watched a
ted talk the other night. it was by a guy called Michael sandel. in it he asked what would you do in a given situation;
you were on a trolley train (a small maintenance vehicles used to check the track) that was going to plow into five people on the track and kill them, up ahead was a fork that sent you away from the five but in doing killed a single person on the other track. what would you do. we all said kill the one. the answer was easy
another question was. if you were overlooking the scene and knew by pushing the fat gut next to you, into the path of the trolley train you'd save the five people, though the fat guy would def die. would you push off the bridge? the answer to this one wasn't as straight forward. people hummed and were less outspoken as to what they'd do.
so it got me thinking;
if a person pulls a knife on a stranger for no reason other than to rob him, he sticks the guy with it, the guy faints, but doesn't die after being stabbed and is robbed by the knife-man. later the knife-man is caught and convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 15 year in prison. a week later another knife-man does the same thing except this time the knifes goes into an apple in the victims pocket. the victim faints as did the first one but more from fear than being stabbed (the knife never touched him). again the knife-man robs his victim and is later caught. the moral question is this. should the second knife-man get the same sentence as the first knife-man?
if yes, why
if no, why not? weren't they both the same crime?
probably manslaughter.
but your question doesn't address the problem of differing sentences for the same, or what should be the same crime.
For Billy's question:
The second knifeman should get the same sentence as the first: attempted murder. The second's man victim wasn't hurt, but it wasn't from the knifeman's lack of trying. In a case like that, I feel intent is the bigger factor for consideration.
I guess to me a more problematic question is, suppose there were two shooting cases, one where the gunman succeeds in murdering his victim and another where the intended victim gets to a hospital and survives, why should the two gunmen's sentences be different? Why should the second murderer be "rewarded" just because he didn't succeed?
To Velvetfog:
To me, the gangster is guilty of manslaughter, strange as it may be. Stray bullet hit the other person, doesn't matter if the other person was suicidal. It's a bit like if you shoot a man who's dying of cancer and who's only got one day to live: doesn't absolve you of the act.
That's just my interpretation.
I do not see any moral dilemma's here, I see legel dilemma's.
Here is a dilemma for you.
A man murders another man in cold blood and gets cought then convicted and sentanced to death. He is now a murder.
Another man murders 100 men in cold blood and is never cought. The murders are never discovered to be murders. The man lives out his life like any other and dies of old age. Is he a murder?
Quote:A man murders another man in cold blood and gets cought then convicted and sentanced to death. He is now a murder.
Another man murders 100 men in cold blood and is never cought. The murders are never discovered to be murders. The man lives out his life like any other and dies of old age. Is he a murder?
Yes. Definitely. Just because nobody knows it doesn't mean he isn't a murderer.
(01-06-2010, 09:22 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]watched a ted talk the other night....
Yes.
Simply put, its the thought that counts. Or lack of thought on the 2nd robbers part. He tried to do bodily harm with total disregard to the well being of the apple carrying man. The fact is he tried to murder the man who got lucky with a Granny Smith apple in his pocket... That counts as "attempted murder"
(01-07-2010, 11:26 AM)addy Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:A man murders another man in cold blood and gets cought then convicted and sentanced to death. He is now a murder.
Another man murders 100 men in cold blood and is never cought. The murders are never discovered to be murders. The man lives out his life like any other and dies of old age. Is he a murder?
Yes. Definitely. Just because nobody knows it doesn't mean he isn't a murderer.
Exactly. A man does not have to be convicted to be a murderer. He would be a murderer that slipped through the cracks
(01-06-2010, 03:09 PM)addy Wrote: [ -> ]For Billy's question:
The second knifeman should get the same sentence as the first: attempted murder. The second's man victim wasn't hurt, but it wasn't from the knifeman's lack of trying. In a case like that, I feel intent is the bigger factor for consideration.
I guess to me a more problematic question is, suppose there were two shooting cases, one where the gunman succeeds in murdering his victim and another where the intended victim gets to a hospital and survives, why should the two gunmen's sentences be different? Why should the second murderer be "rewarded" just because he didn't succeed?
To Velvetfog:
To me, the gangster is guilty of manslaughter, strange as it may be. Stray bullet hit the other person, doesn't matter if the other person was suicidal. It's a bit like if you shoot a man who's dying of cancer and who's only got one day to live: doesn't absolve you of the act.
That's just my interpretation.
Hmmm
OK now you got me here after answering the last one..
