I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as murder. I mean if someone's actual intention is to murder someone and they fail, they get a lesser sentence because they suck at murder? Their victim would be DEAD if they succeeded in their intention. If their plan got foiled or they screwed up and their victim lived, why should they not get the same penalty as they would receive if they were successful?
shareI'd say it is a philosophical question rather than a purely legal one. In Canada Attempted Murder can carry a life sentence, just like Murder. In the US Attempted Murder I think almost always carries a lesser sentence than Murder, with some exceptions, for example, Attempted Murder under certain circumstances carries the same penalty as Murder.
shareI agree that it is a philosophical question. It just doesn't seem right that an attempted murderer should get a lesser sentence because the victim got lucky that he/she was unsuccessful at what they intended to do. The US needs to step it up. :)
shareNo, because punishment is not just about the perpetrator but also about the victim, therefore if there's no victim the punishment should be less.
shareI see that but they intended to murder. Intent is a factor in many punishments.
shareI agree Knish. Any criminal activity is against the law but murder is more extreme and deserves extreme punishment like long imprisonment or execution if it is allowed in your state or country.
shareAlso, that's the thing, speaking of the victim. The victim WOULD be dead were it not for the ineptitude of the perp or other mitigating factors. I don't think those factors should benefit the the perp in their sentence.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to argue. Just exploring thoughts and ideas. :)
Agreed
shareI definitely agree.
share