Criminal Law - Intention and Action should matter most... no the result.

[Lewkowski]

One of the issues I have with the way criminal law is treated is that the punishment is often decided by the impact of the crime. Why is this? There are two reasons for criminal punishments. The first and most obvious is that it separates dangerous people from general society. The second is that it creates a deterrent to crime. If I do this crime I might get caught and then punished for it, so I won't do the crime and take the risk.

So... why do we base criminal punishment on luck? Here are some examples:

1. A man walks in and shoots someone in face. The victim dies. The crime is murder and the individual will be given a length sentence, possibly life and possibly death. Now take the same scenario. The guy walks in and shoots someone in the face. The victim lives and based on pure chance actually does not sustain a serious injury. Now what is the punishment for the criminal? Not nearly as harsh as in the first scenario! Why? The man is obviously dangerous and needs to be removed from society. It is only by pure chance that the victim survived however society will judge him less harshly. This doesn't make sense to me.

2. A man gets drunk. Drives his vehicle. Crashes into another car instantly killing the other driver. Now our criminal is in serious trouble - manslaughter charges, vehicular homicide ect ect. Change the scenario. Now the man gets drunk. Drives his vehicles. Crashes into another car and the other driver survives with minor injuries. Now the criminal is still in trouble but his punishment will be far less. WHY? How about an added twist. A man gets drunk. Drives his vehicle. Doesn't get into an accident - instead he is pulled over for reckless driving and arrested for DUI. Now he spends a night in jail, maybe loses his license temporarily (or not) and pays a fine. The mans actions were the same as in the first scenario. But by pure luck he is not going to prison for several years.

Obviously in civil trials damages are very important for making it right. But our criminal justice system isn't about vengeance - the actual outcome of the crime shouldn't factor into the punishments. Instead the intent and actions that the criminal took should decide the punishment. This allows society to separate dangerous people away from society (prison) and by punishing people for crimes that COULD have gotten people killed it serves as a powerful deterrent to doing those behaviors.

[Ominous Gamer]

I question how many people currently going through our courts/jail system are honestly considered "dangerous", or were considered "dangerous" before being thrown to those wolves.

[Loki]

Generally agreed with Lewk. The only thing I'd add is that one aspect of legal punishment is to promote the social good. That allows for a more severe punishment for an action that caused a greater amount of societal harm, regardless of the amount of force used to produce that action.

[Khendraja'aro]

By that rationale, the cast of Jersey Shore should be locked away for life.

[earthJoker]

I generally agree as well. In the case of speeding and drunk driving there were some interesting (good) court decision were recklessness was taken into consideration. Unfortunately this is used way to less for violence crime. If someone kicks into the victims head while the victim is already on the floor, you have good chances that it will suffer from internal bleedings etc. I don't see how someone should "get away" with that just because the victim was lucky.

[Wraith]

By that rationale, the cast of Jersey Shore should be locked away for life.

I think most people would be okay with this.

[Lewkowski]

By that rationale, the cast of Jersey Shore should be locked away for life.

I don't watch it - what exactly are they doing? If its drunk driving and shooting people in the face (or other violent crimes) then yes.

[Ominous Gamer]

are we talking about criminal law, or violent crime? you're tossing the terms around like they are interchangeable. This might make sense to someone who is cool with killing people over toothpaste, but to a normal person they have different meanings.

[Lewkowski]

are we talking about criminal law, or violent crime? you're tossing the terms around like they are interchangeable. This might make sense to someone who is cool with killing people over toothpaste, but to a normal person they have different meanings.

I'm using the distinction of criminal law as compared to civil law. Civil damages should obviously be part of the restitution portion. All I'm suggesting is that we discount the result of the criminal action and instead take into account the motivation and the actual action.

[Aimless]

One of the issues I have with the way criminal law is treated is that the punishment is often decided by the impact of the crime. Why is this? There are two reasons for criminal punishments. The first and most obvious is that it separates dangerous people from general society. The second is that it creates a deterrent to crime. If I do this crime I might get caught and then punished for it, so I won't do the crime and take the risk.

While those may be the two most important reasons for punishment, they are not the only important considerations in shaping specific punishments.