The crook who shot killed the man, off with his head. (France had some style...)
The 2nd crook would be guilty of manslaughter (no possibility of parole) since a hi velocity projectile tends to maul and slaughter a human body as it passes thru. Or at the least attempted murder (parole possible in a decade, maybe)
(01-07-2010, 11:26 AM)addy Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:A man murders another man in cold blood and gets cought then convicted and sentanced to death. He is now a murder.
Another man murders 100 men in cold blood and is never cought. The murders are never discovered to be murders. The man lives out his life like any other and dies of old age. Is he a murder?
Yes. Definitely. Just because nobody knows it doesn't mean he isn't a murderer.
So if a tree falls in the forest and there is no ear to pick up the sound waves then there really is a sound? Thats about what your saying i think.
(01-09-2010, 02:08 AM)Benny2guns Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2010, 11:26 AM)addy Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:A man murders another man in cold blood and gets cought then convicted and sentanced to death. He is now a murder.
Another man murders 100 men in cold blood and is never cought. The murders are never discovered to be murders. The man lives out his life like any other and dies of old age. Is he a murder?
Yes. Definitely. Just because nobody knows it doesn't mean he isn't a murderer.
So if a tree falls in the forest and there is no ear to pick up the sound waves then there really is a sound? That's about what your saying i think.
more or less. just because we don't see, it or hear it etc, just mean we didnt see or hear it, it still happened.
if we walk by it at a later day we'll see it and know.
that said, the guy with the apple saw heard and knew about it didn't he. the would be killer knew about it. the witness across the street knew about it.
what sentence would you give to someone who threw a kid of a cliff, it falls 100 ft and miraculously walks away with a few scratches? you wouldn't string him up by the hairys?
@ Benny
For me that analogy isn't perfect. The case of the unsolved murder is more like "If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there, did it really fall?" To me the clear answer is yes. In the case of the murder, someone is clearly dead, never mind that nobody saw him die. If there's a victim, there's a crime, right?
@ Scrufuss
Quote:Hmmm
OK now you got me here after answering the last one..
The crook who shot killed the man, off with his head. (France had some style...)
The 2nd crook would be guilty of manslaughter (no possibility of parole) since a hi velocity projectile tends to maul and slaughter a human body as it passes thru. Or at the least attempted murder (parole possible in a decade, maybe)
I guess what I mean is, if the second gunman clearly wanted his victim to die just as much as the first gunmen had his own victim, then why should he get leniency just because he didn't succeed? To me he's just as much a coldblooded murderer as the first guy, only he's got worse aim. I know legally, it'll be ruled as attempted murder, but just morally it seems wrong to me. Just a thought.
@ Billy
As you can tell from my answers before, to me the act itself is important, and the intent behind it. So in your scenario, assuming the man didn't have a reason to do it (like saving the kid from a man-eating lion or whatever) and really did it to
hurt, then for me it doesn't matter if the kid is unharmed. The guy should be hanged. That's my moral opinion. Legally, he'd get attempted murder or something.
@ addy
i agree, i'd charge him with attempted murder and give the twat life.
in fact i think jail time should be the same for attempted murder as it is for murder. which would get rid of the alleged moral ambiguity.
(01-11-2010, 05:55 PM)addy Wrote: [ -> ]@ Benny
For me that analogy isn't perfect. The case of the unsolved murder is more like "If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there, did it really fall?" To me the clear answer is yes. In the case of the murder, someone is clearly dead, never mind that nobody saw him die. If there's a victim, there's a crime, right?
@ Scrufuss
Quote:Hmmm
OK now you got me here after answering the last one..
The crook who shot killed the man, off with his head. (France had some style...)
The 2nd crook would be guilty of manslaughter (no possibility of parole) since a hi velocity projectile tends to maul and slaughter a human body as it passes thru. Or at the least attempted murder (parole possible in a decade, maybe)
I guess what I mean is, if the second gunman clearly wanted his victim to die just as much as the first gunmen had his own victim, then why should he get leniency just because he didn't succeed? To me he's just as much a coldblooded murderer as the first guy, only he's got worse aim. I know legally, it'll be ruled as attempted murder, but just morally it seems wrong to me. Just a thought.
@ Billy
As you can tell from my answers before, to me the act itself is important, and the intent behind it. So in your scenario, assuming the man didn't have a reason to do it (like saving the kid from a man-eating lion or whatever) and really did it to hurt, then for me it doesn't matter if the kid is unharmed. The guy should be hanged. That's my moral opinion. Legally, he'd get attempted murder or something.
