Isn't this just rewarding the incompetence of the would-be killer?
the intent was there to end a life, and this is as abhorrent as actually doing so. I don't mean that anyone that wounds someone should face a life sentence, but surely if you shoot someone in the chest and they survive you should not face a shorter sentence because your victim survived.
2007-01-24 06:26:37 · 7 answers · asked by The C 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
I see your point here; sentencing in general is inconsistent to say the least. A couple of months ago three men were found not guilty of racially aggravated murder, because they had attacked an afro Caribbean man as well as killing a white man. The fact that they were indiscriminately attacking people rather than singling them out reduced their sentences by half. If anyone can justify that they are more than welcome to try.
2007-01-24 06:29:53 · answer #1 · answered by Alan A 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Attempted Murder is there because it fits with grave bodily harm and the intent to kill. Otherwise it would be battery/assault. If you shoot, stab, beat, etc someone with the intention of killing them, you should be given a stiffer sentence than if you committed the same bodily assault without really wanting to kill them. There has to be an in-between charge and sentence because the act is in-between. I won't get into the wide range of sentences each can get because a good defense lawyer can work out a plea agreement allowing someone guilty of murder to serve less time than someone guilty of assault; that is a whole separate topic. But since the crimes have different elements, they should be treated as different things.
2007-01-24 06:35:12 · answer #2 · answered by dcgirl 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We need to have a penal stystem like the states - you can get life for attempted murder or hiring someone else to kill someone over there and life means life. The UK is a joke - you have people beaten to death on nights out for looking at someone the wrong way and they literally get away with it. It's been on the news that LESS people are going to be going to jail now because guess what, we have run out of spaces! What an absolute joke! Another ridiculous idea is getting time off for good behaviour - sorry, you should do the time given for good behaviour and do MORE time for bad behaviour.
2007-01-24 06:38:11 · answer #3 · answered by Bexs 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I see what you're saying, but look at it from the other angle. Would the family of a victim who had actually died accept the same sentence for a culprit as the punishment applied to someone whose victim survived?
2007-01-24 06:34:42 · answer #4 · answered by eurotraveller 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i see the point you're making morally, but speaking from a legal point of view, murder is a result crime, the result being a dead body, which obviously carries the manadatory life sentence. However, if you intend to kill but do not, due to the nature of the crime, there is no result to the crime (i.e no dead body) therefore the sentence will not be the same.
2007-01-24 06:44:50 · answer #5 · answered by fozz89 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you'll find the punishment for attempted murder, where incompetence has stopped completion of the crime, carries as severe a punishment as most murderers.
2007-01-24 06:35:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well would get into a lot of grey don't you think?
Possibly by making it a lesser crime a person may think twice about the secound bullet?
2007-01-24 06:33:13 · answer #7 · answered by letsget_dangerous 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
THEY MEAN DIFFRENT THINGS YOU STILL GET THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME
2007-01-24 06:39:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