Should "attempted murder" be considered a crime?

[Pennsylvania]

//

[newyearsrevolution08]

I think the person should be charged with whatever it is they did. If they didn't murder them then why get charged with anything related to it INCLUDING attempting to do it.

If I am an idiot who wants to rob a bank for instance and on my way to the bank I get in a car accident or something. I have all of my gear, my bank layouts and plans, should I be charged with "attempted bank robbery" simply because that was my intent? or should I just be charged with the accident, having odds are an illegal gun in the car and so on.

[Truth Warrior]

Intention and motive are large elements of criminal justice. Just because you screwed it up, doesn't excuse the intention.<IMHO> ;)

[Number19]

...So let's say someone is caught in the act of trying to murder someone but the would-be victim is not killed or hurt in any physical way...How do you "prove" the "intent" is "murder"? The charge should be "assault". Without an example, it's hard to come up with a concrete answer. What I came up with is an assailant coming at a blackbelt with a knife. The martial artist should easily thwart the attack without injury to himself, or herself. In this case the charge would be assault. "Intent to murder" would be impossible to prove. I think any other example would be the same.

[nate895]

Attempted murder ought to be a crime. My cousin's husband was arrested for the crime of trying to murder his own wife and children, and the neighbor where he stole the weapons from. He was stopped because he called my uncle's home and told him that he was going to do it. The police arrived, and stopped him from killing the neighbor, who had luckily been on the phone while he was hiding in the garage waiting for her to get off the phone so he it would take longer to figure out that she was dead. The only crime that he committed, if attempting isn't a crime, which it is presumed to be (we don't even technically have laws against it, it is assumed to be a crime, similar to murder and theft themselves) was trespassing. Somehow, I don't think that that is justice. The man, if left free, will hunt down and kill my cousins, and my uncle and aunt.

[dannno]

Attempted murder ought to be a crime. My cousin's husband was arrested for the crime of trying to murder his own wife and children, and the neighbor where he stole the weapons from. He was stopped because he called my uncle's home and told him that he was going to do it. The police arrived, and stopped him from killing the neighbor, who had luckily been on the phone while he was hiding in the garage waiting for her to get off the phone so he it would take longer to figure out that she was dead. The only crime that he committed, if attempting isn't a crime, which it is presumed to be (we don't even technically have laws against it, it is assumed to be a crime, similar to murder and theft themselves) was trespassing. Somehow, I don't think that that is justice. The man, if left free, will hunt down and kill my cousins, and my uncle and aunt.


Good example.


If somebody goes into a store and puts an expensive item under their coat, and they get caught by security they can be arrested for stealing. They didn't take the item out of the store, but they were planning on it, and it can be proven.

It has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was attempting murder, not just assault, etc.. but it is the same thing, attempting murder is like going into a store and putting an expensive item under your jacket and getting caught before making your way to the exit.

[SeanEdwards]

"Intent to murder" would be impossible to prove. I think any other example would be the same.

Courts are not laboratories. Criminal cases are never "proved" in the way scientific hypothesises are tested. They are merely proved beyond reasonable doubt. A court can legally "prove" intent, even without being able to examine the inner thoughts of a suspect. They just have to pose the question, "Would a reasonable person conclude that the crime was an attempt to murder?"

[Number19]

...The man, if left free, will hunt down and kill my cousins, and my uncle and aunt.Don't they own a gun? Can't they defend themselves?

[SeanEdwards]

Don't they own a gun? Can't they defend themselves?

Are you trying to argue that I can build a bomb, and place it next to your house, and that as long as I'm an incompetent bomb maker, that I'm not guilty of any crime?

[nate895]

Courts are not laboratories. Criminal cases are never "proved" in the way scientific hypothesises are tested. They are merely proved beyond reasonable doubt. A court can legally "prove" intent, even without being able to examine the inner thoughts of a suspect. They just have to pose the question, "Would a reasonable person conclude that the crime was an attempt to murder?"