[Lewkowski]

While those may be the two most important reasons for punishment, they are not the only important considerations in shaping specific punishments.

Enlighten me.

[LittleFuzzy]

Lewk, just what an "action" might be is determined by context. And one element of that context is the result. Further the result is something that can be ascertained more or less definitively while intent is very difficult to prove.

Let's look at the first set of circumstances you raised. A man walks in and shoots someone in the face. The action he took was that he shot a gun. It hitting someone in the face is a result, just the same as the victim living or dying is. You can't even say for certain that he deliberately shot at the victim rather than attempting to shoot near the victim without ancillary evidence to establish precisely what the intent behind shooting the gun was *testimony or evidence establishing the attacker had threatened to shoot the victim, etc*

[Lewkowski]

Lewk, just what an "action" might be is determined by context. And one element of that context is the result. Further the result is something that can be ascertained more or less definitively while intent is very difficult to prove.

Let's look at the first set of circumstances you raised. A man walks in and shoots someone in the face. The action he took was that he shot a gun. It hitting someone in the face is a result, just the same as the victim living or dying is. You can't even say for certain that he deliberately shot at the victim rather than attempting to shoot near the victim without ancillary evidence to establish precisely what the intent behind shooting the gun was *testimony or evidence establishing the attacker had threatened to shoot the victim, etc*

Its a simple example. Assuming the entire thing was caught on video tape, there was a confession and it was in front of 8 eye witnesses and all sorts of extra evidence you want, lets assume all of that. In that case should it matter if the victim dies when it comes to determining the criminal's punishment?

[LittleFuzzy]

If we're going to just assume things, why don't we just assume that people will never be violent or harm each other again? Then we can do away with the entire idea of crime and criminal law.

We can't ignore results when addressing crime because we can't adequately parse criminal and noncriminal acts by completing ignoring that actions have consequences, that cause leads to effect. If we strip those out then we have no reason to object to action. You're not trying to draw a line between intent and action on one side and results on the other, you're trying to draw a line between different "sections" of results. But the line you're trying to draw is pretty incomprehensible and appears to be quite arbitrary, I am completely at a loss in figuring out where this line is supposed to be, what qualifies something to be considered and what is to be excluded from consideration.

[Dreadnaught]

Lewk- I don't think most people would be comfortable with the "reverse" of the scenarios you outlined. After all, tons of things are theoretically lethal and have caused death, but often don't.

For example, if someone punches someone in the face and they don't die (even though, in theory, the blow could have killed them), does the puncher deserve to be treated like a criminal? If I shoot a gun straight-up in the air for no particular reason, is this a problem because the gun could have been pointed at someone, who theoretically could then have been killed?

I guess our laws/sense of justice is based around a general sense of cause and effect.

[Lewkowski]

Lewk- I don't think most people would be comfortable with the "reverse" of the scenarios you outlined. After all, tons of things are theoretically lethal and have caused death, but often don't.

For example, if someone punches someone in the face and they don't die (even though, in theory, the blow could have killed them), does the puncher deserve to be treated like a criminal? If I shoot a gun straight-up in the air for no particular reason, is this a problem because the gun could have been pointed at someone, who theoretically could then have been killed?

I guess our laws/sense of justice is based around a general sense of cause and effect.

If someone punches someone as part of a fight or whatever and the person dies - why should the person throwing the punch be treated more harshly then anyone else who threw the punch? Was the intent there to kill? Could it be reasonably assumed someone would die from a punch? The punishment for the crime should be the same based on the action and the motivation NOT the outcome.

[Lewkowski]

If we're going to just assume things, why don't we just assume that people will never be violent or harm each other again? Then we can do away with the entire idea of crime and criminal law.

We can't ignore results when addressing crime because we can't adequately parse criminal and noncriminal acts by completing ignoring that actions have consequences, that cause leads to effect. If we strip those out then we have no reason to object to action. You're not trying to draw a line between intent and action on one side and results on the other, you're trying to draw a line between different "sections" of results. But the line you're trying to draw is pretty incomprehensible and appears to be quite arbitrary, I am completely at a loss in figuring out where this line is supposed to be, what qualifies something to be considered and what is to be excluded from consideration.

