In other words, if you sit down and plan to kill someone (capitol murder) even if you fail, should you get a needle?

Say someone tries to rape a woman, and either she shoots them, a nearby CHL holder shoots them, or whatever stops it before it happens.  Intent is a given, known fact for the purpose of this poll.

Should it carry the same punishment?  Traditionally, the penalties are much lower for crimes that do not succeed.  What say you arfcom?



Those that read my previous thread oughta know, I say hang em.  Or in the case of my state, put a needle in their arm.  

If intent is proved then yes.

Damages make the case...

Yes if it can be proven that it was their intent...

hell, it should be worse, they should get an extra-penalty for sucking at life so much that they can't even pull a crime off right.

If it can be proven then yes it should be the same as if you did it. It would be an excellent deterrent if you got the same punishment if you fail.

Quoted: If intent is proved then yes.

We're talking, you shot them in the head and they lived, or were seen attempting to rip a womans clothes off.  Intent is a given in this scenario.

Around here, the penalties for attempted crimes are reduced by one degree. ex; Agg. murder is an F1. Att. Agg. murder is an F2.

Quoted: If intent is proved then yes.

Yep.

For me, it depends.

'Intent' is what gets us shot in the foot.

We end up with shit like 'constructive' intent.

Possession with 'intent' to sell.

The law likes to make broad assumptions as to one's intent. When many times, the law doesn't know shit.

It should not be illegal to plan a murder, and there should be no punishment for it, right up until the time that I actually move to commit that murder, or pay someone to do it, etc., and cement my 'intent' into place. I can fully intend to kill my ex, right up until the time I sit parked in her driveway for ten minutes, and finally decide that the bitch isn't worth the hassle. When I leave, there is no harm done.

Same with a robbery. There should be no crime, and no punishment, right up until the time I step through the bank doors and demand money. If I get cold feet in the parking lot and leave, I have done nothing wrong to anybody.

'Intent' and 'in the commission of' are two different things, and should be dealt with differently under the law. Often, they aren't. The law gets to assume an intent, and punish based upon that intent, resulting in the myriad victimless crime laws on the books in this country. To bend a fun phrase, you can intend in one hand, and shit in the other, and we'll all see what gets you a faster end result.

So yes, an attempted crime that fails due to poor planning or outside intervention should carry the same punishment, if that crime is actually in progress and you are thwarted 'in the commission of' that crime.

Intent however is a slippery slope, and is better left judged only in concert with concrete action.

Then that would be a yes.
to dustyc

bump

Quoted: For me, it depends. 'Intent' is what gets us shot in the foot. We end up with shit like 'constructive' intent. Possession with 'intent' to sell. The law likes to make broad assumptions as to one's intent. When many times, the law doesn't know shit. It should not be illegal to plan a murder, and there should be no punishment for it, right up until the time that I actually move to commit that murder, or pay someone to do it, etc., and cement my 'intent' into place. I can fully intend to kill my ex, right up until the time I sit parked in her driveway for ten minutes, and finally decide that the bitch isn't worth the hassle. When I leave, there is no harm done. Same with a robbery. There should be no crime, and no punishment, right up until the time I step through the bank doors and demand money. If I get cold feet in the parking lot and leave, I have done nothing wrong to anybody. 'Intent' and 'in the commission of' are two different things, and should be dealt with differently under the law. Often, they aren't. The law gets to assume an intent, and punish based upon that intent, resulting in the myriad victimless crime laws on the books in this country. To bend a fun phrase, you can intend in one hand, and shit in the other, and we'll all see what gets you a faster end result. So yes, an attempted crime that fails due to poor planning or outside intervention should carry the same punishment, if that crime is actually in progress and you are thwarted 'in the commission of' that crime. Intent however is a slippery slope, and is better left judged only in concert with concrete action.

+1

Very well said.

Stopped in the commission of...  hang 'em high.

Oh, they planned to but didn't...  No crime here, maybe watch them a little closer though.


-Out

attempt: yes
intent: no

Intent can include "conspiracy to commit xyz".  Since the question is about "attempt", yes.

If the intent of the attempt can be proven, then it is the same as if the crime had been successfully committed.  Means, motive and opportunity.  Punishment is supposed to fit the crime; more quantifiable damage is supposed to equal more punishment.  

Come on people, why are we penalizing competence?

