Attempted murder or murder

[wolram]

A man plans to murder another and succeeds, a second man does the same but does not
hit a vital part of his victim and the victim lives, i think they should be charged the same (planed murder) do you agree ?

 

[arildno]

You have three levels here, all of which ought to influence the actual punishment meted out:

a) Planning of murder (that is criminal in itself)
b) Attempting murder, to the best of your ability (most definitely criminal)
c) Effect (the level of rights violation actually suffered by the victim)

Your successful murderer is distinguished by the unsuccessful murderer on c), and should therefore be punished more strongly.

 

[micromass]

I agree with wolram, I don't think the effect should come in play. The intent of the two persons is the same: to murder the other person. Whether the murderer in question is too stupid to actually be able to do the murder is irrelevant in my opinion.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

A man plans to murder another and succeeds, a second man does the same but does not
hit a vital part of his victim and the victim lives, i think they should be charged the same (planed murder) do you agree ?

In the US it is difficult to get a murder conviction without a dead body.

 

[russ_watters]

Where do you draw the line? If someone cuts you off on the highway should they be charged with 3rd degree murder?

 

[micromass]

The intent is where you draw the line. Did somebody intent and plan to murder you and actually attempt it (but simply failed), then he is a murderer in my point of view.

The question, of course, would be how to know that somebody had the intent to murder somebody...

 

[Energystrom]

Where do you draw the line? If someone cuts you off on the highway should they be charged with 3rd degree murder?

I'm fairly certain the crux of the suggestion is the intentionality. So inasmuch as the person cutting you off is not following through with some volition to murder another human being, how would you say this is murder?

 

[russ_watters]

In 3rd degree murder, you intentionally do something that could kill someone.

Consider a bar fight: you punch a guy who then slips on a puddle of beer, hits his head on the bar and dies. What separates 3rd degree murder from attempted 3rd degree murder is the same as in the OP's example: luck.

 

[micromass]

In 3rd degree murder, you intentionally do something that could kill someone.

Consider a bar fight: you punch a guy who then slips on a puddle of beer, hits his head on the bar and dies. What separates 3rd degree murder from attempted 3rd degree murder is the same as in the OP's example: luck.

In my opinion, your example is not murder and it should not be threated as such. It's reckless and aggressive behaviour, sure. But if there is no intent to kill somebody, then it is no murder.
It's my opinion of course, but I'm curious why the law does view those things as murder...

 

[Triple_D]

I love internet law.

 

[russ_watters]

...I'm curious why the law does view those things as murder...

Because when you do something that you know or should know is dangerous, you are responsible for all the consequences of the act.

 

[Jack21222]

Because when you do something that you know or should know is dangerous, you are responsible for all the consequences of the act.

I'm no lawyer, but I think there's more to it than that for a murder charge. In your bar fight scenario, I do not think there was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_aforethought" [Broken] involved. Now, if I plan to go to the bar specifically to punch a guy, and then your scenario happens, then it's murder. But without that plan, I don't think you have murder, you just have manslaughter.

Again, I'm no lawyer, so I could easily be wrong.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

When I served on grand jury, the prosecutor told us that if during a robbery or other crime, a shooter aims at one person with the intention of killing them, misses and kills a different person, then that would be treated as murder even though there was no intent to kill the person who died.

 

[Jack21222]

When I served on grand jury, the prosecutor told us that if during a robbery or other crime, a shooter aims at one person with the intention of killing them, misses and kills a different person, then that would be treated as murder even though there was no intent to kill the person who died.

During a robbery or another crime (felony, at least), I think you could be charged with murder if you yell "bang" at somebody and they die of a heart attack. Basically, if somebody dies while you're committing a felony, it's murder.

 

[Office_Shredder]

If something which previously was third degree murder is downgraded to manslaughter, the legislature can simply raise the penalty for first degree manslaughter to match what was previously third degree murder. Nobody's life is actually changed in a meaningful way. I think the murder/manslaughter boundary is fairly academic, because the crimes are already graded to control for various circumstances.

