Poll: What's The Difference Between Attempted Murder And Murder?

[Shpongled]

I'm kind of ignoring the fact that she's 12, that fact pretty much moots any discussion about the law relating to this case anyway.

There is no bullet in the gun, what he's attempting to do is (for the sake of argument) impossible. Equally as impossible as trying to kill someone with magic.

As we can see, the girl is equally as willing to kill a person as the man is. There's no difference between the man using a gun that wont kill and the girl using magic that wont kill. If you're convicting someone for same length of time as murder on the basis that they the public needs to be protected then A) You're sentencing someone for murder before they committed the crime and B) There's no reason to assume the girl will be using magic next time she wants to kill. Again, both are equally as willing to kill.

You say she shouldn't be liable as what she's trying to do is commit the impossible? What about the case of shooting the corpse. It's in no way, shape or form ever going to kill anyone, because the target was already dead. He was attempting the impossible.

The lack of bullet in the gun means nothing. Once again, its a case of incompetence. He had the motivation and drive to get a gun and put it to someones head. The gunmen in question has the ability to use an unquestionable means to kill someone. The girl clearly does not thus why she sought out a passive aggressive method. That women is not a threat but in need of help. What she did was no different then staring at someone and wishing they would explode. As much as i believe that person will truly explode its not happening and i have not honestly tried to commit murder. Now if i picked up a weapon and sought to murder them with said weapon, or even my bare hands, i am demonstrating that i truly have the mentality to end a life with my own hands. I have the mentality to end someones life.

The gunman in question does NOT have the unquestionable means to kill someone, the gun isn't loaded with live rounds.


When it comes to the man with the blanks. He has demonstrated that he is willing to kill another man face to face. This isn't about whether its impossible but rather that the method being put to use shows the seriousness of the motivation. The method of firing a weapon into a victim is undeniably effective. The method of slashing up a person is undeniably effective. As much as someone tells you they honestly believe casting a 'death' spell will kill someone they clearly don't have the ability to take the actions in a realistic way. If that person truly wanted to kill someone they would bring the hammer down themselves.[/quote]

Pulling the trigger of an unloaded gun is not an undeniably effective way of killing someone, whether he thinks it is or not. Wishing someone to die through magic is not an undeniably effective way of killing someone, whether she thinks it is or not.

What it comes down to is simple. The man shooting blanks and the one shooting corpses both demonstrated that they are unquestionably willing to commit murder. The girl has demonstrated that she is upset or angry. The first man was simply beaten to the murder and had he come sooner he would have shot him anyways. He was still willing to kill the person. The man with the blanks was incompetent and loaded the weapon wrong. He still has the ability to pull the trigger.

Read the scenario:

3. Different scenario: Mary Sue is a 12 year old girl who really hates her math teacher. Mary Sue believes in magic - like actual witchcraft. Her parents are kinda weird and have given her some weird ideas about how the world works, and Mary Sue thinks she's seen magic heal and hurt people before. So Mary Sue does what she thinks is a magic ritual that will curse her math teacher and lead to his quick death. Obviously, nothing ever happens and he never dies. Should she still be prosecuted for murder?

She acts out a ritual that she genuinely believes will kill someone, she clearly shows that she is just as willing as the man to commit murder.

To treat the girl in the exact same manner would mean that every single time anyone has had a revenge fantasy and wished it was true should turn themselves in for Attempted murder.[/quote]

Exactly, which is why i don't think intent should be the sole factor in deciding sentence.

I still don't see how you can deny that the girl has not shown she is willing to commit murder. Thus your argument for the same sentence as murder should apply for all cases. This girl (forgetting age for a minute) should receive a life sentence, as she is clearly a threat to society.

 

[TheComedown]

You missed.

It does depend on the case, but i do think that that 99% of the time the sentence should be the same, the only difference between attempted murder and actual murder is you missed.

Is that avatar from Twelve Angry Men? If so, I've never seen better placement.

Haha, yes, yes it is from 12 Angry Men

 

[arsenicCatnip]

If they tried to kill someone, they should be arrested. The only difference is that they weren't successful. It was the same intention. Imagine if someone tried to kill you and they were let free. Then you would be paranoid the rest of your life in case they try to do it again.

Yeah, about that... I try to avoid spending time alone with my brother. Having him try to kill me twice in less than a year, I'm just a wee bit paranoid.

That said, I think attempted murder doesn't need to carry the same sentence, but it should still be pretty harsh.

