There are lot of people this morning saying that one of Jamie Bulger's killers being

[Monty92]

Well our ethical framework is related to our legal one. THere is no denying that our collective view of something is influenced by its legality.

I have made a similar point on trips to Amsterdam on seeing friends openly going to prostitutes when they would never dream of doing so at home. As though the law somehow validates the process and makes it more morally acceptable.

I am not sure the different approach to the incident free/dead kid scenario is completely irrational. In one instance you have broken the law but nothing has happened. In the other you have killed a kid. If you wish to show that a certain behaviour is likely to cause a specific effect it is far easier to do so if it actually happens. I would argue the reaction to the dead kid is not essentially a moral one, its a reaction to the fact that you have killed a kid.

But if it is not a moral reaction, why should it manifest at all in the way we treat the perpetrator?

[Peter]

But if it is not a moral reaction, why should it manifest at all in the way we treat the perpetrator?

Because a kid is dead and you killed him. Its the issue you first raised, the difference between intent and outcome.

Should attempted murder be a longer sentence than manslaughter? Is it worse to try and kill someone and fail, or to kill them by mistake when you only meant to hurt them a bit?

[Monty92]

Because a kid is dead and you killed him. Its the issue you first raised, the difference between intent and outcome.

Should attempted murder be a longer sentence than manslaughter? Is it worse to try and kill someone and fail, or to kill them by mistake when you only meant to hurt them a bit?

Wait, let me think about that...

[Peter]

Yes, of course it should be

i would agree, but why......

Who would you rather bump into down a dark alley- the guy who loves a bit of murder but is clearly **** at it or the bloke who is so good at it that he ends up killing people without even trying?

Which is the bigger danger to the public?

[Monty92]

i would agree, but why......

Who would you rather bump into down a dark alley- the guy who loves a bit of murder but is clearly **** at it or the bloke who is so good at it that he ends up killing people without even trying?

Which is the bigger danger to the public?

I assumed you meant involuntary manslaughter...

[Peter]

I assumed you meant involuntary manslaughter...

Look at it this way. With murder and attempted murder we group the two crimes by intent (to kill) but sentence them according to effect (death or otherwise). With murder and manslaughter we group the effect (death) but sentence according to intent.

So we can all agree it is worse to intentionally kill someone (intent and effect) than to do it by accident (effect alone). We also seem to agree that it is worse to intentionally kill someone than to try and **** it up (intent but not effect). The grey area is whether attempted murder (intent) is worse than manslaughter (unintended effect).

So what Do we deem more serious, the intent or the effect?

[Burney]

Look at it this way. With murder and attempted murder we group the two crimes by intent (to kill) but sentence them according to effect (death or otherwise). With murder and manslaughter we group the effect (death) but sentence according to intent.

So we can all agree it is worse to intentionally kill someone (intent and effect) than to do it by accident (effect alone). We also seem to agree that it is worse to intentionally kill someone than to try and **** it up (intent but not effect). The grey area is whether attempted murder (intent) is worse than manslaughter (unintended effect).

So what Do we deem more serious, the intent or the effect?

Well if you regard law as a means to protect society, one could argue that the attempted murderer should serve just as long as the successful killer. After all, the person has demonstrated a willingness and desire to kill, which makes them no less dangerous to the public at large than if they'd succeeded. There, it seems to me, is where our insistence on consequence-based sentencing falls down badly.

[Monty92]

Look at it this way. With murder and attempted murder we group the two crimes by intent (to kill) but sentence them according to effect (death or otherwise). With murder and manslaughter we group the effect (death) but sentence according to intent.

So we can all agree it is worse to intentionally kill someone (intent and effect) than to do it by accident (effect alone). We also seem to agree that it is worse to intentionally kill someone than to try and **** it up (intent but not effect). The grey area is whether attempted murder (intent) is worse than manslaughter (unintended effect).

So what Do we deem more serious, the intent or the effect?

A man who successfully punches someone with the intent to kill them is morally equal to a man who unsuccessfully punches someone with the intent to kill him.

A man who successfully punches someone with the intent to kill them is morally worse than a man who punches someone without intent to kill them, but kills them anyway.

How the law treats each case should be informed by, but not not necessarily follow, these rules of thumb, for the reasons Berni articulates elsewhere in this thread.