No No Your Honor, I Only "Tried" to Kill Him

            In the American legal system, there exists a troubling ideology, that asserts one’s actions are somehow more pertinent than their intent as to whether or not, and to what degree said person warrants correctional services. But of course, there also exists the inane notion that correctional services should take the form of an avenging punishment. So perhaps it makes sense that our society makes a distinction between a criminal’s actions and their motives. After all, no one has ever uttered the phrase: “I hope that rapist gets adequate therapeutic care while serving a reasonable sentence for his crimes, and then reintegrates seamlessly into society having gained an appreciation for the societal constructs we have put in place regarding one’s right to feel sexually secure in a societal environment. Furthermore, I hope that he comes to terms with his actions and uses his experiences to educate about, and advocate for, a sexually non-hostile society.” Of course, such an utterance would be completely misplaced within a casual conversation, but I feel quite confident that the layman’s equivalent, is equivocally scarce. But, I digress.

            Let me return to my title with a scenario. Imagine, if you will, two different men, in two different dark alleys, robbing two different strangers, for two different sets of personal affects. Now imagine each man is armed with a firearm. Let’s say neither victim agrees to part with their belongings, perhaps the thought of life without their smart phone for a day was simply too much to bear, and the alternative of suffering fatal bullet wounds sounded like sweet relief from the drudgery of experiencing the tangible world for several hours. Each perpetrator reacts with the same intention, to kill the person standing between them and their new smart phone. Both victims suffer significant wounds and are abandoned in the alley. Emergency responders attempt to resuscitate both victims. One man survives, but the other does not. These two men, each committing, essentially, the same act, are now facing separate charges and looking at a significant disparity in sentencing.

So, I ask once again, why distinguish between the attempting murderer and the successful murderer; the drunk driver that hits another car, and the one that drives into a tree; the burglar that hits a rich man’s house, and the one that, to his own dismay, finds himself in the house of a poor man. The point is to correct bad behavior, not punish based on outcomes. The dog that chews on your slippers needs the same response as the dog that chews on your 14k white gold watch that was handed down to you from your grandfather. Incidentally, locking the dog in a kennel will do nothing to correct either behavior.

-AMS