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

[Kagim]

So all you kids who think attempted murder should carry the same sentence as murder:

What if it's physically impossible for the attempt to succeed?

As in the following situations:

1. You take your gun and plan to shoot someone while he is sleeping. You enter your target's house at 1 am. You see his form in bed, in a dark room. You see his head and shoot it.

Little did you know that an hour earlier, at 12 am, some other guy was there first and held a pillow over your target's face until he died. You shot a dead body, but in the darkness you didn't know.

You should be punished the same as the first guy?

2. The same situation as above, but you didn't realize that your gun was loaded with blanks. You pulled the trigger and fired a blank cartridge that was a lot of sound and light, but no actual bullet. Should you still be punished for murder?

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?

I should go ahead and tell you right now - those are all actual examples of attempted murder under the law. I'd say most of you kids who think "attempted murder should always be punished the same as murder" haven't thought through all the actual possibilities - of which there are an infinite number of variations.

The fact is effects do actually matter, and a huge problem in the law is what to do with people who have good intentions but end up causing harm. But frankly most of you aren't smart enough or well-read enough to formulate an intelligent answer to these questions. I'd at least start with doing some basic reading before you go on to forums and spout crap about crime and punishment.

1. Yes. The only reason why they failed to murder was another murder. If the person wasn't already dead they would still be dead. The show American Justice kicks ass doesn't it.

2.Yes. Unless you personally put the blanks and were intending to scare someone you tried to kill someone and only failed due to incompetence and not checking your rounds.

3. No because magic isn't real and nobody was ever in any real danger. There is a difference between bringing an empty gun to a murder and casting spells. The gun was only not a threat due to an error on the person committing the crimes part. No matter how much the girl believes magic is real and no matter what she attempts to do with said magic she will never, ever harm anyone due to the lack of its existence. If the person carrying the blank gun just checked the ammo there would be a corpse. No amount of preparation in a spell would make a single hair on someones head fall out.

Note: If someone tries to debate me on the existence of magic i am simply going to ignore you. I don't bleeding care.

 

[Danny Ocean]

The fact is effects do actually matter, and a huge problem in the law is what to do with people who have good intentions but end up causing harm. But frankly most of you aren't smart enough or well-read enough to formulate an intelligent answer to these questions. I'd at least start with doing some basic reading before you go on to forums and spout crap about crime and punishment.

Agreed, but more decorously. Thanks for expressing my opinion so eloquently for me.

 

[Bluesclues]

I agree with the insulting guy, to an extent. There are several cases where attempted murder have been the applied sentence, though the intent was not at that level. Just because the name states "attempt", doesn't mean the criminal actually intended to kill someone.


For example: Myself and another gentlemen get into a fist fight, for whatever reason. I take the first swing and connect the punch. Automatically, I have assault as a charge. If I beat the ever loving shit out of him, it's aggrevated assault. If I use a weapon, the situation changes. From then on it can either be assault and battery, assault with a deadly weapon, or attempted murder. If the man dies, it'll be manslaughter, or with the right prosecution, premeditated murder in the X degree. And all the while I only intended to beat the person to a pulp.

My point is, they're different for a reason. It's not as black and white as "You bludgeoned him so you attempted to kill him and should be punished as severly as a murder would be", because quite frankly, there's too many varying situations.

FYI, did you know in some states, if you shoot a home invader in the back, you could be charged with murder?

 

[Shpongled]

-snip-

1. Yes. The only reason why they failed to murder was another murder. If the person wasn't already dead they would still be dead. The show American Justice kicks ass doesn't it.

2.Yes. Unless you personally put the blanks and were intending to scare someone you tried to kill someone and only failed due to incompetence and not checking your rounds.

3. No because magic isn't real and nobody was ever in any real danger. There is a difference between bringing an empty gun to a murder and casting spells. The gun was only not a threat due to an error on the person committing the crimes part. No matter how much the girl believes magic is real and no matter what she attempts to do with said magic she will never, ever harm anyone due to the lack of its existence. If the person carrying the blank gun just checked the ammo there would be a corpse. No amount of preparation in a spell would make a single hair on someones head fall out.

Note: If someone tries to debate me on the existence of magic i am simply going to ignore you. I don't bleeding care.

Whats the difference between a girl who believes her magic will kill someone and a man who thinks his gun will kill someone, when both weapons are essentially harmless as each other (ok, yes, blanks can cause burns at close ranges, but it isn't going to kill). The fact that he could have checked his ammo is irrelevant, the fact is he didn't.

Your logic is off here.