 

[Averagesupernova]

If something which previously was third degree murder is downgraded to manslaughter, the legislature can simply raise the penalty for first degree manslaughter to match what was previously third degree murder. Nobody's life is actually changed in a meaningful way. I think the murder/manslaughter boundary is fairly academic, because the crimes are already graded to control for various circumstances.

This seems incredibly stupid to me. I mean raising the penalty.

 

[Averagesupernova]

During a robbery or another crime (felony, at least), I think you could be charged with murder if you yell "bang" at somebody and they die of a heart attack. Basically, if somebody dies while you're committing a felony, it's murder.

What about if I sneeze? Yelling bang with an unloaded gun pointed at someone certainly shows NO intention of killing someone. I've served on a murder jury, it would never fly.

 

[wolram]

You have three levels here, all of which ought to influence the actual punishment meted out:

a) Planning of murder (that is criminal in itself)
b) Attempting murder, to the best of your ability (most definitely criminal)
c) Effect (the level of rights violation actually suffered by the victim)

Your successful murderer is distinguished by the unsuccessful murderer on c), and should therefore be punished more strongly.

I think anyone who attempts murder should be charged with (planed murder), it should not be relevant if the shooter failed to kill his victim.

 

[FlexGunship]

During a robbery or another crime (felony, at least), I think you could be charged with murder if you yell "bang" at somebody and they die of a heart attack. Basically, if somebody dies while you're committing a felony, it's murder.

What if the felony is that you're trying to kill someone, someone else tries to stop and you notice they have a weak heart (somehow), so you yell bang to give them a heart attack, but, in actuality, you give a third person a heart attack, but you resuscitate them and escape leaving all three people alive?

I think you should get an award for most complicated scenario.

Okay, I'm going to leave now.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Your successful murderer is distinguished by the unsuccessful murderer on c), and should therefore be punished more strongly.

I think anyone who attempts murder should be charged with (planed murder), it should not be relevant if the shooter failed to kill his victim.

How far down do we take this? This is the difference between assault and between assault and battery for instance. There needs to be lines distinguished, otherwise someone gets in an argument with me, pokes me in the shoulder to drive a point home and I can charge them with assualt and the penalty could be the same as if they beat me within an inch of my life.

 

[wolram]

What about if I sneeze? Yelling bang with an unloaded gun pointed at someone certainly shows NO intention of killing someone. I've served on a murder jury, it would never fly.

This is different, carrying an unloaded weapon is not a planed murder, if some one dies of a heart attack where some one is is using an unloaded gun then this should be a charge of man
slaughter.

 

[Jack21222]

What about if I sneeze? Yelling bang with an unloaded gun pointed at someone certainly shows NO intention of killing someone. I've served on a murder jury, it would never fly.

First off, I said "during commission of a felony," not while doing nothing else. If somebody dies while you were committing a felony, the standards for murder vs manslaughter are relaxed somewhat.

Second off, that was clearly a joke, which you were dissecting as if I was serious. Quit that.

 

[Proton Soup]

outcomes are easier to judge than intent. i don't think you want to start making juries' jobs even harder than they are now, or to start locking people up for life every time there is a violent altercation.

 

[arildno]

I think anyone who attempts murder should be charged with (planed murder), it should not be relevant if the shooter failed to kill his victim.

But the punishment for a planned&attempted, but unsuccesful murder should be less than one that actually succeeded.

Because the rights violation suffered by a victim with merely your thought&attempt at murdering him is less grievous than..actually losing his life.

It is a fundamental principle in Western law that we do NOT punish the evil people are, but for what evil they manage to perform.

 

[russ_watters]

But without that plan, I don't think you have murder, you just have manslaughter.

Note, I said third degree murder. That's also known as "manslaughter". They are two different terms for describing the same thing.

 

[russ_watters]

outcomes are easier to judge than intent. i don't think you want to start making juries' jobs even harder than they are now, or to start locking people up for life every time there is a violent altercation.

Let me put a finer point on it: the point of the criminal justice system is to punish people for what they did to the victim. The victim is the key - the reason why there is a criminal justice system. Wolram is focusing on the defendant. That's not why the criminal justice system exists.

