A serious question for the attorneys and those with legal backgrounds

[1bigfan13]

This is something that has always bothered me.

In America why are we not allowed to apply the same sentence that someone would receive for a murder to someone who attempts murder?

For example, someone points a gun at someone and intentionally shoots them in the head but the victim miraculously survives. So now instead of possibly facing the death penalty, life in prison, etc., the person faces lesser charges. Even though it's clear as day that this person had every intent to kill the other individual he/she still gets a lesser sentence. That's never made sense to me.

In murder/attempted murder cases I've never understood the reasoning that a person should receive a lesser punishment just because a live was not lost.

I feel the same way about all these would be terrorists and ISIS supporters that the FBI are rolling up. If you get caught trying to purchase and build devices with the intent of carrying out a deadly attack, I think those people should be charged for murder. Not some lighter "conspiracy to commit a terroristic act" nonsense.

Obviously their intent is to inflict death and mass casualties. So why are we rewarding them with lighter charges just because they were caught early by an FBI informant? In my opinion, capital punishment should be on the table for these individuals as well.

Anyone else feel this way or am I way out in left field on this one?

Just some random questions that have floated around in my mind from time to time.

 

[Texas Ace]

For example, someone points a gun at someone and intentionally shoots them in the head but the victim miraculously survives. So now instead of possibly facing the death penalty, life in prison, etc., the person faces lesser charges. Even though it's clear as day that this person had every intent to kill the other individual he/she still gets a lesser sentence. That's never made sense to me.

Couldn't agree more.

Way back in 2002/2003, an old friend of mine had a younger brother who was a troublemaker through and through. As good a person as my friend was, and no matter how hard the parents tried, this other kid was just intent on hanging with the gangsters and being a thug himself.

Anyway, the kid shoots some other guy 8 times....and somehow the other guy lives! Of those 8 shots, 2 of them hit him in the neck. Not only did he survive, but he had no long terms effects from it. Talk about a case of it just not being your time to go.

So I remember my friend was a mess because he kept saying over and over how his brother ruined his life and how he'd never really get to spend time with him again. I mean, this is attempted murder, right? So you're thinking the kid is gonna get 20-plus years.

So what did he get? Aggravated assault.

He did 7 years, but only because he got in trouble in jail or else he would've just done 5. Since then, the guy has been in and out of prison for various violations and things like that.

If shooting someone 8 times isn't attempted murder, then I don't know what is.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Unless someone dies it isn't a murder. It's an attempt. To convert it to football terminology, a quarterback sack isn't a sack unless the QB is neutralized. A QB who escapes the grasp isn't sacked. I understand you puzzlement as to intent but but the criteria has to be met to qualify as a consummated deed. By the way I am not a lawyer but did study law. This is not a legal definition.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Couldn't agree more.

Way back in 2002/2003, an old friend of mine had a younger brother who was a troublemaker through and through. As good a person as my friend was, and no matter how hard the parents tried, this other kid was just intent on hanging with the gangsters and being a thug himself.

Anyway, the kid shoots some other guy 8 times....and somehow the other guy lives! Of those 8 shots, 2 of them hit him in the neck. Not only did he survive, but he had no long terms effects from it. Talk about a case of it just not being your time to go.

So I remember my friend was a mess because he kept saying over and over how his brother ruined his life and how he'd never really get to spend time with him again. I mean, this is attempted murder, right? So you're thinking the kid is gonna get 20-plus years.

So what did he get? Aggravated assault.

He did 7 years, but only because he got in trouble in jail or else he would've just done 5. Since then, the guy has been in and out of prison for various violations and things like that.

If shooting someone 8 times isn't attempted murder, then I don't know what is.

Probably depended on premeditation issues.

 

[1bigfan13]

Couldn't agree more.

Way back in 2002/2003, an old friend of mine had a younger brother who was a troublemaker through and through. As good a person as my friend was, and no matter how hard the parents tried, this other kid was just intent on hanging with the gangsters and being a thug himself.

Anyway, the kid shoots some other guy 8 times....and somehow the other guy lives! Of those 8 shots, 2 of them hit him in the neck. Not only did he survive, but he had no long terms effects from it. Talk about a case of it just not being your time to go.

So I remember my friend was a mess because he kept saying over and over how his brother ruined his life and how he'd never really get to spend time with him again. I mean, this is attempted murder, right? So you're thinking the kid is gonna get 20-plus years.

So what did he get? Aggravated assault.

He did 7 years, but only because he got in trouble in jail or else he would've just done 5. Since then, the guy has been in and out of prison for various violations and things like that.

If shooting someone 8 times isn't attempted murder, then I don't know what is.

The point that you made about your friend's brother being released after that light sentence is similar to the reason that I brought this up.

I was reading through some CNN articles and ran across the story about an Orthodox Jew stabbing a bunch of people at a gay pride parade yesterday. The article states that the guy did the exact same thing 10 years ago. He was sent to prison for 10 years, was just released 3 weeks ago and low and behold he goes on another stabbing spree.

I'm not saying the guy should have been put to death 10 years ago but a life sentence and capital punishment should be an option.

I think part of the problem, besides the laws themselves, is that a lot of these prosecutors undercharge criminals just so they can somewhat pad their conviction stats. They go for the lesser charge that's easier to prove.