Yeah, people getting off lighter for attempted murder has always annoyed me. It's still freaking trying to kill somebody. Just because you failed at it doesn't mean you shouldn't get the same punishment.

But no one has died, how can you charge someone with a mandatory life sentence when they've done literally nothing.

The real issue with Attempt is the question of when does the attempt begin. Is it when the defendant buys the gun? Is it when he sets out towards his victim? When he lifts the gun, or all the way up to the point where he fires his gun?

The intent the kill his target has remained constant throughout the whole series of events, yet simply buying a gun and ending up doing nothing with it simply doesn't warrant a mandatory life sentence, it's not just.

I agree with the insulting guy, to an extent. There are several cases where attempted murder have been the applied sentence, though the intent was not at that level. Just because the name states "attempt", doesn't mean the criminal actually intended to kill someone.


For example: Myself and another gentlemen get into a fist fight, for whatever reason. I take the first swing and connect the punch. Automatically, I have assault as a charge. If I beat the ever loving shit out of him, it's aggrevated assault. If I use a weapon, the situation changes. From then on it can either be assault and battery, assault with a deadly weapon, or attempted murder. If the man dies, it'll be manslaughter, or with the right prosecution, premeditated murder in the X degree. And all the while I only intended to beat the person to a pulp.

My point is, they're different for a reason. It's not as black and white as "You bludgeoned him so you attempted to kill him and should be punished as severly as a murder would be", because quite frankly, there's too many varying situations.

FYI, did you know in some states, if you shoot a home invader in the back, you could be charged with murder?

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.

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

Attempted murder is basically when the victim gets lucky. I my self believe the two of them deserve the same punishment. In the end the context is the same, they wished to murder someone, The culprit can say 'I wasn't going to really kill him/her' all he wants but we simply won't know that and all we are aware of is that the individual is a threat to the life and health to civilians.

 

[CrystalShadow]

It should carry the same sentence outside of a few cases where some leeway is needed. I am more interested in the difference between "assault with a deadly weapon" and "Attempted murder" I know the difference is intent but a person who shoots someone else with a gun has a fair idea that it might kill.

Yeah, but laws aren't always straight-forward about what they mean.

I know Russel Crowe was charged with 'assault with a "deadly" weapon' several years ago.
He was quite upset, but what was this 'deadly' weapon of his? A telephone.
He threw it at someone...

So, to be quite honest, you can be charged with things that are less than obvious.
Would you consider a telephone a 'deadly weapon'?

How about a brick?
A sponge?
Baseball bat?
Sword?
Gun?
A stick?

Explosives?

At what point do you decide that it's assault with a 'deadly weapon', rather than just plain old assault?

It's certainly not defined by what the object was designed for.
If you hit someone in the head with a typical hammer, you'll cause injuries as bad as most gunshot wounds.
But a gun is a weapon, while a hammer is not.

So how do you define 'deadly' exactly?

 

[go nana go]

Attempted murder
Didn't kill him but still jailed
You've epically failed.

 

[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.

 

[theSovietConnection]

1. You take your gun and plan to shoot someone while he is sleeping. You enter your target's house at 1 am. You see his form in bed, in a dark room. You see his head and shoot it.

Little did you know that an hour earlier, at 12 am, some other guy was there first and held a pillow over your target's face until he died. You shot a dead body, but in the darkness you didn't know.

You should be punished the same as the first guy?

You actively took steps in an attempt to end a person's life, and any reasonable person can formulate that gun + shooting = death. Yes you should get the same sentence as the guy who went in there first.

2. The same situation as above, but you didn't realize that your gun was loaded with blanks. You pulled the trigger and fired a blank cartridge that was a lot of sound and light, but no actual bullet. Should you still be punished for murder?

Again, you took steps that any reasonable person would believe to cause death in an attempt to take someone's life. Yes you should, and even as far as the blanks example goes, if you were close enough, the air pressure could have killed him anyways.

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?

This is the only example where death is indeed physically impossible, and no reasonable person would believe magic has the capabilities to kill someone. So under this case, no, she should not be given the same sentence.

The fact is effects do actually matter, and a huge problem in the law is what to do with people who have good intentions but end up causing harm. But frankly most of you aren't smart enough or well-read enough to formulate an intelligent answer to these questions. I'd at least start with doing some basic reading before you go on to forums and spout crap about crime and punishment.

