Sticks and Stones

There is only one difference between “murder” and “attempted murder”: that in the latter case, one fails to effect the death of the intended victim. But of course, that’s not true - there is another difference: if convicted of the latter, one will receive a much less serious sentence than the former.

Now, if one wished to get psychoanalytical, one might argue that subconsciously the culprit did not want the murder to be successful, and therefore is less culpable than if his or her victim had indeed died. If, however, one wishes to remain serious, we must concede that due to some accident or other, the attempted murderer is given a lesser sentence that the actual one.

Why should this be so? He had exactly the same intent, is an equal danger to society, shows the same disregard for human life and civil law - simply because a bullet misses by an inch, leaving the target still alive, the would-be killer is punished far less than if it had hit its mark. Meanwhile, one convicted of manslaughter, who was merely negligent, and had no intention of causing death, receives a similar sentence.

I fail to understand why criminals are judged by the outcomes of their deeds, rather than their intentions in embarking on them. Do lawmakers and judges think that inept or unlucky murderers are less of a danger to society, or need less prison time to reform and be rehabilitated? I propose that it would be much more logical to prosecute merely on the basis of intent, rather than consequence, as to my mind, the attempted murderer deserves no less of a punishment than the actual one.