is that for serious offences, the potential punishment is no deterrent /negligible deterrent to their commission.

Several studies have suggested that the death penalty (and mutatis mandatis other criminal sanctions) do not substantially alter the amount of crime in a country. While the argument that the ordinary person is deterred by the thought of the gallows, a person in a desparate or passionate situation probably doesn't even think of the sanction, because they either don't believe they will get caught or because they are not even thinking about it.

I don't have specific imperical data for the 19th century, however, I stand over my belief that in general, the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. Many modern studies illustrate this conclusion, and in the words of Tom O'Malley "The practical problem with deterrence is the dearth of evidence that it works".

Here's a good link:Columbia University Page. Note that there are statistics from both pro and anti death penalty organisations, and I would suggest that these are by and large an attempt to fit the statistics to their views rather than a more general independent inquiry. I think Nigel Walker came to the same conclusion about deterrence - that some crimes simply cannot be deterred by punishment alone.

prodigal_son

a guy up in northern ireland got 22 years for attempted murder not too long ago.

I think they take the circumstances into account. Some people will be considered a threat and others would be considered very unlikely to re offend.

Gobán Saor

Would be interesting to see if the incidence of armed robbery fell after the Lusk PO shoot out. Or if the incidence of attacks on the elderly in remote areas fell after the Frog Ward killing.

This would go to testing the validity of the deterrence effect rather than the morality of it. (in case the ultra PC brigade are around:rolleyes:)

Fey!

In attempt v actual, could it be that the attempted would be much harder to prove? If a defendent said "I only meant to hurt him" rather than "I meant to kill kim but missed", how do you prove an intent of murder?

Tom Young

The act of attempt is some conduct on the part of an accused person which is sufficiently proximiate to the intended offence to incur criminal liability. If the conduct of too remote or is merely preparatory in nature the accused will not be convicted.

johnnyskeleton

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Would be interesting to see if the incidence of armed robbery fell after the Lusk PO shoot out. Or if the incidence of attacks on the elderly in remote areas fell after the Frog Ward killing.

This would go to testing the validity of the deterrence effect rather than the morality of it. (in case the ultra PC brigade are around:rolleyes:)

That's very different in that the offenders you mention were killed/murdered/summarily executed depending on your opinion. They were not judicially processed. The deterrence referred to above relates to the deterrent effect of severe sentences, which is highly doubtful, as opposed to other deterrent factors (such as police and citizen vigilance, which can be strong deterrents).

johnnyskeleton

Fey! wrote: »

In attempt v actual, could it be that the attempted would be much harder to prove? If a defendent said "I only meant to hurt him" rather than "I meant to kill kim but missed", how do you prove an intent of murder?

The fact that he shouts "I'm going to kill you because I want to kill you and it is my intention to kill you. By that I mean that I have formed the requisite mens rea to unlawfully end your life by this impending act of pysical violence".

Usually, by the time they've said all this the victim has escaped and gone off to the police.

It's a question for the jury to decide. They are entitled to look at the accused's conduct and, if they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that they did intend to kill the other person they can convict of attempted murder. If they believe his story that he only meant to hurt the person, they could find him guilty of assault.

Muff_Daddy

Am I right in saying that an 'attempted murder' carries a lesser sentence than actual murder because the fact that the intended victim is still alive is a mitigating factor in the sentencing? If you end someone's life the arguement can be made that you have given up your own, where if you haven't actually ended a life (although you intended to), technically can you be said to have lost your right to life?

Personally, I believe attempted anything SHOULD be treated the same as actual anything, but there is a lot of things to be decided in a court of law, especially when it comes to murder. It depends on what a judge views as most significant, the mens rea or the actus reus. If it's the latter, then a judge would be more leniant towards a person accused of an attempted crime.

