It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
If someone survives a potentially fatal stabbing, the perpetrator will get charged with attempted murder. If, days after the attack, the victim dies from his wounds, then the crime gets upgraded to the more serious offence of murder, and the culprit faces a more severe punishment. How does this make any sense ?
Crimes should be punished because of the perpetrator's actions - not the consequences of them.
Setting fire to a building which happens to be empty will result in a possible conviction for arson. Yet, if someone is in the building and dies as a result of the fire, then the crime gets upgraded to, at the very least, manslaughter, or - more likely - murder.
Philosophically speaking, I'm struggling to understand how a criminal act can not be judged (and punished) on a deontological level, rather than a consequentialist one.
What I propose is that sentencing should be based solely on the criminal act; someone who beats the life out of another person with a bat, for example, should receive the same sentence as a murderer, because it's reasonable to assume that the level of force could kill the victim.
Originally posted by DavidWillts
It makes perfect sense, someone died as a result of his actions. That is murder. The very idea in the thread title makes little sense.
Originally posted by DavidWillts
Those two things go hand in hand, if we did things your way it would be insane.
Real world- You shoot someone and they die, you go to prison for murder
Wonderland- You shoot someone and they die, you go to prison for shooting a gun. Now if we use that logic someone would serve an equal sentence for shooting a gun in public as they would for shooting someone. So, someone is going to do 30 years for not hurting anyone or someone is going to pay a fine for murder.
Originally posted by DavidWillts
That is called felony murder, if you kill someone while performing a felony it is still murder.
Originally posted by DavidWillts
Because the consequences show the severity of a crime.
Originally posted by DavidWillts
That is a slippery slope, one punch can kill a man. So should we hand out a murder sentence to every violent offender? That sounds contradictory to the entire OP because now you are punishing people for things that did not happen and boarder line thought crime.
I fear you are using circular reasoning to back up your argument.
However, if a jury finds someone guilty of attempted murder, then they accept that there was murderous intent to the perpetrator's actions.
You have failed to outline any valid argument which justifies punishing a criminal act in different ways,
Nobody would go to prison just for shooting a gun. If someone, however, attempts to shoot someone (other than self-defence or well considered pre-emptive action), or recklessly shoots their gun in a way that you would reasonably expect a strong possibility of death or serious injury occurring to an outside party, then they should receive the full sentence which a murderer who acts in exactly the same manner does.
Matey-boy sets fire to a building, someone unintentionally dies, and he gets charged with a ''felony murder'', and a far more severe punsihment. How does that make any sense ?
The criminal act is setting fire to the building; the perpetrator has no control over the consequences, so why are the consequences the major factor in determining the severity of his sentence ?
Ah, now we're getting to the crux of the matter. You base the severity of the crime on the consequences of the action.
Tell me, though, how someone who, for example, carries out a vicious and life-threatening assault on another person can be released back into society after about 5 years, yet if matters - which are completely out of his hands - panned out differently, then he'd be facing 15-20+ years in prison for murder.
I'm guessing that you're an American, as an American's sense of ''justice'' is based on vengeance,
How does it remotely suggest ''thought crime'' ? By your bizarre reasoning, attempted murder is a ''thought crime'', because the thoughts and mental processes of the accused are factored into the jury's verdict.
Originally posted by FissionSurplus
I fail to understand your confusion with this concept.
Originally posted by FissionSurplus
A person should be held accountable, not only for their actions, but for the consequences (unintended or not) of their actions.
Originally posted by FissionSurplus
Saying "I only meant to stab the person, not kill them", or, "I only wanted to burn the building down, I didn't think about who was in the building at the time" just doesn't cut it.
Originally posted by FissionSurplus
This is why people need to think long and hard about their choices, because of the unintended consequences that arise from them. For example: Drunk driving. You got loaded at a bar, you needed to get home, you didn't mean to cause a wreck or kill that family. Yet if you did that, you are held accountable for manslaughter. If it was your family that were the victims, wouldn't you want justice? Or would you be happy that the offender got off with a ticket for DUI only?
It's called personal responsibility. I'm glad the law takes into account everything that happens from a criminal act.
Originally posted by DavidWillts
I fear you are using none to back up yours.
Originally posted by DavidWillts
Well in one scenario someone was killed in the other nobody died.
Originally posted by DavidWillts
That makes no sense, those are all separate crimes and they all receive separate punishment. Plus death and serious injury are two different things.
Originally posted by DavidWillts
That makes sense because he killed someone, do you not get that?
Originally posted by DavidWillts
Because he had 100% control of setting the fire and as a result of his actions someone died.
Originally posted by DavidWillts
Yeah. Shooting a gun in your house- that is fine. Shooting a gun at a crowd of people-that is a crime. The only thing that makes it different is the consequences of the action. After all no man in the world can control a bullet after it leaves the barrel.
Originally posted by DavidWillts
Because he was in control of himself and he either beat a guy to death or he didn't. The law is very clear on things like this.
The criminal act was absolutely the same.
By your bizarre reasoning, a paedophile could attempt to ''get involved'' with a young child, but that's fine, just so long as he doesn't eventually rape them.
Ah, hop on the circular logic train ! What fun (!).
When someone is arguing a winning point against you, don't reinforce their point(s) by using arguments which completely contradict your position.
Riiiight. So matey-boy gets a 20-year sentence because his arson attack killed someone, yet matey-boy would have received a 2-year sentence if structural damage was all that occurred.
Exactly the same crime, but matey-boy gets ''rewarded'' for his aberrant behaviour.
Yet, bizarrely, you think that someone who sets fire to a building should not be punished in exactly the same way as an arsonist who kills someone through their reckless firestarting.
You sound like yet another one of these cowardly, poorly educated and gun-clutching Americans who lives in perpetual fear.
This guy must be from the ''Deep South''.
This is just simple logic which I'm putting forward, yet you still haven't managed to detach yourself from the advancement of the debate which happened hours ago.
Perchance, have you got a brother with three ears ?
I have a huge problem with the fact that criminals are largely punished on the basis of the random and out of control consequences of their crime, rather than the criminal act itself.
Originally posted by Maslo
It is always the consequences that determine right and wrong, never the act itself. Deontological morality is just an useful approximation for practical legal purposes and our limited resources, nothing more.
Originally posted by Maslo
For example, if we could see the future, drunk driving would (or should) generally be allowed, as only drunk drivers who would not harm anyone would be likely to drive. Similarly, shooting into a crowd would also be allowed if we could reliably determine it would not harm anyone.
So even those crimes where there are no real harmful consequences are really based on an increased probability of bad consequences
Originally posted by Maslo
There is no deep deontological reason, just a practical aspect, and they would not exist if we could see the future to know the consequences reliably, yet the world would not be any less moral place.
yet don't seem to agree that someone, for example, burning down an inhabited building should receive the same punishment, whether someone was killed, injured or not.
Explain the ''practical aspect'' of sentencing someone more lightly, if the victim of their attack - in moments beyond their control - survives rather than dies ?
Originally posted by Maslo
Because te consequences are not the same. The consequence of burning down a building differs from that of burning down a building and killing an occupant.
Originally posted by Maslo
So, you seem to really be arguing that if someone sets a building on fire and unknowingly and unintentionally kills and inhabitant, he is not responsible for the second consequence?
Remember, in modern societies, we don't base the criminal justice system on vengeance or ''an eye for an eye''. I don't know what it's like in your country.
If someone - of sound mental state - sets fire to an inhabited building, then he is well aware of the potential consequences of his action.
The fact that nobody - by luck rather than judgement - died in the arson attack should, demonstrably, not have an implication on the punishment he occurs for his act.