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

[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.

[Peter]

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.

If we are protecting society from his murderous intent I would rather be protected from the chap who is good at it, but I take your point.

You could also argue that the guy who ****ed it up has learned his lesson and is less likely to **** it up next time.

[Luis Anaconda]

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.

Confucius?

[Sir C]

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.

A man who tries to kill someone with one punch probably has a vastly over-inflated sense of his capabilities.

[redgunamo]

May I ask, given your apparent distaste for contraception and termination, how you ensure you don't inadvertently augment the brood?

The wife's people, medical and otherwise, advised her to declare her innings at four boys and two girls, which was fair enough, I thought. Anyway the final tally was embellished somewhat by the inclusion of twins; redgunamos never have twins.

[Peter]

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, not not necessarily follow, these rules of thumb.

Yes. But what about the man who unsuccessfully punches someone with intent to kill and the man who punches someone without intent but kills them anyway?

[TheCurly]

A man who tries to kill someone with one punch probably has a vastly over-inflated sense of his capabilities.

The BEST punch I ever threw in my whole life was during a football fracas.I didn't mean to kill him but I deffo wanted to hurt him.I swear to wee baby Jebus it was a real beaut.Caught the **** right on the chin and down he went roud:
Only problem was the fúcker got up again

[SWv2]

A man who tries to kill someone with one punch probably has a vastly over-inflated sense of his capabilities.

I will quote you this just before the moment of reckoning, pal.

[Burney]

If we are protecting society from his murderous intent I would rather be protected from the chap who is good at it, but I take your point.

You could also argue that the guy who ****ed it up has learned his lesson and is less likely to **** it up next time.

Quite. And, of course, this is where the capital punishment thing becomes interesting. After all, as you say, a chap who attempts murder but fails will come out of prison while still relatively young as a person who is still capable of and willing to kill. I could make a good public safety case for capital punishment that that man should be turned off now because he's demonstrated that he has that club in his bag and it's better to end him before he actually succeeds. That to me would be more logical than only executing the successful killer.

[Monty92]

Yes. But what about the man who unsuccessfully punches someone with intent to kill and the man who punches someone without intent but kills them anyway?

Intent to kill is morally worse than no intent to kill, regardless of consequences.