kev wrote:A man finds out you are seeing his wife when he is at work, so he takes his .38 and shoots you in the chest, by a million to one chance the bullet passes through you without hitting anything that could cause a fatality.
If you had died the sentence would have been life in jail, but you were only off work for a month so he is charged with attempted murder which carries a much less sentence.
My question has always been this: why should he be rewarded with a much less sentence? His intention was clear, his action was clear, why should he benefit from your unbelievable good luck?
The gunman isn't "rewarded." He is sentenced for what he did (i.e. attempted murder). You want to sentence him according to his "intent," but intent is only one element of a crime. There also has to be an "act" and an "injury." Certainly, you wouldn't put the husband away for life for merely
intending to kill his rival, without any overt act or injury. So why punish him for murder when the
injury (i.e. the death of the victim) is absent? Murder consists of three things: intent to kill (
malum in se), an act that brings it about, and the death of the victim. Change any one of those elements and you no longer have murder.
Does that mean that the offender "lucks out" when his victim does not die. Maybe. But to do otherwise would be to eliminate one of the elements traditionally relied upon to determine the nature and gravity of a crime.
