01-06-2010, 03:09 PM
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.
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.
PS. If you can, try your hand at giving some of the others a bit of feedback. If you already have, thanks, can you do some more?