Tom Young

A person convicted of an attempt may be pubished as though the substantive offence had actually been completed.

monkey tennis

I see criminal punishment has having two intended effects:

1. Deterrant for future crimes (both for the prosecuted him/herself, and as an example to others)

2. Revenge (both for society in general, and for the victim or victim's family - as animalistic as it might seem, I believe revenge can be a significant part of the psychological healing process)

A murder would require both effects in full. An attempted (unsuccessful) murder would require only the first, and possibly a little of the second. This could explain a difference in sentencing.

johnnyskeleton

monkey tennis wrote: »

2. Revenge (both for society in general, and for the victim or victim's family - as animalistic as it might seem, I believe revenge can be a significant part of the psychological healing process)

A murder would require both effects in full. An attempted (unsuccessful) murder would require only the first, and possibly a little of the second. This could explain a difference in sentencing.

I believe that "revenge" can be very harmful to the victims of crime, compounding the harm done by the original offence. It forces the victim to think constantly about the offender, and they can become emotionally focused and hung up on the event. A better, more healthier, way to deal with crime is to come to terms with it and move on.

I don't believe that the actual victims of crime (and representative organisations) are baying for blood like the tabloids make them out to be. Some do, and I would not seek to take away from them, but it seems to me that the very palpable atmosphere of calls for revenge stem from the need to sell newspapers rather than out of any genuine concern for the victims of crime. They have become a political football for anyone who wishes to push the agenda of tougher sentences.

I take no issue with people who openly admit that they would feel safer if there were tougher sentences, indeed that is a valid argument in my view. But, with the greatest of respect, it disgusts me the way the victims of crime have become political fodder used to support any tough-on-crime campeign going.

But insofar as this relates to the original post, victim impact statements can often have a strong influence upon the sentence to be imposed by the judge.

Rhonda9000

I definitely agree re. the perspective of the accused vs. perspective of ordinary decent citizen with regard to death sentence.

On a slightly obtuse level, I think the death sentence [if its use was widespread on perpetrators of serious crime] would have a useful economic merit. It's without doubt a lot cheaper to poison and burn them then to have them hanging around in cells fed and clothed all day for years with a staff. I also think that for the most part the death sentence does little in the way of detterance.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

First of all, I mentioned no statistics. My view is that for serious offences, the potential punishment is no deterrent /negligible deterrent to their commission.

Several studies have suggested that the death penalty (and mutatis mandatis other criminal sanctions) do not substantially alter the amount of crime in a country. While the argument that the ordinary person is deterred by the thought of the gallows, a person in a desparate or passionate situation probably doesn't even think of the sanction, because they either don't believe they will get caught or because they are not even thinking about it.

I don't have specific imperical data for the 19th century, however, I stand over my belief that in general, the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. Many modern studies illustrate this conclusion, and in the words of Tom O'Malley "The practical problem with deterrence is the dearth of evidence that it works".

Here's a good link:Columbia University Page. Note that there are statistics from both pro and anti death penalty organisations, and I would suggest that these are by and large an attempt to fit the statistics to their views rather than a more general independent inquiry. I think Nigel Walker came to the same conclusion about deterrence - that some crimes simply cannot be deterred by punishment alone.

johnnyskeleton

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

On a slightly obtuse level, I think the death sentence [if its use was widespread on perpetrators of serious crime] would have a useful economic merit. It's without doubt a lot cheaper to poison and burn them then to have them hanging around in cells fed and clothed all day for years with a staff. I also think that for the most part the death sentence does little in the way of detterance.

The economic argument falls down on two points - when you have a situation like in America where people spend perhaps 20 years waiting on death row, it is just as expensive (if not more so) and it is a form of cruel and unusual punishment to be sitting under the sword of damocles.

But more importantly, we cannot place an economic value on a human life. If we say that it's cheaper to kill someone than it is to have them as a drain on the public purse, we go down a very dark path. That line of thought, carried to it's logical conclusion, could be used to justify "putting to sleep" the elderly and the long term unemployed, not to mention any other social/ethnic groups which the government or societal prejudice consider to be extraenous.

Victor

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

On a slightly obtuse level, I think the death sentence [if its use was widespread on perpetrators of serious crime] would have a useful economic merit. It's without doubt a lot cheaper to poison and burn them then to have them hanging around in cells fed and clothed all day for years with a staff. I also think that for the most part the death sentence does little in the way of detterance.

In the USA, the cost of appeals exceeds the cost of life imprisonment.