Inchoate offense (being charged with a crime you would have committed)

[The Executive]

An inchoate offense is described as "conduct deemed criminal without actual harm being done, provided that the harm that would have occurred is one the law tries to prevent." (Wikipedia) Examples currently punished under the law include solicitation, accessory, conspiracy, and facilitation. Inchoate offenses can occur when one attempts to perpetrate a crime, but circumstances are different from what the perpetrator had foreseen (i.e. going to rob a store but finding that it has burned down).

My question is this: should a person charged with an inchoate offense (in this case, murder) be prosecuted as if they had carried out the crime?

 

[Nick Nasty]

I definitely think that someone shouldn't be prosecuted as if they did the crime. Even if the person's intentions would have resulted in harmful conduct it wouldn't matter because of the fact that the person didn't actually do anything. Also, if there was no harm done then the person shouldn't even be prosecuted in the first place. That's just the way I see it though.

 

[ComradeSAL]

There are definitely philosophical implications here, but this seems to be a law of necessity. Consider a man who is planning to blow up a 747 tomorrow. It makes NO sense to try to arrest him as he is attempting to commit the act, nor does it make any sense to simply let him go after you arrest him. As long as there is proof of intent, the man should be arrested before he can act, and should be tried as well.

 

[Surri-Sama]

In the examples used I would say it makes sense to arrest someone for a crime they where going to commit, but didn’t due to a changed variable. On the other hand what if that variable is self motivated? Say Mr. Smith is about to rob a bank, but stops right in front of it, realizing he should not do it, but then is arrested, because someone reported a suspicious looking person? Would it be justified simply because he had the intent? And how could he prove that he wasn’t going to do it? I don’t think its possible, due to laws like this.

 

[GreatClayMonkey]

Like Sirhc said lack of evidence is one problem with this. So unless someone actually commits a crime they should not be punished as you can not prove whats going on in there mind so you cannot prove whither or not they had intended to carry out a crime in the first place. However if someone is found to have lets say weapons and written plans of some crime then he should be arrested because he could be dangerous.

 

[The Executive]

Lack of evidence is a factor. However, I'm going to run with an idea I previously suggested (murder) and exploit a few variables.

if someone is found to have lets say weapons and written plans of some crime then he should be arrested because he could be dangerous.

A hitman, for instance. If Employer A has hired well-established Hitman B to assassinate Victim C, then regardless of whether the murder actually occurs (we'll say it doesn't, Victim C dies of a heart attack as Hitman B is approaching his location) there could be any of the following linking Hitman B to what would have been a crime:

a) circumstantial evidence
b) weapon(s) found on Hitman B
c) possible written plans and/or audio transcripts of calls made between Employer A and Hitman B

Hypothetically, the police catch Hitman B for any of those three reasons. With substantial evidence that Hitman B was in fact going to kill Victim C (including Employer A's testimony should he choose to give it), should Hitman B be charged with capital murder without directly causing the death?

 

[Surri-Sama]

Lack of evidence is a factor. However, I'm going to run with an idea I previously suggested (murder) and exploit a few variables.



A hitman, for instance. If Employer A has hired well-established Hitman B to assassinate Victim C, then regardless of whether the murder actually occurs (we'll say it doesn't, Victim C dies of a heart attack as Hitman B is approaching his location) there could be any of the following linking Hitman B to what would have been a crime:

a) circumstantial evidence
b) weapon(s) found on Hitman B
c) possible written plans and/or audio transcripts of calls made between Employer A and Hitman B

Hypothetically, the police catch Hitman B for any of those three reasons. With substantial evidence that Hitman B was in fact going to kill Victim C (including Employer A's testimony should he choose to give it), should Hitman B be charged with capital murder without directly causing the death?

Premeditated murder I think it’s called, and that’s what I think the Hit man and the Employer should be charged with.

Even if they didn’t commit the murder they obviously wanted it (when you pay someone to kill someone else you do want someone to turn up dead) so being charged with Premeditated murder would be justified?

 

[The Executive]

Premeditated murder I think it’s called, and that’s what I think the Hit man and the Employer should be charged with.

Even if they didn’t commit the murder they obviously wanted it (when you pay someone to kill someone else you do want someone to turn up dead) so being charged with Premeditated murder would be justified?

I think you could reasonably stick a premed. murder charge on someone in this situation, yes.

 

[Eor]

Just about everything you guys have described already is a crime. It's called conspiracy.

edit: I realized that what I said wasn't exactly what the topic was asking about. But no one had brought it up, so I assumed/assume you were unaware of it.

Honestly, no. If I have not committed the crime, I should not be charged with it. I think that's a rather basic approach to it, but that's all I think you need to take. Conspiracy, attempted, those exist so we can prosecute those who wanted to comit a crime, but were stopped beforehand/failed in doing it.