The potential negative outcome of an action is the reason the law is in existence. The actual outcome should not matter. If someone sucks at shooting people should they get a lesser sentence? Should the drunk who caused an accident get a lighter sentence because the doctor was a miracle worker and saved the victims life? The answer should be no.

[earthJoker]

After all, tons of things are theoretically lethal and have caused death, but often don't.

I think this is not much of a problem if you only apply those it in those cases that are sure. Medicine and forensic science have improved over years, so we actually don't have to make wild guesses. Of course it could not be based on a chance that something can happen, it must by a high probability taken into account.

I don't think we want to have a Minority Report (the movie) kind of scenario.

[Dreadnaught]

If someone punches someone as part of a fight or whatever and the person dies - why should the person throwing the punch be treated more harshly then anyone else who threw the punch? Was the intent there to kill? Could it be reasonably assumed someone would die from a punch? The punishment for the crime should be the same based on the action and the motivation NOT the outcome.

No, but wouldn't someone who punches someone and happens to kill them be punished less with what you're proposing?

I think this is not much of a problem if you only apply those it in those cases that are sure. Medicine and forensic science have improved over years, so we actually don't have to make wild guesses. Of course it could not be based on a chance that something can happen, it must by a high probability taken into account.

I don't think we want to have a Minority Report (the movie) kind of scenario.

I agree with what (I think) you are saying -- why not just increase charges based on someone actually dying from a criminal act? Am I reading you correctly?

[earthJoker]

Well let's go back to the example of the punch. As I see it, a punch is not sufficient to put someone into prison, but if a doctor proves that the punch was so hard that it actually could kill someone, one should go to jail. And I think there are many cases were we are able to determining such a fact (maybe our doctor has a more educated view on this).

I agree with what (I think) you are saying -- why not just increase charges based on someone actually dying from a criminal act? Am I reading you correctly?

I don't think you did. I think we should increase charges for someone who provable and intentionally putting other lives at risk. Firing a gun in the air is not such a case, driving drunk at 200 km/h is.

[Flixy]

Well let's go back to the example of the punch. As I see it, a punch is not sufficient to put someone into prison, but if a doctor proves that the punch was so hard that it actually could kill someone, one should go to jail. And I think there are many cases were we are able to determining such a fact (maybe our doctor has a more educated view on this).


I don't think you did. I think we should increase charges for someone who provable and intentionally putting other lives at risk. Firing a gun in the air is not such a case, driving drunk at 200 km/h is.

Even if you hit someone quite soft, there's always a chance he can die, brain injuries can occur unexpectedly, he could fall and hit something in a bad way, etc. Same with firing a gun in the air, really - you don't expect someone to get killed because of it, but it can happen. Intention is an important issue, but I think part of Lewks point is that if you intend to kill someone, the punishment is quite different depending on whether you succeed or not.

With regards to the punch, since it's not premeditated it would at least not be first degree murder, which shows that motivation and intent are taken into account already, but outcome (obviously) as well. There's a reason there's involuntary manslaughter, manslaughter (which over here combines second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter), and murder. And over here there's also the added category of battery with death as a result, i.e. battery was intentional but death wasn't. And there's higher maximum sentences if it was done while committing another crime, or to aid that crime. And with battery, there's difference whether your intent was to seriously injure the other guy or not.

Specifically with the punch in a bar fight thing: over here that would be a maximum of three years in jail if no or minor injuries were sustained, four years for serious injuries, or six if the victim dies. Add 50% if the fight was premeditated, double it if the intent was to seriously injure the victim, and triple (roughly) if both (more under specific circumstances, like assaulting a cop). I think that shows pretty well that both intent and outcome matter here. Then again, we have a very different civil system, so criminal law also has the role of retribution, which makes sense to link to the outcome and not just intent.

[Ominous Gamer]

No, but wouldn't someone who punches someone and happens to kill them be punished less with what you're proposing?

He supports murder for toothpaste theft. Punishments wouldn't go down. They would go up.

You couldn't let a red light runner who caused an accident and killed someone to get off on a $150 traffic violation.

[Aimless]

To be honest I can see some of the appeal of changing the law in accordance with Lewk's wishes. In the long term, it might pave the way to getting the boards of BP and almost all major pharmaceutical companies straight into jail.