If anything, the attempt should carry a TOUHGER sentence. At least then we are encouraging people to finish what they started. And that is a trait we should all be striving for.

There would be too many gray areas and it would be abused. Whether you did something right or wrong is usually a black and white answer. "What were his intentions" is a harder to prove. Makes me wonder if crimes like a DUI should be considered attempted murder since it could lead to murder?

Quoted: There would be too many gray areas and it would be abused. Whether you did something right or wrong is usually a black and white answer. "What were his intentions" is a harder to prove. Makes me wonder if crimes like a DUI should be considered attempted murder since it could lead to murder?

No, this is you were stopped in the obvious attempt.  There is no doubt of the intent and you actually tried to do it, you just failed to finish.

Nope, until the crime is actually committed you cannot with certainty say that the offender would have actually carried it out.

Quoted: Nope, until the crime is actually committed you cannot with certainty say that the offender would have actually carried it out.

Again, it was either stopped during the commission, or failed.  IE; they survived a gunshot or had a gun to someones head and were shot before they could pull the trigger.  Of the intent, there is zero doubt, and I made that clear during the first post, and thought I made it fairly clear that it was either stopped during the commission of, or comission was attempted, but failed.

Quoted: Quoted: Nope, until the crime is actually committed you cannot with certainty say that the offender would have actually carried it out. Again, it was either stopped during the commission, or failed.  IE; they survived a gunshot or had a gun to someones head and were shot before they could pull the trigger.  Of the intent, there is zero doubt, and I made that clear during the first post, and thought I made it fairly clear that it was either stopped during the commission of, or comission was attempted, but failed.

Doesn't matter. Until the crime has actually been committed you are not guilty of it. You may be guilty of  crimes that lead up to it (for example assault, kidnapping etc in the case of attempted rape) but you are not guilty of rape until you satisfy the criteria laid out in the criminal code of the jurisdiction that controls you.

If you attempt to rape someone but fail, whatever the reason, you have not committed rape and should therefore not be punished the same as a rapist.

I think so, if whoever wouldn't have been stopped then they would have carried out the crime.  

constructive intent and the like are total BS.

No.  The reason is that if the perp knows that the punishment is more severe for completing the act, then there is less reason for the perp to surrender---especially to the attempted victim who is holding said perp at gunpoint.  Also, it would be safer for the police too.

If the perp chickens out at the last second and surrenders, then there should be less punishment for him than if he decided to go through with it anyway, and take out as many of those who are trying to apprehend him.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Nope, until the crime is actually committed you cannot with certainty say that the offender would have actually carried it out. Again, it was either stopped during the commission, or failed.  IE; they survived a gunshot or had a gun to someones head and were shot before they could pull the trigger.  Of the intent, there is zero doubt, and I made that clear during the first post, and thought I made it fairly clear that it was either stopped during the commission of, or comission was attempted, but failed. Doesn't matter. Until the crime has actually been committed you are not guilty of it. You may be guilty of  crimes that lead up to it (for example assault, kidnapping etc in the case of attempted rape) but you are not guilty of rape until you satisfy the criteria laid out in the criminal code of the jurisdiction that controls you. If you attempt to rape someone but fail, whatever the reason, you have not committed rape and should therefore not be punished the same as a rapist.

They call that statutory rape...

Quoted: They call that statutory rape...

No they don't bob, statutory rape is sex with an individual who is under the legal age of consent.

I voted YES, but answer this...

Is a person that leaves the bar at .15 BAC and drives home safely, just as guilty as a person who leaves the bar at .15 BAC and causes a fatal accident?

They both had the same intent, and took the same actions.

Quoted: constructive intent and the like are total BS.

Constructive intent, yes.  There is no construction here.  It's a given.  


Why can't people read and understand simple english?

Quoted: I voted YES, but answer this... Is a person that leaves the bar at .15 BAC and drives home safely, just as guilty as a person who leaves the bar at .15 BAC and causes a fatal accident? They both had the same intent, and took the same actions.

IMHO, yes.  This country treats drunk drivers like babies.  We should either be flogging them in public followed by 9 years hard labor, or making them do 10 years hard labor.

Quoted: I voted YES, but answer this... Is a person that leaves the bar at .15 BAC and drives home safely, just as guilty as a person who leaves the bar at .15 BAC and causes a fatal accident? They both had the same intent, and took the same actions.

Nope. Different crimes in most jursidictions.