Should a person be judged by their actions or the consequences of them?

[sarxweh]

sarxweh:

We have "criminal attempt" to punish those who intend to commit grievous crimes, but fail to execute them (e.g. someone fires a gun intending to kill another, but misses the target).

There are different philosophies of why attempted crimes are not punished as severely as completed ones. My favorite is the assumption that at least part of the reason why the attempt failed was a resurgence of conscience. It doesn't always apply, like the example I gave, but everything is imperfect.

Yes, it's a burden of proof problem in court. And the original point stated "no intent" ("by mistakes"), but in your example, where there is intent to kill in both cases, my point was to say that the intent is the crime. And I think you've agreed with that by giving your example. You had to make it have intent.

No matter what example you give, justice is not "situational" or it isn't really justice. Catching someone and prosecuting them is called "bringing them to justice" for a reason. Justice is the ideal. And by that ideal, we hunt and prosecute.

Potentially, everyone is capable of every crime. But the severity of crime must not be watered down. It is when you hate your brother that you've actually murdered him in your heart, and when you say to him "you fool!" that you are in danger of the fire of hell. Etc.

"I JUST KNOW SHE HATES ME" could be my insecurity, but it could be true too.

But prosecute her and I'm even more in trouble. Haha

 

[RDKirk]

To the OP: In what way is Poisoner B any less dangerous than Poisoner A? The only difference between the two cases is that Poisoner B's intended victim had an exceedingly rare immunity.

We have "criminal attempt" to punish those who intend to commit grievous crimes, but fail to execute them (e.g. someone fires a gun intending to kill another, but misses the target).

There are different philosophies of why attempted crimes are not punished as severely as completed ones. My favorite is the assumption that at least part of the reason why the attempt failed was a resurgence of conscience. It doesn't always apply, like the example I gave, but everything is imperfect.

Let's make it simpler.

Armed robber A holds up a convenience store, but it's just after they've made their nightly deposit, so he gets away with $15.

Armed robber B holds up a convenience store just before they've made their nightly deposit, so he gets away with $5,000.

In this case, the law will not make a distinction based on the outcome of the crime.

 

[sarxweh]

Did they catch him or did he get away with it?

 

[sarxweh]

If they were caught, did either of them kick a dog or pistol whip anyone during the robbery?

If they were not caught, did either of them intend to steal much? I mean this is a convenience store. What if it was a bank? What if it was the radio from the presidents limousine?

I have a better example. Ever seen the movie "Raising Arizona"? Nicolas cage stole a whole baby from a rich couple who had a litter (of 5 at once?) And he did it intending to nurture and care for the child better than the rich couple would have (in terms of attention and love I suppose).

Where's the crime in that?

The point is, if we prove intent we prove crime. Which means it is intent that is what's the real crime, not the "outcome."

 

[JohnLocke]

sarxweh:

Legally intent (technically mens rea) is best described as voluntarily engaging in an act. The Chefs in the OP's example intended to perform the act of cooking and serving the food. They had intent, but not "malice." Generally speaking "malice" is where one performs the intentional act with the purpose of the evil result.

"Mistakes" may also be legally sufficient to satisfy the "mens rea" requirement (broadly what speaking "criminal intent"). So if you want a "mistake" legal example:

Celebrant A at an outdoor celebration fires several shots into the air. One of these shots falls back to earth and strikes Victim B in the leg causing a deep puncture wound severing the femoral artery. Victim B dies en route to Grady Hospital.

Celebrant C at an outdoor celebration fires several shots into the air. One of these shots falls back to earth striking Victim D's windshield shattering it. Fortunately, no one was in or around the car at the time and no other damage was sustained.

Celebrant A is guilty of negligent homicide [and other potential crimes like unlawful discharge of a firearm, etc.]

Celebrant B is guilty of unlawful discharge of a firearm, and civilly liable for the property damage.


Perhaps God equates thought of crime the same as the performance of crime, but thankfully, so far, the United States has not.

 

[RDKirk]

I have a better example. Ever seen the movie "Raising Arizona"? Nicolas cage stole a whole baby from a rich couple who had a litter (of 5 at once?) And he did it intending to nurture and care for the child better than the rich couple would have (in terms of attention and love I suppose).

Where's the crime in that?"

The crime is that the child did not belong to him. The intent of his action of was to kidnap...and kidnapping is the crime.

I may decide that if I rob Paris Hilton and give the money to charity that I'm doing a better thing with it than Paris would have done. But the basic intent--to take the money--is the crime, not my intent of what I'd do with the money.

 

[RDKirk]

Perhaps God equates thought of crime the same as the performance of crime, but thankfully, so far, the United States has not.

God operates from the viewpoint of, "If I think it, it becomes."

Jesus' primary purpose (IMO) was to point out what absolute righteousness was to people who thought they had achieved absolute righteousness.

That is not different from His purpose when he pointed out to people--who thought they were righteous because a natural disaster had not happened to them--that the were no more righteous than those to whom a natural disaster had happened.

I once took a defense department polygraph in which I was challenged with these questions:

"Have you ever made a mistake at work that you did not tell your boss about? You must answer, 'No.'"

My response: "Do you mean this afternoon?"

"Have you ever exaggerated about yourself to impress someone? You must answer, 'No.'"

My response: "Does that include high school?"

"Do you consider yourself an absolutely honest person? You must answer 'Yes.'"

My response: "Well, my standard of an absolutely honest person is Jesus Christ."

The purpose of those questions was to force me to "come clean"--to confess all until my conscious was clear enough to pass the polygraph with the required answers. The investigator said, "You can tell me anything--I've heard everything."

Yeah, right. As if I'd forgotten he'd read me my rights before we started.

But the point is that just because we haven't done anything "wrong" does not mean we are truly righteous. I have learned that not having done certain "sins" is often merely a matter of having not yet been in a circumstance in which they were cheap, easy, and justifiable enough.

 

[sarxweh]

Let me give an example:

Chefs A and B both under-cook a meal, by mistake

Chef A's customer gets food poisoning.
Chef B's customer gets food poisoning and resultantly dies.

Should Chef B be punished more severely than Chef A?

The question is "should justice be Eye for an Eye?

Chef B comes under investigation, but the restaurant is sued or closes at worst.
Chef A never hears about it, and probably continues to make mistakes until he gets fired, goes out of business, or kills somebody.

But since they both did it accidentally, there should be no difference?? The malicious intent is not there "in the heart" but if your tired while driving, or lazy while cooking, its still your intent that keeps you driving and cooking, and thus the crime is still not in the outcome, but in the intent.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I personally think that people should be judged by their character.

Effect:
If a mugger happens to have saved someone's life by preventing that someone from being run over by a car while trying to escape, I would not give the mugger any credit.

Action:
If the mugger then happens to take his stolen money and decides for once in his life to give a beggar a coin, I would not give the mugger any credit for that act since it's not his money to begin with, and because it isn't some deep reflection of his character, but only a lark or possibly a brief effort to assuage his conscience.

So, character is what I would go with.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

Time develops character, it should be the justice of time.

 

[sarxweh]

Is it just time or is it justice time?

Character is the whole point of justice in the first place. Exactly right.