 

[Eriatarka]

I'm a strong believer in a persons intentions being the only valid factor in deciding how they should be punished. If you intended to kill but were stopped from doing so by forces outside of your control, you're no better than the murderer who got a bit luckier on the day, and should be punished as such. (Why attempted murder serves a lesser sentence than murder is totally beyond me, 'We know you tried to kill him, but simply because you weren't very good at it we'll halve your sentence. Give it another try when you get out.'
The converse of this is, say a friend promised to help you move. He got half-way to your apartment before his car broke down, he had every intention of helping you but forces outside of his control stopped him. Would you feel any less gracious to him for making a solid effort?

I dunno, I've always felt the most a person can do is have good intentions and hope that things work out in the positive way you want them to. This person deserves nothing but the best, regardless of the effect outside forces have on the outcome of their work. Inversely, someone wishing evil designs on the world should be punished for what they try to do, regardless of effect.
As my dad once said when someone offered him a glass of wine and he declined, 'It's as good as if you gave it to me.' That kinda stuck with me.

Back to the original post, I feel like this is more a moral dilemma than us questioning whether it could work in real life. Lack of proof will always and forever prevent someone from being tried for something they haven't done. And right too, it would be nothing less than a travesty for an innocent person to be sent to jail for something they weren't even going to do. (Tom Cruise in Minority Report.)

But if it COULD be proven, I believe the criminal-to-be should be punished.
Ethics FTW!

 

[DeliciousCake]

I couldn't help but think about the movie Minority Report as well when reading this thread. Even if you did have (for the sake of argument) an infallible means of knowing when and where someone was going to commit a murder, you would still have to take into account whether or not the crime was 1) Premeditated, or 2) A crime of passion.

Scenario 1: John Doe is fired from his job on Monday and told he needs to move out his things by the end of the week. He spends the rest of the week carefully planning the murder of his boss. On Friday, before he is about to commit the murder, the special forces of whatever unit runs their infallible device shows up and arrests him. Is there anything wrong with this? Most likely not, because most people would agree that something premeditated deserves a punishment accordingly.

Scenario 2: John Doe is fired from his job. In a fit of rage, he picks up a pair of scissors and stabs his boss. However, the special forces intervene before he was about to be fired and arrests him. This is where the issue comes in: Does this man deserve to be arrested for something that he never knew was going to happen?

 

[mr_kennedy44]

I personally feel that a person should be charged with the about the same sentence as if they had actually done the crime. Having the intention of committing murder shows that you are potentially unstable and might think of doing it again. Actually committing the murder is much worse no doubt but planning it and getting caught before you are able to carry it out is pretty bad as well and should carry a sentence similar to actual murder but not as harsh a sentence

 

[CKaiser]

well I think it all depends on what crime it is. If the crime that is going to be perpetrated is severe enough, the moral implications of charging them with that crime becomes unimportant. Even though you are not sure about whether or not they would have actually gone through with it doesn't matter because the stakes are too high not to. The decision of when the stakes are high enough depends on consensus amongst the members of the society.

 

[Firus]

I couldn't help but think about the movie Minority Report as well when reading this thread. Even if you did have (for the sake of argument) an infallible means of knowing when and where someone was going to commit a murder, you would still have to take into account whether or not the crime was 1) Premeditated, or 2) A crime of passion.

Scenario 1: John Doe is fired from his job on Monday and told he needs to move out his things by the end of the week. He spends the rest of the week carefully planning the murder of his boss. On Friday, before he is about to commit the murder, the special forces of whatever unit runs their infallible device shows up and arrests him. Is there anything wrong with this? Most likely not, because most people would agree that something premeditated deserves a punishment accordingly.

Scenario 2: John Doe is fired from his job. In a fit of rage, he picks up a pair of scissors and stabs his boss. However, the special forces intervene before he was about to be fired and arrests him. This is where the issue comes in: Does this man deserve to be arrested for something that he never knew was going to happen?

You bring up a very good point, and I think it's very important to differentiate between the two in this issue.

I think that a Scenario 1 type case (i.e. a premeditated crime) should be punishable by the same amount of jail time as actually committing the crime. People have brought up a good point; if they had the intent to do the same thing, why is doing a bad job rewarded? It gives the person more of an opportunity to give the crime another shot when they get out.

A crime of passion should not, I don't think, be punishable on the same level. If they know ahead of time somehow that it's going to occur, considering the fact that it's probably just the moment that causes them to commit the crime, they should stop him before he commits the crime and give him a lessened amount of jailtime, during which he would have to have anger management therapy.

 

[The Executive]

I think that a Scenario 1 type case (i.e. a premeditated crime) should be punishable by the same amount of jail time as actually committing the crime. People have brought up a good point; if they had the intent to do the same thing, why is doing a bad job rewarded? It gives the person more of an opportunity to give the crime another shot when they get out.

YES.

Also, sig props.