You see, unlike you say, intent matters even more then the end effect. If I am cleaning my shotgun and it accidentally discharges, killing my friend, it is not the same as if I pick up the shotgun and blow his brains out. According to what you say, because it achieved the same effect, the accidental shooting should be given the same sentence as the murder. If you're going to accuse others of "not being smart enough or well-read enough to formulate an intelligent answer", I suggest you look at what you've read first. Only one of your examples yielded a situation where death was indeed physically impossible.

 

[Kagim]

Whats the difference between a girl who believes her magic will kill someone and a man who thinks his gun will kill someone, when both weapons are essentially harmless as each other (ok, yes, blanks can cause burns at close ranges, but it isn't going to kill). The fact that he could have checked his ammo is irrelevant, the fact is he didn't.

1. Shes 12.
2. Believing your magic can kill someone and taking a gun to someone are worlds apart. Does the girl need help? Yes. Her actions however are not a threat to society. Once she crosses the line from delusion to threat to society, as in she grabs a weapon, she hasn't done anything wrong but be an angry tween.
3. The fact that he could have checked the ammo isn't irrelevant. The only reason why he couldn't kill someone is due to incompetence not lack of action. He clearly is a threat since he is willing to take a very real weapon and fire it at a person. Only by bending the laws of Physics could the girl realistically become a threat. The girl at no point is a threat to society, the man is.
4. There is no way, shape, or form one can even say for a second putting a bullet in someone will not have dangerous results. Magic falls under deniable threat. Shes angry and once again, needs help. Clearly however she is incapable of causing direct bodily harm, thus why she used 'magic'. She is unable to take a definite action thus she is attempting a passive medium. She isn't capable of taking that knife or gun and directly hurting somebody.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I think the more pressing concern is; How famous do you have to be before "murder" becomes "assassination?" Cos I've never understood that one.

Oh that has nothing to do with fame, "murder" becomes "assassination" when you get paid for it.

 

[theSovietConnection]

Whats the difference between a girl who believes her magic will kill someone and a man who thinks his gun will kill someone, when both weapons are essentially harmless as each other (ok, yes, blanks can cause burns at close ranges, but it isn't going to kill).

Incorrect, blank rounds are indeed dangerous and have killed when fired at close ranges.

 

[Kasawd]

So all you kids who think attempted murder should carry the same sentence as murder:

What if it's physically impossible for the attempt to succeed?

As in the following situations:

1. You take your gun and plan to shoot someone while he is sleeping. You enter your target's house at 1 am. You see his form in bed, in a dark room. You see his head and shoot it.

Little did you know that an hour earlier, at 12 am, some other guy was there first and held a pillow over your target's face until he died. You shot a dead body, but in the darkness you didn't know.

You should be punished the same as the first guy?

2. The same situation as above, but you didn't realize that your gun was loaded with blanks. You pulled the trigger and fired a blank cartridge that was a lot of sound and light, but no actual bullet. Should you still be punished for murder?

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?

I should go ahead and tell you right now - those are all actual examples of attempted murder under the law. I'd say most of you kids who think "attempted murder should always be punished the same as murder" haven't thought through all the actual possibilities - of which there are an infinite number of variations.

The fact is effects do actually matter, and a huge problem in the law is what to do with people who have good intentions but end up causing harm. But frankly most of you aren't smart enough or well-read enough to formulate an intelligent answer to these questions. I'd at least start with doing some basic reading before you go on to forums and spout crap about crime and punishment.

This is true, actually. Would you sentence a contract killer who carefully killed his victim to the same sentence you gave to a man who may have simply overbeaten a snarky fellow? It's worth remembering that attempted murder is not always the same, intentionally. Crimes of passion exist and shouldn't be on par with cold blood. We have precedent to determine the outcome of most cases so this is up for debate.

That being said, this is a debate, not a practice in law. An opinion is being asked and hostile posts are not necessary. As the lawyer that you say you are, I'd imagine you've learned a good deal of patience. Certainly enough patience to address people in a forum in a polite manner. If so, why would you feel the need to post at all?

I don't believe you are a lawyer. Why, you might ask? It's because I've seen so many people claim this profession on the internet falsely. Anyone can look up their laws. I find it prudent to tell you that I'm a mathematician spaceman who has walked on mars, so I obviously have a proper perspective on this, yes?

OP: No, I don't believe it should be on par. There are too many variables to make the punishments even. Intention, circumstance, the mindset of the victim and the shakey testimony included. I'm not a lawyer, though, so I cnouldn't give you anything definitive.