No addy and bill, there is no murder unless the crime itself is recognized as a crime. I say you are only guilty of a crime and a crime has only been committed when your cought,charged and convicted. If the stated murders took place but were and will never be uncovered then no murder took place in the eyes of humanity.
the murderer knew and possibly the victim before he died.
and people have been charged with murder
even though no body was found.
it is also straying a tad from the topic set by the op
for me just because a crime hasn't been detected doesn't mean a crime hasn't been committed.
i used to steal. even if the person i stole from didn't realize i'd stole something, i did. i knew i'd committed the crime of stealing.
(01-12-2010, 07:54 PM)Benny2guns Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2010, 05:55 PM)addy Wrote: [ -> ]@ Benny
For me that analogy isn't perfect. The case of the unsolved murder is more like "If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there, did it really fall?" To me the clear answer is yes. In the case of the murder, someone is clearly dead, never mind that nobody saw him die. If there's a victim, there's a crime, right?
@ Scrufuss
Quote:Hmmm
OK now you got me here after answering the last one..
The crook who shot killed the man, off with his head. (France had some style...)
The 2nd crook would be guilty of manslaughter (no possibility of parole) since a hi velocity projectile tends to maul and slaughter a human body as it passes thru. Or at the least attempted murder (parole possible in a decade, maybe)
I guess what I mean is, if the second gunman clearly wanted his victim to die just as much as the first gunmen had his own victim, then why should he get leniency just because he didn't succeed? To me he's just as much a coldblooded murderer as the first guy, only he's got worse aim. I know legally, it'll be ruled as attempted murder, but just morally it seems wrong to me. Just a thought.
@ Billy
As you can tell from my answers before, to me the act itself is important, and the intent behind it. So in your scenario, assuming the man didn't have a reason to do it (like saving the kid from a man-eating lion or whatever) and really did it to hurt, then for me it doesn't matter if the kid is unharmed. The guy should be hanged. That's my moral opinion. Legally, he'd get attempted murder or something.
No addy and bill, there is no murder unless the crime itself is recognized as a crime. I say you are only guilty of a crime and a crime has only been committed when your cought,charged and convicted. If the stated murders took place but were and will never be uncovered then no murder took place in the eyes of humanity.
The guy committing the act would know it as a crime and recognize it as such. Otherwise he wouldn't be running and trying to evade being taken into custody.
When a tree falls in the forest and noone is there to hear it does it make a noise?
(01-15-2010, 11:55 AM)Scrufuss Wrote: [ -> ] (01-12-2010, 07:54 PM)Benny2guns Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2010, 05:55 PM)addy Wrote: [ -> ]@ Benny
For me that analogy isn't perfect. The case of the unsolved murder is more like "If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there, did it really fall?" To me the clear answer is yes. In the case of the murder, someone is clearly dead, never mind that nobody saw him die. If there's a victim, there's a crime, right?
@ Scrufuss
Quote:Hmmm
OK now you got me here after answering the last one..
The crook who shot killed the man, off with his head. (France had some style...)
The 2nd crook would be guilty of manslaughter (no possibility of parole) since a hi velocity projectile tends to maul and slaughter a human body as it passes thru. Or at the least attempted murder (parole possible in a decade, maybe)
I guess what I mean is, if the second gunman clearly wanted his victim to die just as much as the first gunmen had his own victim, then why should he get leniency just because he didn't succeed? To me he's just as much a coldblooded murderer as the first guy, only he's got worse aim. I know legally, it'll be ruled as attempted murder, but just morally it seems wrong to me. Just a thought.
@ Billy
As you can tell from my answers before, to me the act itself is important, and the intent behind it. So in your scenario, assuming the man didn't have a reason to do it (like saving the kid from a man-eating lion or whatever) and really did it to hurt, then for me it doesn't matter if the kid is unharmed. The guy should be hanged. That's my moral opinion. Legally, he'd get attempted murder or something.
No addy and bill, there is no murder unless the crime itself is recognized as a crime. I say you are only guilty of a crime and a crime has only been committed when your cought,charged and convicted. If the stated murders took place but were and will never be uncovered then no murder took place in the eyes of humanity.
The guy committing the act would know it as a crime and recognize it as such. Otherwise he wouldn't be running and trying to evade being taken into custody.
When a tree falls in the forest and noone is there to hear it does it make a noise?
Actually I do not know. But i think the comparison close, maybe not.