[LittleFuzzy]

The potential negative outcome of an action is the reason the law is in existence. The actual outcome should not matter. If someone sucks at shooting people should they get a lesser sentence? Should the drunk who caused an accident get a lighter sentence because the doctor was a miracle worker and saved the victims life? The answer should be no.

The potential negative outcome of you getting behind the wheel of your car is vehicular manslaughter. I repeat, you're saying some results should matter and some should not. The problem is which is which is *and ultimately always will be* somewhat unclear. You are expressing a utopian ideal "I want the application of the law to always have the exact results I think they should have in any situation," which would require the rules to be tailored beforehand to somehow encompass each and every detail of all "criminal" action that will ever happen in the future. Can't be done, shouldn't be attempted. As the best reasonable proxy we've been able to come up with, our legal system chooses to just go ahead and look at all the results to the parties directly involved in some pre-set circumscribed time-frames.

[GGT]

Lewk, criminal law varies by state, and federal statute. Seems to me you're questioning the sentencing process. Yes, there's supposed to be a 'punishment' for criminal crimes, that can also act a deterrent....but retribution or vengeance isn't part of that equation.

[Loki]

Have you read anything Lewk wrote in this thread?

[GGT]

Have you read anything Lewk wrote in this thread?

Sure, especially his last paragraph:

Obviously in civil trials damages are very important for making it right. But our criminal justice system isn't about vengeance - the actual outcome of the crime shouldn't factor into the punishments. Instead the intent and actions that the criminal took should decide the punishment. This allows society to separate dangerous people away from society (prison) and by punishing people for crimes that COULD have gotten people killed it serves as a powerful deterrent to doing those behaviors.

Lewk is the guy who says a poor man stealing toothpaste can/should by shot by a shopkeeper, and that's perfectly justifiable. He says violent criminals should face a "Fry 'em" or "lock 'em up and throw away the key" policy. He might say criminal justice isn't about vengeance in the OP, but everything else in his posting history suggests otherwise.

[Flixy]

Sure, especially his last paragraph:

Obviously in civil trials damages are very important for making it right. But our criminal justice system isn't about vengeance - the actual outcome of the crime shouldn't factor into the punishments. Instead the intent and actions that the criminal took should decide the punishment. This allows society to separate dangerous people away from society (prison) and by punishing people for crimes that COULD have gotten people killed it serves as a powerful deterrent to doing those behaviors.

Lewk is the guy who says a poor man stealing toothpaste can/should by shot by a shopkeeper, and that's perfectly justifiable. He says violent criminals should face a "Fry 'em" or "lock 'em up and throw away the key" policy. He might say criminal justice isn't about vengeance in the OP, but everything else in his posting history suggests otherwise.

By his logic, if you break the law three times, you will keep breaking it, so it's about prevention, not vengeance. I.e. exactly what he wrote. This allows society to separate dangerous people away from society (prison)

[Lewkowski]

The potential negative outcome of you getting behind the wheel of your car is vehicular manslaughter. I repeat, you're saying some results should matter and some should not. The problem is which is which is *and ultimately always will be* somewhat unclear. You are expressing a utopian ideal "I want the application of the law to always have the exact results I think they should have in any situation," which would require the rules to be tailored beforehand to somehow encompass each and every detail of all "criminal" action that will ever happen in the future. Can't be done, shouldn't be attempted. As the best reasonable proxy we've been able to come up with, our legal system chooses to just go ahead and look at all the results to the parties directly involved in some pre-set circumscribed time-frames.

Its not utopian and it doesn't require every detail to be known. If you shoot someone with the intent to kill you should be in prison for life (barring self defense). If you punch someone in a brawl without the intent to kill you shouldn't be in prison for life. Regardless of the victims injuries - the action should be punished not the result.

No system is perfect however its absurd that we base sentences on luck.

[Lewkowski]

You couldn't let a red light runner who caused an accident and killed someone to get off on a $150 traffic violation.

That's the flip side. If someone does something reckless and causes someone's death their punishment should be no greater then if someone does something reckless and doesn't cause death. The punishments should be exactly the same (barring prior offenses which should be taken into account).