 

[Cotton]

We just had something happen here in Lubbock that kinda relates to this topic. There was a cop here that was chasing a subject. The thug made it back to his patrol unit and jumped in the driver's seat. The cop reached in and tried to turn the vehicle off. The thug then grabbed the op and tried to hold him in the vehicle as he gunned it and slammed headlong into a streetlight. His intent was murderous, and he should have been charged as such, but he only so far has been charged with aggravated assault on a PO. He absolutely was trying to kill that cop. He should get attempted murder, IMO.

 

[1bigfan13]

Unless someone dies it isn't a murder. It's an attempt. To convert it to football terminology, a quarterback sack isn't a sack unless the QB is neutralized. A QB who escapes the grasp isn't sacked. I understand you puzzlement as to intent but but the criteria has to be met to qualify as a consummated deed. By the way I am not a lawyer but did study law. This is not a legal definition.

I understand the definition between the two. My point is if it can be proven that you intentionally tried to kill someone the punishment should be the same as if you actually carried out the act of killing someone.

 

[Cotton]

The point that you made about your friend's brother being released after that light sentence is similar to the reason that I brought this up.

I was reading through some CNN articles and ran across the story about an Orthodox Jew stabbing a bunch of people at a gay pride parade yesterday. The article states that the guy did the exact same thing 10 years ago. He was sent to prison for 10 years, was just released 3 weeks ago and low and behold he goes on another stabbing spree.

I'm not saying the guy should have been put to death 10 years ago but a life sentence and capital punishment should be an option.

I think part of the problem, besides the laws themselves, is that a lot of these prosecutors undercharge criminals just so they can somewhat pad their conviction stats. They go for the lesser charge that's easier to prove.

I agree. Just because someone fails doesn't mean they should be treated differently from one that actually succeeds. But, it's a slippery slope, and would give the courts and prosecution a crap ton more power.

 

[L.T. Fan]

We just had something happen here in Lubbock that kinda relates to this topic. There was a cop here that was chasing a subject. The thug made it back to his patrol unit and jumped in the driver's seat. The cop reached in and tried to turn the vehicle off. The thug then grabbed the op and tried to hold him in the vehicle as he gunned it and slammed headlong into a streetlight. His intent was murderous, and he should have been charged as such, but he only so far has been charged with aggravated assault on a PO. He absolutely was trying to kill that cop. He should get attempted murder, IMO.

Doesn't sound premeditated.

 

[Cotton]

Doesn't sound premeditated.

I didn't say it was premeditated. But, it could still be attempted murder. Just because it's spur of the moment doesn't mean the asshole didn't try to kill the cop.

 

[Texas Ace]

I agree. Just because someone fails doesn't mean they should be treated differently from one that actually succeeds. But, it's a slippery slope, and would give the courts and prosecution a crap ton more power.

Right.

Because it fails doesn't mean there wasn't an attempt to kill someone.

You're not trying to harm someone when you shoot them 8 times. I think it's pretty clear that you're trying to kill them.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I understand the definition between the two. My point is if it can be proven that you intentionally tried to kill someone the punishment should be the same as if you actually carried out the act of killing someone.

I understand. If the act was premeditated it can be intent but if it was spontaneous it lacks intent. That is essentially how the system breaks it down. There are caveats to that but it is pretty much the starting point.

 

[Jiggyfly]

I think you are looking at this wrong 1 Big.

The problem is not the charge it's the sentencing, you can get a long sentence for attempted murder just like you can get 10 years for murder if it's a plea or other circumstances.

As long as you have plea deals and non-mandatory sentences this will always be an issue.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I didn't say it was premeditated. But, it could still be attempted murder. Just because it's spur of the moment doesn't mean the asshole didn't try to kill the cop.

True but he may not have beforehand and with malice intended his death. It will vary from state to state but a general application is beforehand or spontaneous or continuing spontaneous actions. Sometime circumstances escalate from an action that causes one to react to cause harm or death but it wasn't a beforehand or premeditated action.

 

[1bigfan13]

True but he may not have beforehand and with malice intended his death. It will vary from state to state but a general application is beforehand or spontaneous or continuing spontaneous actions. Sometime circumstances escalate from an action that causes one to react to cause harm or death but it wasn't a beforehand or premeditated action.

I understand that there is clearly a difference when a crime is committed spontaneously or in an act of passion.

I'm actually more lenient in those instances.

But in premeditated instances such as when one spouse takes a $1M life insurance policy out on their husband/wife then cuts his/her brake line a week later, if the other party happens to survive the crash, I'd have not problem at all if the sentences that come with capital murder charges are on the table as a possible punishment for the defendant.

Thanks for the feedback, though. I just wanted to get other thoughts on this subject.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I understand that there is clearly a difference when a crime is committed spontaneously or in an act of passion.

I'm actually more lenient in those instances.

But in premeditated instances such as when one spouse takes a $1M life insurance policy out on their husband/wife then cuts his/her brake line a week later, if the other party happens to survive the crash, I'd have not problem at all with capital murder charges being brought up on the offending spouse.

Thanks for the feedback, though. I just wanted to get other thoughts on this subject.

I hope you aren't planning something!

 

[NoDak]

This is not a legal definition.

GTFO. Seriously?

 

[L.T. Fan]

GTFO. Seriously?

Seriously. It's a legal premise. Each state makes it's own legal definition.

 

[Clay_Allison]

My prison has a guy who has done 23 years for attempted murder and I've seen murderers get out after serving less time.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

It's because there is more to a punishment then to just deter people from committing the crime in the future. There is always a retribution component to the punishment a person receives. It's why the legal system takes into consideration a victims input during sentencing.

I guess what I'm getting at is that when a person dies it requires a greater punishment because of that component of it.