Attempted murder vs. murder

[Gertrude]

A question prompted by a conversation about the sentencing of the Comet Pizza shooter. He was sentenced to four years total, but only 2 years of that was for assault with a deadly weapon. I assume that if he had actually shot and killed someone that would be a far longer sentence.

So the basic question is: why is there a distinction between sentencing for attempted murder and actual murder. The forethought and intent is the same in both cases. I've always thought that they should be punished in the same way because it just makes sense to me. You wanted to kill someone, period. The fact that someone failed in their goal doesn't seem like it should matter in their sentence. Why is this? Someone explain to me why it is different and why it should be. I think the same standards should also be used in cases like the Comet Pizza guy - reckless endangerment, assault with a deadly weapon, whatever the legal terminology is. The actions are the same, it's just the results that differ.

[Stubby]

The law relating to attempts first began to get serious consideration as far back as the late 1700's.  R v Scofield (1784) Cald Mag Cas 397 is one of the first analyses of the issue.  You will find some good stuff on attempts generally if you Google search that case.

As with all issues relating to sentencing, it is important to note the local law.  For example, in my State, the range of penalties applicable to a completed offence are identical to attempts if the offence is a "simple" offence.  There is a difference if the offence is indictable, with the maximum sentence being half of that prescribed for the lead offence.

The outcome depends on one's view of the basis for sentencing.  Those that favour deterrence see a long sentence as a means to discourage others from planning an unlawful killing.  Those that favour removing people who might be a danger encounter the argument that someone caught only at the planning stage is only a theoretical danger.  Those that favour rehabilitation argue that it must be easier to rehabilitate an offender who has not actually killed.  Finally, those that argue retribution as the basis for sentencing will simply argue that there should be no difference.

We have some actions that are separate offences entirely.  For example, we have the offence known as causing "grievous bodily harm".  Loosely stated, if you were to assault a person with intent to cause permanent injuries and succeed, but don't kill the victim, then you are guilty of causing grievous bodily harm. It is very rare to see someone charged for attempted murder as it is easier to prove the intent to cause permanent injury than it is to prove intent to kill (generally speaking as each case turns on it's evidence).

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

Stubby, actually I would think that those who argue for retribution as the justification for sentencing would argue that the sentences SHOULD differ, as there is less to get retribution for. The victim is not dead after all.

 

[Stubby]

29 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Stubby, actually I would think that those who argue for retribution as the justification for sentencing would argue that the sentences SHOULD differ, as there is less to get retribution for. The victim is not dead after all.

 

The position usually stated is that there should be no difference in the level of punishment, because of the accused's intent.

[Jo498]

Almost all legal system take both intent as well as the actual results of an action into account. If only intent was relevant, someone who accidentally runs a person over with a car should always go free. But they don't. And one obviously cannot punish intent if there is not a serious attempt at doing the deed.

While intuitions about whether intent or consequences/results matter more might be divided in many cases I think that overall a balance between them roughly conforms with "pre-legal" common sense.

[The hairy bear]

IMHO, there are two important reasons why attempted murder has to carry a lesser sentence than an actual murder:

1) People can reconsider. Someone can have a change of mind at the last minute. We can say that someone was planning a murder, but we can't be sure that he would have actually gone with it.

2) Knowing a person's real intent is impossible. I can prove someone was pointing someone else with a gun. But... perhaps he only wanted to scare him, or was planning to rob him. Sadly, we can only know with absolute certainty that his intent was murder once he has shot the gun. And this is even more complicated in cases such as beatings or stabbings.

 

[Stubby]

9 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

IMHO, there are two important reasons why attempted murder has to carry a lesser sentence than an actual murder:

1) People can reconsider. Someone can have a change of mind at the last minute. We can say that someone was planning a murder, but we can't be sure that he would have actually gone with it.

2) Knowing a person's real intent is impossible. I can prove someone was pointing someone else with a gun. But... perhaps he only wanted to scare him, or was planning to rob him. Sadly, we can only know with absolute certainty that his intent was murder once he has shot the gun. And this is even more complicated in cases such as beatings or stabbings.

 

Even this gets murky.

If you unlawfully assault some here, intending to cause grievous bodily harm, and that person dies as a result of your assault, you are guilty of murder.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

The SC Supreme Court eleminated "Attempted Murder" as a common law crime because our Chief Justice thought it was redundant and covered by other existing statutory crimes like "Assault and Battery with intent to Kill" or "Assault and Battery of a high and aggravated nature".  So no "attempted murder" in South Carolina.

My wife and her co-clerk when she worked at the SC Court of Appeals wondered, therefore, if a failed attempt to poison someone is actually illegal in South Carolina.  

[Rippounet]

7 hours ago, Gertrude said:

A question prompted by a conversation about the sentencing of the Comet Pizza shooter. He was sentenced to four years total,

That doesn't sound like much.

[Gertrude]

I agree that someone caught in the planning stages of a murder should not be sentenced as if he went through with it. That's akin to a thought crime. I was specifically thinking about cases where the attempt was made, but failed. I'm also not talking about manslaughter or crimes of passion. I'm talking about cases where the intent is clear. That's interesting about attempted poisoning potentially not being a crime because it doesn't fall under 'assault' (although I'd guess it's argued that it is an assault).

I don't think sentencing should be used for retribution. I have thought about it a little, but don't pretend that I've thought deeply about it. I think it should be used as a combination of reform and deterrence in general. In the case of (attempted) murder, I don't know that either is reasonable as someone who decides to commit the ultimate crime (I think) has made a very deliberate decision and in that case it's really because they are a danger to society that they should be locked away. Personally, I don't think jail time is warranted for most cases unless it's for a violent crime, but that's a different discussion.

And no, Rippounet, that doesn't sound like a lot to me either. He fired his weapon recklessly. Just because he got lucky and didn't hit anyone does not mitigate the fact that he easily could have.

[Castellan]

Off your topic, but I think juries are less inclined to convict for attempted crimes because, if the person has actually done it, its clear they meant to! I know someone who was on a jury for a sexual abuse of a child case, and it sounded like, because the person didn't really get very far in his attempt, the jury were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt as to what was actually going on. The case was dismissed and it turned out the prosecutors had a whole string of much better cases to convict him on anyway. So if the jury knew person was facing extremely strong penalties for an attempted crime they might be less inclined to convict.