 

[Miumaru]

Not really, since I think there is a difference. For all you know, the whole reason it was not a full murder was because they started to try but then couldn't do it and got caught. One thing to want to and even try to kill someone, a different thing to actually do it. Both should be very severe though.

 

[RottingAwesome]

well i would think that a person who actually did manage to murder might feel more regret and be more likely to repent as opposed to someone who didn't manage to carry out the full action
this of course is completely different from person to person... i honestly don't know

 

[itsnotyouitsme]

To put this in a way half of you will understand:
It's like any anime like bleach where everyone around the main character, who undoubtedly has become a demon at this point, is shouting, "If it kills him, he won't come back" or something along that lines. Naturally he doesn't kill him, normally anyways, and he just faints and comes back into being a human. Or he DOES kill the person and he gets lost forever as a monster which is usually taken care of in the next episode.
For the other half of you:
It's like shooting the captain on halo after you first meet him on the ship. If you shoot him on the foot he tells you to stop it. But if you kill him they send in the invincible marines to kill you.
And for those of you who do not understand yet:
0% being innocent of the deed, 100% being a murderer, 50% is attempted. At 50% of the way you can still go back or go forward, it's the same distance either way.
So attempted means you still have a chance to redeem yourself while if you do it there's no way back.
Saving a half-dead man is possible but you can't resurrect someone.

 

[Kagim]

-snip-

Your missing the point. Your looking at the effect and outcomes. I'm looking at the honest mentalities of the people at hand.

The people willing to use physical and unquestionable methods to kill are threats to society.

Can a gun firing blanks kill people? No.
Did he intend to have blanks in the gun? No.
So because he screwed up does that mean he shouldn't have the potential to face life imprisonment? No.

That's like saying if i see a man pointing a gun at someone i should wait for them to shoot someone before i bother trying to stop him otherwise he met get a shorter sentence. Its like saying doctors should allow victims to expire because if the victim lives they might not get life in prison.

Yes, i realize that the girl "thinks" it will work. In a test tube situation you would have a point. Applying the situation to a realistic scenario however odds are the girl is merely upset and angry and not a threat. Thus why she sought a PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE MEDIUM.

In the cases of the other two the people are facing there victims and attempting to end the lives themselves. In a realistic and test tube scenario the people clearly show they have the will to end someones life. There is no way you can honestly say either of them lack the ability to pick up another weapon and try again.

The people using firearms with the intent to kill clearly have the mentality in them to take matters into there own hands and end a life.

The person (Regardless of age, seeing as how i didn't bring it up in my last post) is relying on mystical forces to end the persons life. Regardless of how much they truly and honestly believes it will work the fact of the matter is that she is incapable of performing the act herself. The person is relying on a mystical force to kill them. Not their own self. No matter how much they truly thinks this spell will work the person still does not have the will to see through the murder with their own hands.

That person requires psychiatric help. I am not being an asshole there I honestly mean it. They clearly need to receive help with there problems before they move forward and pick up the knife.

Exactly, which is why i don't think intent should be the sole factor in deciding sentence.

Clearly neither do I. If i thought intent should be the sole deciding factor then i would say the girl needs life imprisonment. I don't. She needs a doctor.

Edit:

3. Different scenario: Mary Sue is a 12 year old girl who really hates her math teacher. Mary Sue believes in magic - like actual witchcraft*. Her parents are kinda weird and have given her some weird ideas about how the world works, and Mary Sue thinks she's seen magic heal and hurt people before. So Mary Sue does what she thinks is a magic ritual that will curse her math teacher and lead to his quick death. Obviously, nothing ever happens and he never dies. Should she still be prosecuted for murder?

The particular scenario requires age IS brought into question however. She is a young girl angry at a math teacher and believes magic spells will end his life. No. I do not believe she is attempting murder. I believe she is an angry 12 year old child.

*concerning actual witchcraft... There is no such thing. Even according to Faithful Wiccan leaders witchcraft is barely sixty years old that have nothing to do with 'death' rituals and curses. So the person in question, regardless of age, must be following something they have seen on tv, read in the media, read about on a random obscure page. Meaning the person is likely more injured mentally then a murderer. The person is taking a last ditch effort they found somewhere believing it will work in pain or grief. This person can become a killer if mental help is not found. However in the meantime the person is still just hurting psychologically. At. Any. Age.

 

[Rofl-Mayo]

I believe it should be an eye for an eye. If someone kills, they too shall be killed, via the death sentence. However in attempted murder, no they shouldn't carry the same charge, they should just receive what they did to the victim before his/her arrest.