Exactly. A reasonable person would say someone waiting behind a door with a loaded gun who just called another person to tell them they are going to kill someone would say that they are attempting murder. Is it absolute fact? Maybe not, but that maybe is one in a thousand. Unless if you have videotape evidence with infallible DNA evidence, nothing is ever 100% true.

[nate895]

Don't they own a gun? Can't they defend themselves?

Since the case is still pending, I will not tell you that.

[TastyWheat]

A few months ago, full of liberty-loving euphoria, I would've said no way. However, I think the real world can't be quite so black and white. The example you gave Nate, does paint a good picture of the situation. I wouldn't call the would-be assailant innocent, but I wouldn't exactly call him guilty. Some of us talk a pretty big game but we never "pull the trigger" (sometimes that doesn't need quotes). We may never know if he really would've killed them, so technically he's only guilty of "death threats".

It is presumed that an "attempted murderer" will attempt to kill again or is a threat to the community in some way. I don't believe that the penal system exists to punish wrongdoers or to reform people, neither seems to happen. The penal system is there to keep "bad people" off the streets. The bigger question may be, should the government imprison people as a preventative measure?

[nate895]

A few months ago, full of liberty-loving euphoria, I would've said no way. However, I think the real world can't be quite so black and white. The example you gave Nate, does paint a good picture of the situation. I wouldn't call the would-be assailant innocent, but I wouldn't exactly call him guilty. Some of us talk a pretty big game but we never "pull the trigger" (sometimes that doesn't need quotes). We may never know if he really would've killed them, so technically he's only guilty of "death threats".

It is presumed that an "attempted murderer" will attempt to kill again or is a threat to the community in some way. I don't believe that the penal system exists to punish wrongdoers or to reform people, neither seems to happen. The penal system is there to keep "bad people" off the streets. The bigger question may be, should the government imprison people as a preventative measure?

As far as imprisoning for prevention, it really depends on what you mean. If someone has already committed a violation of another's rights, then, yes, they should be locked up to prevent them from doing it again, or has come so close that any reasonable person would believe they would have committed the crime if given opportunity (such as my cousin's neighbor hanging up before the police arrived). If you mean people that haven't yet even come close, but fit a certain profile, that is wrong and shouldn't be done.

As far as the case goes, the defense is going to go with insanity, but we aren't sure if they are going with temporary or permanent.

[Number19]

Attempted murder ought to be a crime. My cousin's husband was arrested for the crime of trying to murder his own wife and children, and the neighbor where he stole the weapons from. He was stopped because he called my uncle's home and told him that he was going to do it. The police arrived, and stopped him from killing the neighbor, who had luckily been on the phone while he was hiding in the garage waiting for her to get off the phone so he it would take longer to figure out that she was dead. The only crime that he committed, if attempting isn't a crime, which it is presumed to be (we don't even technically have laws against it, it is assumed to be a crime, similar to murder and theft themselves) was trespassing. Somehow, I don't think that that is justice. The man, if left free, will hunt down and kill my cousins, and my uncle and aunt.As described, the crime in this case was not only trespassing. Possession of a deadly weapon on private property, trespassing, hiding in the garage, after stating intent, would be "attempted deadly assault". Murder is the actual act of killing someone. It's a fine line, but a distinct one. Simply hiding in the garage was an assault, possession of the weapon made it deadly. But one can never know with certainty that "murder" would have been the outcome. The assailant may have "come to his senses" at the last moment. If murder is a life sentence, or execution, what is the sentence for "attempted murder"? 30, 40, 50 years? "Attempted murder" should be reserved for for an act where the victim has been seriously injured, but survived. This is not what was asked in the original question. The situation as described here would warrant a sentence of, maybe, 10 years, possibly 15.

