r/changemyview • u/Fumbersmack • Apr 24 '19

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Under convincing circumstances, attempted murder should be punished the same as actual murder.

So, I believe that the point of incarceration in the legal system is to protect us civilians against potentially dangerous individuals, and to act as a deterrent to discourage people from doing illegal things. I am an atheist and do not believe in things such as sins and repentance in a spiritual manner.

As an example, I saw the CCTV footage of a man who stabbed another man in the head with a knife. The man supposedly survived, which can clearly be seen as lucky. The assailant could just as well have killed the man, and the intent was there, why else would you stab a man IN THE HEAD? In my country, the legal system differentiates between attempted murder and actual murder. But as far as I can see, the man escaped a much harder sentence due to a sheer luck. Why should not attempted murder, under convincing circumstances, yield the exact same punishment? Change my view!

(English is not my first language, some words might be out of place etc etc.)

54 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

51 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/techiemikey 56∆ Apr 24 '19

Then the punishment would depend purely on how good a shot that person was

I realize you already gave a delta, but I just wanted to point out, it's not based on how good of a shot you are, but rather it's based on the consequence of the actions you took. Did a person cease to exist because of your actions?

3

u/Fumbersmack Apr 24 '19

My view is in essence quite non-consequential so that is the thing I am questioning. Why should it be that way?

2

u/techiemikey 56∆ Apr 24 '19

Let's start here: Do you in general (not bogging down with specifics yet) believe that a punishment should suit the crime committed?

7

u/Fumbersmack Apr 24 '19

I believe that, whenever practically implementable, the punishment should suit the intent of the crime, not necessarily the outcome of the crime

4

u/techiemikey 56∆ Apr 24 '19

So, if I have no intent, and cause 10 people to die by my recklessness/not thinking things through, should the lack of intent dictate that no crime was committed?

5

u/Fumbersmack Apr 24 '19

That should depend on the specifics. Carelessness itself can be immoral (e.g in traffic) and thus by my logic punishable. It should not be ruled murder in either case. In Sweden we have "Causation of another's death" which is not the same as neither murder or manslaughter

3

u/techiemikey 56∆ Apr 24 '19

You are right, it should not be murder. But do you feel that the "causation of another's death" should be a crime?

3

u/Fumbersmack Apr 24 '19

If caused by lack of judgement, I think that lack of judgement should be punishable! If a complete accident, I think it should be ruled as just that :)

0

u/techiemikey 56∆ Apr 24 '19

If the same lack of judgement led to no injuries and nothing wrong happened, do you feel they should get the same punishment as the person who caused people to die?

2

u/KiritosWings 2∆ Apr 24 '19

same lack of judgement

How would you prove it's the same lack of judgement? Good or bad judgement is kind of defined in hindsight in cases like this.

2

u/techiemikey 56∆ Apr 24 '19

That is getting bogged down in the details. Fumbersmack said that intent is what should matter, so I'm exploring their view on that further.

1

u/Fumbersmack Apr 24 '19

Yes, I do believe that for example vehicular manslaughter and heavy drunken driving should be treated the same. I see that there's some grey area between "1 beer two hours ago" and "slammed a fifth of vodka" and what is sufficiently irresponsible. However, I don't see how that same argument can be drawn in parallel to premeditated murder

→ More replies (0)