 

[Kagim]

I believe it should be an eye for an eye. If someone kills, they too shall be killed, via the death sentence. However in attempted murder, no they shouldn't carry the same charge, they should just receive what they did to the victim before his/her arrest.

So your saying i should be allowed to shoot at people as long as i miss seeing as how my only punishment would be to stand still while the people I shot at now get to shoot at the wall around me?

 

[Rofl-Mayo]

I believe it should be an eye for an eye. If someone kills, they too shall be killed, via the death sentence. However in attempted murder, no they shouldn't carry the same charge, they should just receive what they did to the victim before his/her arrest.

So your saying i should be allowed to shoot at people as long as i miss seeing as how my only punishment would be to stand still while the people I shot at now get to shoot at the wall around me?

Lol, pretty much, yeah. I guess you have a point.

 

[xXGeckoXx]

No, anyone who commits attempted murder should be given the death sentence to better the gene pool. Honestly, if you can't even manage to kill someone...

Same for the actual murderers. Honestly if they cant even get avoid getting caught...

 

[Jamieson 90]

This is what I don't like about the law its very subjective on some matters yet does not seem to care on other matters.

Why is it if you are speeding the law does not care what so ever about your intentions? I could be driving to a family emergency? perhaps I have someone who needs to get to the hospital?

Or that man awhile back who handed in a shotgun he found to a UK police station, His intentions were clear he wanted to take a dangerous weapon off the streets, anyone with common sense can see that. The law did not care, having a firearm in the UK is illegal, and he was arrested, clear message the law does not care what your intentions are.

Then we get 'Attempted murder' seriously thats just a made up thing, Either you murder someone or you don't. Why should your intentions matter? the law didn't care in the other circumstances. Obviously there are going to be problems but there should be clear categories for the crimes. Instead of Attempted murder how about the accused caused the victim Near fatal inuries?

The law needs to be consistent and not subjective.

 

[Valkyrie101]

I voted "depends on the circumstance" - for example the attempted witchcraft case earlier, where no one was actually put in any kind of danger, but for the majority of cases it should be the same punishment.

 

[Bluesclues]

Why shouldn't you be liable for murder? If you've shot them in the back they're either unaware of your presence or running away. If he's running away or unaware of your presence, you have no right to kill them. Loss of possesions simply isn't worth the loss of human life, especially when the option of simply threatening or at wounding is still open.

You misunderstand. What if it wasn't loss of posession but loss of life? What if that invader had murdered your spouse? That same law allows you to shoot them if they are facing you, and it would be considered self-defense. But just as you said, of shot in the back it is considered murder because it looks as if they are running away and you shot them down in cold blood. Even if they are on your property and attempted to steal something, or cause you or someone else harm.

Changes nothing, if he's running away after killing someone you are no longer in danger. It's the job of the criminal justice system to punish him now, not you.

I guess because it's considered vigilantism? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm only suggesting that being liable for murder after someone threatens yours or a loved one's life seems a bit backwards, considering if they merely turn 180 degrees it will become self-defense.

 

[WrongSprite]

How the hell is everybody saying they should carry the same sentence?!? There's a big difference in that THE VICTIM IS STILL ALIVE.

 

[Bluesclues]

I think a lot of people here have a misconception of the charge "attempted murder". When you get charged with attempted murder, it doesn't necessarily mean you were attempting to kill someone and failed. As I stated before, a person could be charged with attempted murder just for causing enough physical harm to another person, without necessarily attempting to kill them.

In a fit of rage, you could cause enough physical harm to a person, without intending to kill them at any point in time, and be found guilty of attempted murder in a court of law. It's like what one other commenter said, that's why we have other charges, like manslaughter.

A person could genuinely not intend to cause any form of harm to anyone and still manage to kill someone under the proper circumstances, like for example, a drunk or reckless driver who crashes into and kills a family of 4. He may not have intended to do this, but it still happened, and so he should be held accountable for his actions.

Equally, however, he could also receive counts of murder in the nth degree (I forget which), because of the fact that his actions could have been prevented. With the proper prosecution or jury, that driver could be found guilty of both manslaughter AND murder.

My point is, there's a reason why attempted murder and murder have different sentences, and there's a reason why in some cases they carry the same sentence. It's why we hold trials to begin with, because it's not always as black and white as "You killed him/you tried to kill him", it's more of a "what were you doing that killed him/almost killed him?" It's always going to be a case-by-case basis.