[nate895]

As described, the crime in this case was not only trespassing. Possession of a deadly weapon on private property, trespassing, hiding in the garage, after stating intent, would be "attempted deadly assault". Murder is the actual act of killing someone. It's a fine line, but a distinct one. Simply hiding in the garage was an assault, possession of the weapon made it deadly. But one can never know with certainty that "murder" would have been the outcome. The assailant may have "come to his senses" at the last moment. If murder is a life sentence, or execution, what is the sentence for "attempted murder"? 30, 40, 50 years? "Attempted murder" should be reserved for for an act where the victim has been seriously injured, but survived. This is not what was asked in the original question. The situation as described here would warrant a sentence of, maybe, 10 years, possibly 15.

That is the detention period he would serve, unless if his defense goes with insanity and wins, then he could serve anywhere from a couple years to the rest of his life in a state mental ward. All I have to say is that the circumstances of the case leads any reasonable person to believe that he was going to commit murder. To summarize, it involves a cult and money.

[Number19]

Since the case is still pending, I will not tell you that.Understandable. More rhetorical. We have a second amendment Right to own firearms and to use them in self defense. Every citizen should assume this responsibility.

[Number19]

Are you trying to argue that I can build a bomb, and place it next to your house, and that as long as I'm an incompetent bomb maker, that I'm not guilty of any crime?Already answered. A bomb is much deadlier than a knife, or even a gun. Attempted use of a bomb would warrant the heavier sentence, 20 years, or possibly more.

[Number19]

I should amend my statement. The situation discussed was not "attempted deadly assault" - it was "deadly assault". The same for the bomb scenario. Attempted deadly assault might be the charge if you found bomb making supplies in an apartment, maybe a bomb partially assembled, with other evidence that the bomb was intended to be used against people, and not just to blow up tree stumps.

[nickcoons]

If I understand the OP's question correctly, it is more general in whether or not attempts at injury should be considered crimes, not the specifics of calling it "assault", "attempted murder", or some other name.

We could look at what accessory crimes may have been committed in the process, such as trespassing in order to commit the assumed intended crime. But the punishment for this sort of crime may not be considered severe enough for those wanting to thwart the assumed intended crime.

The question is philosophical in nature. If something can only be legitimately called a crime if there is a victim (i.e. murder and theft are crimes, prostitution and drug use are not), then how do we stay consistent with that principle and still criminalize "attempted X"? Is it okay to charge someone with a crime that they have not yet committed? Does the retaliation of force not recognize the existence of a timeline? That is, is it okay to use retaliatory force before the initiation of force exists? Or is the attempted criminal initiating force in some other way such that he can be prosecuted?

An interesting discussion for sure.

[nate895]

If I understand the OP's question correctly, it is more general in whether or not attempts at injury should be considered crimes, not the specifics of calling it "assault", "attempted murder", or some other name.

We could look at what accessory crimes may have been committed in the process, such as trespassing in order to commit the assumed intended crime. But the punishment for this sort of crime may not be considered severe enough for those wanting to thwart the assumed intended crime.

The question is philosophical in nature. If something can only be legitimately called a crime if there is a victim (i.e. murder and theft are crimes, prostitution and drug use are not), then how do we stay consistent with that principle and still criminalize "attempted X"? Is it okay to charge someone with a crime that they have not yet committed? Does the retaliation of force not recognize the existence of a timeline? That is, is it okay to use retaliatory force before the initiation of force exists? Or is the attempted criminal initiating force in some other way such that he can be prosecuted?

An interesting discussion for sure.

It really depends on where you draw the line. I would say taking serious steps to commit a crime (such as going into a neighbor's house to steal a weapon, and waiting behind a door to kill that neighbor) is where there is a victim. If I say that I want to kill someone, but take no steps, I am obviously just being an asshole. But, if I said I was going to kill someone and I was caught in the process of procuring a weapon from his neighbor, who I was also going to kill, I have crossed the line to the point of making those people victims.

[satchelmcqueen]

....nevermind.

[nickcoons]

It really depends on where you draw the line.

Unless a philosophically logical argument can be made otherwise, I draw the line at the initiation of force. Someone who does is a criminal, someone who doesn't is not.


