I think that people convicted for attempted murder should get the same sentence as if the victim died?

Question

because the main goal for the murderer was to kill the victim, and whether the victim survived or not has nothing to do with the murderer.....yet in most cases which the victim survives, the criminal gets lighter sentences than when compared to if the victim dies.........

do you agree or disagree? and why?

thank you

Answer 1

I think that they should have the same weight of sentencing. The same motives are there, they wanted the person dead. They shouldn't have a lighter sentence just because their victim was lucky enough to live through it.

Of course, circumstances differ. I'm thinking of a case for excample if someone shot someone and left them for dead, or something similar. If it was an attack and it was broken up by someone else, then that would probably be different (unless they were trying to stab the person to death, for instance). Things get very blurred, because situations are always unique. But in a sort of case like I said, they should definitely weigh the same.

Answer 2

I'm gonna have to disagree. It's barbaric to lower ourselves to the same standards as a killer. For example if somebody died from being stabbed it would be ridiculous for the government to order the stabbing of the murderer. The death penalty itself is controversial, but I'll accept it for the time being. However, anything other than lethal injection is unnecessary.

Answer 3

The sentence depends on the severity and outcome of the crime. If the victim recovers the result is less serious as if they died. The punishment must fit the crime.

Answer 4

You are logically correct.
Except in the real world where people argue with and then attack their friends when drunk, fall over and are accused of attempted murder, when everyone would rather forget the whole incident.

Answer 5

I agree as we have to start telling people that crime does not pay footnote """ as it seems to pay now?