Why do attempted murder and murder carry different sentences?

I like the question and I agree. They should be one and the same.

Well first, I’ll state the obvious: A life was not lost.

The EMT respond time has nothing to do with it, because when you think about it, they’d have nothing to respond to. Maybe they were helping a nice old lady who fell down the stairs, and that’s why they couldn’t get there in time.

A life being lost causes a much larger and more extreme ripple effect, which is why that one is so much more harsh. I’m not sure what the sentence is for attempted murder, so I can’t say it should be harsher… but isn’t attempted murder usually accompanied by various other charges like aggravated assault and whatever else?

@poofandmook: I figured someone would point that out and I agree, that is an excellent reason for them to carry different sentences. However, I disagree that the EMT’s response time has nothing to do with it. Half an hour can make quite a difference when someone’s been shot. If the EMT’s get to someone fifteen minutes after they’ve been shot as opposed to forty-five minutes after they’ve been shot, that can mean the difference between life and death.

I’m not sure if other charges usually accompany a charge of attempted murder but whether they do or not does not change the fact that a man with a gun shot someone with the intent of killing that person. “Oh, he did everything he could to kill that person but just didn’t quite manage it” doesn’t seem to me like a good reason to let someone go.

We generally don’t punish people strictly for their intentions, only for their actions.

Also, the survival of the victim may be conceptually a proxy for the viciousness of the attack. A truly cold-blooded murderer would be more likely to choose a method more likely to be fatal. If someone survives, perhaps the intent was less brutal than if they didn’t. Obviously, it’s not always so, but I think you could assert some correlation.

Finally, it may be seen as a deterrent to finishing someone off. Let’s say you lay in wait for a lover who rejected you. You shoot him or her. If you have a sudden flash of rationality and think, Oh my god, what have I done!” the lesser punishment for the attempted murder may encourage you to call the ambulance or whatever.

@KatawaGrey: I should have worded that better. The EMT response time has to do with the difference between a murder and an attempted murder. But their response time should have no bearing on the sentence. Example… you can’t go into court and say “well if the EMTs had gotten there faster, suchandso never would have died, and it would’ve only been an attempted murder, so Freddy Fingers should only be charged with attempted murder, since it was the EMTs fault that the victim died.”

I would assume you didn’t mean it that way, but all I meant was that the EMTs should in no way be held responsible (within reason) for not making it there on time and “causing” the death.

@poofandmook: I did not mean it that way, I only meant it as an example to prove that there are a myriad number of factors that can be the difference between life and death in the case of murder. A person’s age, pre-existing conditions, the EMT’s response time as well as many other things can determine how well or how badly someone survives an attack.

@6rant6: That was a well thought out answer but I am going to pick at it. Because of some of the factors I stated above in my response to @poofandmook, a vicious attack can have different effects on different people. If someone kidnaps a healthy, 20-year-old man and tortures him by, say, cutting him all over his body, including a major artery, I would consider that a vicious attack. If that person kidnaps an 80-year-old woman with anemia, and does the same thing, I would consider that a vicious attack as well. If the old woman dies, as she is more likely to due to her age and her condition, that would be considered murder. If the young man survives, as he is more likely to due his health and his age, that would be attempted murder. Both crimes are equally as vicious, but one victim survived and one did not. Why should the criminal not receive the same sentence for trying to kill the young man as he would have for killing the old woman?

removed by because I’m an idiot

@KatawaGrey: Okay… I didn’t think that’s how you meant it, but I addressed it anyway. Sorry for the mix-up :)

What I think is really interesting is that I didn’t jump right in the way @zenele did and say they should be the same thing, considering I am a victim of attempted murder.

@poofandmook: That’s okay. :) I understand how it could be confusing. I’m the glad the murder was only attempted and didn’t succeed.

@KatawaGrey: Me too ;) hehe thanks

I still think that if someone attempts to murder someone flat out – he should be punished the same as if he is “successful” or not – why should it matter if the person was shot next to an emergency ward – or in the middle of the desert? The murderer is obviously a danger to society – the proximity of the location to help, might not be that way the next time.

@KatawaGrey I recognize the limitations in using the death of the victim as a proxy for the viciousness of the attack. Still, I stand by the idea that they are correlated.

I would say there’s a parallel in the way we distinguish mis-guided love from pedophilia. If the age of a consenting older partner is just a little more than the age of an underage partner, it’s a lesser crime than if their ages are ten years apart. I think that’s because we see the smaller gap as an indication that it might be real love, whereas if there is a decade between, it’s more likely an attraction to type – which we hold as wrong. Obviously in some cases between the closer matched partners, it is in fact an attraction to type for the older one. While for some of the more disparately aged couples, it is that “Genuine” singular attraction that can befall any two people.

But we choose to make one a more serious crime because it’s more probably “WRONG” while we do less about the other because it might be well intended.

There are different standards for murder in most cultures. A fatal assault in the heat of violent emotion (2nd degree) is different than a killing with malice aforethought (1st degree). I think there should be degrees of attempted murder that correlate to those.

@aprilsimnel: sometimes it’s hard enough to prove murder in the first… I think it would be even more difficult to prove why someone attempted murder. It’s a good idea though… just seems improbable.

You actually answered your own question. attempted murder….the person lives, murder…the person dies. so many times the charge of attempted murder has been changed to murder.

Some attempted crimes carry the same maximum sentence as if the crime had been complete. It is that way in common law. States have codified their criminal laws for the most part and no two are identical. Even when the maximums are the same, a judge may not impose the max for an attempt.

Another thought: If someone survived a potentially lethal attack, however they survived, the attack (or whatever) was survivable. Some cases of successful murder are not something anyone could survive, because the murderer does a very thorough job.

Moreover, having the punishment be different, gives a murderer an added incentive to relent, change their mind, use less force, or otherwise be more responsible or reconsider how damaging or vicious they are being. On the other hand, if the punishments were equal, then someone who figures they are already going to be found guilty of attempted murder, may as well go all out and massacre their attempted victim.

e.g. I shoot a gun and it nearly hits a vicious bastard with lawyers whom I’ve talked about wanting to kill in front of others. Knowing he will no doubt insist on convicting me of attempted murder, I may as well go out and go empty all of my ammo into his cranium. Eh? j.k., but I think that makes it really clear one reason why one might want the punishments to be this way.

What @6rant6 says makes sense. The actual death of the person is a decent proxy, imperfect though it is.

I think a lot of this might turn on the answer to this question: Why do we punish people for crimes? Is it to punish them? Is it to get revenge? Is it to protect society? Is it as a deterrence for future crimes?