But, if I said I was going to kill someone and I was caught in the process of procuring a weapon from his neighbor, who I was also going to kill, I have crossed the line to the point of making those people victims.

I think that would be defining the word "victim" far too subjectively, and that is to say, not defining at all. I believe a victim is someone whose rights have been infringed upon. If you said that you wanted to kill me, and then worked to procure a weapon to do so, and that's as far as it went.. you haven't violated my rights in any way, so I am not a victim. I may have an extreme dislike for what you plan to do, but that itself doesn't make me a victim.

To say that I'm a victim would expand the definition of the word "victim" far too broadly, and it would mean that all sorts of non-aggressive actions could be considered crimes.

I am more than willing to entertain arguments explaining why I would be a victim in such a case, and therefore would make your actions criminal such that it would be morally correct to prosecute you for them. But so far, I don't think I've heard them.

[Number19]

If I understand the OP's question correctly, it is more general in whether or not attempts at injury should be considered crimes, not the specifics of calling it "assault", "attempted murder", or some other name.

We could look at what accessory crimes may have been committed in the process, such as trespassing in order to commit the assumed intended crime. But the punishment for this sort of crime may not be considered severe enough for those wanting to thwart the assumed intended crime.

The question is philosophical in nature. If something can only be legitimately called a crime if there is a victim (i.e. murder and theft are crimes, prostitution and drug use are not), then how do we stay consistent with that principle and still criminalize "attempted X"? Is it okay to charge someone with a crime that they have not yet committed? Does the retaliation of force not recognize the existence of a timeline? That is, is it okay to use retaliatory force before the initiation of force exists? Or is the attempted criminal initiating force in some other way such that he can be prosecuted?

An interesting discussion for sure.I agree. But taking things one step further, any decision you decide upon to be applied domestically, to be consistent, the same case could then be made for foreign policy. Would the U.S. have the right/responsibility to preemptively strike Iran for their, actual, nuclear capability (that being the case at some future time). What about "potential" nuclear capability?

A crime has to have been committed. In the example we have been discussing, murder has not been consummated. There has been an assault. When it comes to the Law, terminology has precise meaning. Misapplication of these definitions has consequences beyond the immediate intent.

[Original_Intent]

I guess I am not as libertarian as I thought.

If someone goes thru a crowded store randomly firing guns in all directions, not only is he liable for the physical damage, he is also liable for endangering others regardless of whether he actually injured anyone. <IMHO>

Samw with the druck driver and the person who can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be planning to kill someone. Yes he may come to his senses and not do it. But if he has threatened to do it or a plan to do it has been uncovered, I don't think the intended victim just has to "wait and see" if the person will follow thru.

Now should they be charged the same as someone who actually committed murder? No way. But does the law have to wait for him to carry out his plan, or actually attempt it? I don't think so.

Threatening or planning to kill or injure someone is depriving them of liberty. The threat itself is an act of violence. That's my two bits.

[nickcoons]

I agree. But taking things one step further, any decision you decide upon to be applied domestically, to be consistent, the same case could then be made for foreign policy. Would the U.S. have the right/responsibility to preemptively strike Iran for their, actual, nuclear capability (that being the case at some future time). What about "potential" nuclear capability?

I don't agree with your example, because it presupposes that we have the right to strike Iran for not just a potential nuclear capability, but an actual one.

Certainly "actual" murder is a crime, so the question is whether or not "potential" murder is a crime, and that is based on "actual" murder being a crime ("potential" murder is decidedly not a crime if "actual" murder is not).

On the other hand, "actual" nuclear capability of Iran is not a crime, so there is no basis for the claim that "potential" nuclear capability is a crime.


A crime has to have been committed. In the example we have been discussing, murder has not been consummated. There has been an assault. When it comes to the Law, terminology has precise meaning. Misapplication of these definitions has consequences beyond the immediate intent.