 

[Jack21222]

Note, I said third degree murder. That's also known as "manslaughter". They are two different terms for describing the same thing.

This is the first time I've ever heard the term "third degree murder" in my life, so forgive me if I thought you were referring to something different.

 

[russ_watters]

No prob. I'm not sure where you're from, but it is a common term in the US:

Before the famous case of Furman v. Georgia in 1972, most states distinguished two degrees of murder...

After the Supreme Court placed new requirements on the imposition of the death penalty, most states adopted one of two schemes. In both, third degree murder became the catch-all, while first degree murder was split. The difference was whether some or all first degree murders should be eligible for the most serious penalty (generally death, but sometimes life in prison without the possibility of parole).

The first scheme, used by Pennsylvania and the most common among other states:

1. First Degree Murder: An intentional killing by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated action.

2. Second Degree Murder: Homicide committed by an individual engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.

3. Third Degree Murder: Any other murder (e.g. when the intent was not to kill, but to harm the victim).

The second scheme, used by New York among other states:

1. First Degree Murder: Murder involving special circumstances, such as murder of a police officer, judge, fireman or witness to a crime; multiple murders; and torture or especially heinous murders. Note that a "regular" premeditated murder, absent such special circumstances, is not a first-degree murder; murders by poison or "lying in wait" are not per se first-degree murders. First degree murder is pre-meditated.[5] However, the New York Court of Appeals struck down the death penalty as unconstitutional in the case of People v. LaValle, because of the statute's direction on how the jury was to be instructed in case of deadlock in the penalty phase.

2. Second Degree Murder: Any premeditated murder or felony murder that does not involve special circumstances.[6] [emphasis added]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)#Degrees_of_murder_in_the_United_States

I prefer the term "3rd degree murder" over "manslaughter" because I'm a strong anti-crime advocate and prefer the harsher characterization. Doesn't change the definition, though.

 

[arildno]

It should, however, be emphasized that when it is said that we should focus on what is done to the victim, it means that our primary focus should be on the type of rights violation suffered by the victim, rather than just what type of physical act he was subjected to:

To be shot in the head deliberately or being the victim of a stray shot kills equally easy.
But the violation of rights "suffered" in the first case by the victim is much greater than in the latter, since the first implies the perpetrator's active rejection and subversion of the victim's rights, whereas the second case does not.

Similarly, people can suffer horrible deaths without having been the victims of a crime at all, for example be eaten by a crocodile (or similar acts by "agents" who cannot be regarded as morally responsible for their actions).

 

[Darken-Sol]

Because when you do something that you know or should know is dangerous, you are responsible for all the consequences of the act.

even getting black out drunk

 

[pallidin]

Should the intent of an attack be that of murder, yet not result in it, the "penalty phase" of attempted murder is very similar to actual murder in many jurisdictions.

 

[pallidin]

Slightly off-topic, there are conditions where killing another is not considered "murder"
"Justifiable homocide" is a "special circumstance" allowed by federal law as a viable defense.

This would include such matters as killing a violent home intruder, violent rapist, etc...

 

[pallidin]

In the case of a non-violent assault, the victims reaction must be non-lethal in most, but not all, states.
The over-riding rule, accepted in all courts, is that if the victim reasonably presumes a threat of death or great bodily harm, the victim is allowed any and all measures to stop the attack, including lethal consequence to the attacker.

 

[Darken-Sol]

In the case of a non-violent assault, the victims reaction must be non-lethal in most, but not all, states.
The over-riding rule, accepted in all courts, is that if the victim reasonably presumes a threat of death or great bodily harm, the victim is allowed any and all measures to stop the attack, including lethal consequence to the attacker.

the castle law. texas says i can kill some one on my land for being there w/out my permission.

 

[arildno]

the castle law. texas says i can kill some one on my land for being there w/out my permission.

Indeed.
And that is why, I think, Pallidin made the qualification:

"In the case of a non-violent assault, the victims reaction must be non-lethal in most, but not all, states."