 

[theSovietConnection]

This is true, actually. Would you sentence a contract killer who carefully killed his victim to the same sentence you gave to a man who may have simply overbeaten a snarky fellow? It's worth remembering that attempted murder is not always the same, intentionally. Crimes of passion exist and shouldn't be on par with cold blood. We have precedent to determine the outcome of most cases so this is up for debate.

While you bring up excellent points, the fact is, if someone is being charged with attempt murder, it's because the intent to murder was there. Otherwise it would be reduced to criminal negligence, aggrevated assault, or assault cause bodily harm.

I guess, now having looked at the U.S. version of this law, as I imagine that is where the question is intended at, the U.S. charge of attempt murder does in fact carry the same charge, at least in certain states.

Sec. 8-4. Attempt. (a) Elements of the Offense. A person commits an attempt when, with intent to commit a specific offense, he does any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that offense.

(b) Impossibility. It shall not be a defense to a charge of attempt that because of a misapprehension of the circumstances it would have been impossible for the accused to commit the offense attempted.

(c) Sentence. A person convicted of an attempt may be fined or imprisoned or both not to exceed the maximum provided for the offense attempted but, except for an attempt to commit the offense defined in Section 33A-2 of this Act [720 ILCS 5/33A-2]:

(1) the sentence for attempt to commit first degree murder is the sentence for a Class X felony, except that

(A) an attempt to commit first degree murder when at least one of the aggravating factors specified in paragraphs (1), (2) and (12) of subsection (b) of Section 9-1 [720 ILCS 5/9-1] is present is a Class X felony for which the sentence shall be a term of imprisonment of not less than 20 years and not more than 80 years;

(B) an attempt to commit first degree murder while armed with a firearm is a Class X felony for which 15 years shall be added to the term of imprisonment imposed by the court;

(C) an attempt to commit first degree murder during which the person personally discharged a firearm is a Class X felony for which 20 years shall be added to the term of imprisonment imposed by the court;

(D) an attempt to commit first degree murder during which the person personally discharged a firearm that proximately caused great bodily harm, permanent disability, permanent disfigurement, or death to another person, is a Class X felony for which 25 years or up to a term of natural life shall be added to the term of imprisonment imposed by the court.

(2) the sentence for attempt to commit a Class X felony is the sentence for a Class 1 felony;

(3) the sentence for attempt to commit a Class 1 felony is the sentence for a Class 2 felony;

(4) the sentence for attempt to commit a Class 2 felony is the sentence for a Class 3 felony; and

(5) the sentence for attempt to commit any felony other than those specified in Subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) hereof is the sentence for a Class A misdemeanor.

 

[Inuprince]

FYI, did you know in some states, if you shoot a home invader in the back, you could be charged with murder?

Well, in my country ( Hungary - in the middle of Europe ) - there are more bullshit laws about this - not just shooting someone in the back ...

But you cannot defend yourself against someone (home invader or fight on the street) with a "bigger" weapon then the one the attacker has ...
I mean COME ON!! If I wake up that some idiot is bashing my door in, in the middle of the night with the attempt to kill me - I am not going to turn on the light to wait to see if the blade of his knife is longer or smaller than my switchblade, or whatever I can grab to defend myself - because if I kill him in self defense with a 'bigger' weapon I get thrown into jail ... Simply Bullcr...

 

[AMMO Kid]

attempted murder = person is still alive

 

[Shpongled]

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.

Whats the difference between a girl who believes her magic will kill someone and a man who thinks his gun will kill someone, when both weapons are essentially harmless as each other (ok, yes, blanks can cause burns at close ranges, but it isn't going to kill). The fact that he could have checked his ammo is irrelevant, the fact is he didn't.

1. Shes 12.
2. Believing your magic can kill someone and taking a gun to someone are worlds apart. Does the girl need help? Yes. Her actions however are not a threat to society. Once she crosses the line from delusion to threat to society, as in she grabs a weapon, she hasn't done anything wrong but be an angry tween.
3. The fact that he could have checked the ammo isn't irrelevant. The only reason why he couldn't kill someone is due to incompetence not lack of action. He clearly is a threat since he is willing to take a very real weapon and fire it at a person. Only by bending the laws of Physics could the girl realistically become a threat. The girl at no point is a threat to society, the man is.
4. There is no way, shape, or form one can even say for a second putting a bullet in someone will not have dangerous results. Magic falls under deniable threat. Shes angry and once again, needs help. Clearly however she is incapable of causing direct bodily harm, thus why she used 'magic'. She is unable to take a definite action thus she is attempting a passive medium. She isn't capable of taking that knife or gun and directly hurting somebody.

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.

 

[Kagim]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[lacktheknack]

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.