I agree that no crime has been committed simply by the virtue of an attempted crime. The only thing I can philosophically argue for, at this point, is to accessory crimes (like trespassing in the process of attempting to murder). My question would then be, other than accessory crimes, is there any point in which a crime has been committed at any instant before an actual murder has occurred? If so, I think it would be this crime that proponents of "attempted murder" are trying to prosecute for.

[Number19]

I guess I am not as libertarian as I thought.

If someone goes thru a crowded store randomly firing guns in all directions, not only is he liable for the physical damage, he is also liable for endangering others regardless of whether he actually injured anyone. <IMHO>

Samw with the druck driver and the person who can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be planning to kill someone. Yes he may come to his senses and not do it. But if he has threatened to do it or a plan to do it has been uncovered, I don't think the intended victim just has to "wait and see" if the person will follow thru.

Now should they be charged the same as someone who actually committed murder? No way. But does the law have to wait for him to carry out his plan, or actually attempt it? I don't think so.

Threatening or planning to kill or injure someone is depriving them of liberty. The threat itself is an act of violence. That's my two bits.Reminds me of John Ringold (Johnny Ringo) and Doc Holiday. Ringo had been making threatening remarks toward Doc in the saloons around town, so Doc called him out when they met, by chance, on the street. Ringo backed down.

[Number19]

...On the other hand, "actual" nuclear capability of Iran is not a crime...I'm not sure the neo-cons would agree with this. They do think that Iran building a nuclear (and I'm talking bombs) capability is a crime.

[SeanEdwards]

If people think this is bad, they should investigate the intricacies of conspiracy charges. The penalty for conspiracy to commit a crime is the same as the penalty for the crime itself, and people can be convicted of conspiracy to commit the crime, without any actual crime taking place at all.

An example of how this works in practice could go like this:

You and I are talking, and I mention that I was thinking how cool it would be to rob the local laundromat. Later, you go to the laundromat and do your laundry. At that point, we can both be charged with conspiracy to rob the laundromat, even though the laundromat doesn't get robbed. We've discussed the crime, and performed an act in furtherance of the plot, which in this case would be casing the laundromat. Now we can both be put in jail for the same prison term as if we had robbed the place. Isn't that cool?

[The_Orlonater]

If you were caught with a weapon ready to whack someone.

[1000-points-of-fright]

It's a very gray area. You have to balance protecting people with freedom.

What if I decide I want to kill someone, get a gun, and drive to their house. But while I'm parked outside waiting for them to come home, I change my mind and go home. Is that a crime? There's no victim and nobody knows about my plan except me.

Let's say I walk into a 7-11 and casually say "Give me all the money in the register". The clerk says " No". I say "It was worth a try" and leave. What is the crime?

[nickcoons]

I'm not sure the neo-cons would agree with this.

Neocons are wrong about many things, and this is no exception.


They do think that Iran building a nuclear (and I'm talking bombs) capability is a crime.

If our government thinks that building nuclear bombs is a crime, then they're going to have a hell of a time trying to defend that position.

[escapinggreatly]

The negative results of establishing the "No" side would be more detrimental than the negative results of sticking with the "Yes" side.
__________________

http://www.meltingpotproject.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/22/libertariansig.jpg
The Melting Pot Project: Proportional Representation. New Parties. Intern Jokes. (http://www.meltingpotproject.com/)

[KenInMontiMN]

Let's say I walk into a 7-11 and casually say "Give me all the money in the register". The clerk says " No". I say "It was worth a try" and leave. What is the crime?

The converse is an interesting question as well. Instead of demading I ask politely. "Excuse me, would you please hand me that cash in that drawer?" The clerk complies despite no display of threat. Do you convict me? Or did the clerk and I simply arrive at a mutual agreement of some sort?

[newyearsrevolution08]

until you COMMIT the crime, why the hell would you be charged with it.

Just because someone is too stupid to finish the job doesn't give people the right to condemn him as though he did.

How embarrassing though lol..