New answers tagged

3

Canada would investigate the case, because it is a murder on Canadian ground. Assuming the killer is identified, and is found to be in the USA (citizenship doesn't matter, just the location), Canada will send an extradition request to the USA. Assuming Canada provides enough evidence for a prosecution, and there's nothing unusual like the killer having ...


3

I imagine, under the relevant extradition treaty, US law enforcement would arrest the killer upon request from Canada and extradite them to Canada, where they are then prosecuted by authorities there.


0

You didn’t specify a country. There are some principles, but different countries will not agree on details. We assume that both Alice and Charlie did what they did intentionally, but did not intend to kill Bob. For Alice, she should have foreseen that when there is a fire, someone might die. Fires kill people. For Charlie, it’s less clear. He should have ...


0

I guess it depends on the jurisdiction. I can tell you that here in Switzerland, in principle, there is no difference between murder and attempted murder when it comes to sentencing. In the end, it all boils down to the reason why it remained just an attempt, and we differentiate different types of attempts. Particularly, an attempt can be completete or ...


4

To provide an initial answer, without getting to the specific of the 51 statutory standards for self-defense in U.S. states and the exact Canadian standard, as applied to your examples, I'll make some general observations: Self-defense is a justification for doing something that would otherwise be illegal (intentionally using force against someone else). ...


1

This provides a summary of the legal principles regarding self defense, stated for Canada but applicable in most important details in the US (where it is governed by state law). If someone breaks into your home, that does not give you an excuse to beat them up or shoot them (retributive force can only be exercised by the courts). If you say "Boo!" ...


3

To add to the existing arguments, consider this from the point of view of crime deterrence, i.e., you view the sentence as a means to deter people from murdering others. Specifically, suppose that Alice attempted to murder Bob but failed. If Bob has noticed, Alice is confronted with the risk that he secures evidence, alerts the authorities, and eventually ...


-1

Other answers list quite valid points, but miss the following one: No penal system is perfect. A reasonable system would account for its own imperfections. A murder is quite easier to prove than an attempted murder.


5

Charlie may or may not be guilty of murder or of attempted murder. It depends upon his intent and knowledge, which the question doesn't flesh out sufficiently to evaluate. Why did Charlie bodyslam Bob? The reason matters a lot. Did Charlie know that the building was on fire? Was Charlie trying to kill Bob? Was the thing that Bob knocked his head upon an ...


3

Why is ... Not sure about US/UK laws, but based on German laws, this question is a highly opinion-based question so my answer will be opinion-based. I also have to say that I'm not a lawyer, so my answer is not an expert's answer. Why is murder considered a more serious crime than attempted murder? Background German law (§23 StGB) states that ... ... an ...


1

In response to the comment that Wrzlprmft wrote below about no incentive to stop attempting to murder a person, I'm not sure I agree about that. For one thing, possibly every time an attempt is made, an additional element of risk is introduced into the would-be-murderers life, whether or not the attempt is successful. I would argue most crimes are of this ...


-5

How broadly can you define "attempted"? If a murder is successful, there is certainty that the punishments are warranted given the crime. But what counts as "attempted" will always require a degree of interpretation both of actions and intent. A lighter punishment concedes this uncertainty. Rhetorically, should those accused of attempted ...


5

The legal theories regarding homicides have changed a lot, but there has not always been some kind of distinction between the attempt and the result. It's the distinction between an assault with a deadly instrument and the resulting killing. And not all jurisdictions look at things the same way! The aspect of killings under the aspect of Law in History is a ...


19

You may get more effective murderers that way I would frame the question from the perspective from the criminal. If they know they will be punished equally from attempted murder from actual murder, they will try harder to get the results they want. More if is this common knowledge. By rewarding incompetence, you may end with a incompetent murder instead of a ...


72

Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who view ...


2

As noted in other answers, if you intend to murder the expected occupants of the arena, then you have murdered the others. However there are interesting exceptions... For one exception, if the intended 60,000 victims in the arena had been legally sentenced to death, and the bomb is the chosen method of execution, then you have not murdered them. Execution is ...


11

Yes, you are responsible for the knock-on effects of your criminal actions, but there’s a line. For instance suppose you aimed to commit tax fraud by understating your company’s profits in the accounting system. Your limited partner sees those fake numbers, believes they are real, believes this means essential cancer treatments are unaffordable, and commits ...


14

This could fall under the Felony Murder Rule which is a specific type of "transfer of intent" where if someone dies while you are committing (or even aiding in!) a felony you can be guilty of first-degree murder. Some restrictions apply, which depend on jurisdiction, but generally "terrorism" is going to get you every time in the US, and ...


34

To add a perspective from a different legal system: In Germany, this would fall under the notion of Eventualvorsatz (loosely translated, "recklessness"). Basically, whenever the criminal code requires intent ("Vorsatz" in German), a total lack of consideration for the consequences of an action can be counted as being equivalent to intent. ...


73

Through the legal doctrine of "transferred intent", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes ...


7

Murder is defined as the unlawful intentional killing of a person, and not the intentional performance of an act which results in an unlawful death. Therefore, if you intend to kill 200,000 people but kill only 1 person, that is 1 count of murder, and if you intend to kill 1 person but do kill 200,000, that is 200,000 counts of murder. You don't even need to ...


Top 50 recent answers are included