Why should someone get 15yrs in prison instead of the death penalty if they shoot someone IN THE HEAD... and that person just happens to live?

There's no way in hell that the shooter doesn't intend for someone to die. Shooter should not get off easier because the victim made a recovery. You could argue that you can't prove intent I guess.
But even the fact that you willingly had no regard for the victims life and "shot at random" should equate to the same consequence and punishment as murder.
At some point you had to say to yourself: "I'm gonna shot this gun and I have no regard for the life of anyone in my way, they may die or not but I'm gonna shoot."

Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't trust my life to chance, therefore if someone shots me, I think they are, in effect, giving themselves the option of taking my life and we should do the same to them.

7/30/2005 10:14:10 AM

why *are* murder and attempted murder different?

-ZiP!-

7/30/2005 10:16:47 AM

Yeah, I noticed something was wrong.. I couldn't figure it out. That probably stems from the fact that I am still intoxicated and just woke up.

thnx for correction though.

[Edited on July 30, 2005 at 10:19 AM. Reason : d]

7/30/2005 10:19:17 AM

the real reason why i corrected you is because i wanted to make a post in the soapbox but i didn't wanna read any long threads

-ZiP!-

7/30/2005 10:22:26 AM

haha.. well im glad you got your post in. I thought I kept it short though.

7/30/2005 10:37:00 AM

Just watch Minority Report... it will all make sense (maybe...).

7/30/2005 11:21:39 AM

If someone shoots you in the head just once, and they have bullets left, they can't be that intent on murdering you, they might just be trying to get attention (like people who almost commit suicide). So they could have been more extreme in their attempt to kill you (and would thus deserve a harsher sentence).

In any case though, I think people who are clearly trying to kill someone in a vicious manner, but don't quite do it, still get screwed over good come sentencing time.

I don't see how it's justifiable to sentence someone to death if they don't actually kill someone, even if by chance.

7/30/2005 11:25:25 AM

this is a dumb thread

7/30/2005 11:25:37 AM

I swear I've seen this thread done before.

7/30/2005 12:25:36 PM

Quote :

"Sideshow Bob: Attempted murder, now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry? "

The Simpsons PWNS all

7/30/2005 12:31:18 PM

Its a compromise between the Libertarians and the Christians (forgive me if there are Christian Libertarians out there but come on lets be real).

The Libs on the one hand find it appalling that government is going to punish someone for what it thinks they were trying to do. Yes, you did assault the person and you can be punished for that but how in the fuck does government claim to know what the shooter meant to do.

The Christians on the other hand find it appalling that someone could be trying to kill someone and not get punished. Some say that are just appalled that any opportunity to punsih someone is beign wasted but that is another matter.

So we have the half/half compromise.

7/30/2005 2:04:33 PM

ahhh fuck reading all this

7/30/2005 4:46:07 PM

in an ideal situation, the prison system would be about reform instead of penal revenge. in that, the punishments for both should be equal. attempted murder would have been murder if the person would have succeeded if not for circumstance beyond his or her control.

(btw, ps kwsmith2, i'm an agnostic libertarian)

7/30/2005 6:14:00 PM

hehe, penal revenge.

7/30/2005 11:49:02 PM