For example, one receives a less harsh penalty for attempted murder.  (I'm not a lawyer. Correct me if i'm wrong) Why is this?  Say if he used a gun, and was a bad shot, and just happened to not hit the person, why should the outcome matter?
216961
Because the harm from an attempted crime is less than for an actual crime. Also, it is not usually the case that someone tries to shoot someone and misses, but that they shoot someone and the person does not die. If that person meant to kill the other person, they should get a harsher punishment than they would for simply shooting someone.
330694
Capital Punishment is state murder. There were many innocents executed here as there are still being executed in the USA. Capital Punishment is more expensive in real terms then full term Life imprisonment. It is not a deterrent, the murder rate dropped in England after it was abolished and rose in America after it was reintroduced anyway there are lots of supposed Christians here and...Thou shalt not Kill
239935
Assuming that there was no conspiracy to frame the individual for a capital offence with the expectation that he would die (very Hollywood ...), no one would be legally liable, especially not for murder (no mens rea to commit a criminal act, e.g.) \n\nThe terminology is "Wrongful Conviction".\n\nIt might be interesting to consider whether there would be a civil case against the State, however.  Consider high-profile cases of wrongful conviction that have led to long sentences - and to high compensation awards upon release after innocence has been determined.  I would think that civil liability would follow if it ould be shown that there were systemic errors/biases or specific cases of negligence in the investigation and prosecution.\n\nEven then, there may be bars against liability, depending on local legislation.
405782
Normally a crime would have to be heinous enough and the individual remorseless enough that rehabilitatoin is more than unlikely for the death penalty to be applied in sentencing.    If a person behaves in a manner so severly to the detriment of society, sometimes it is necessary to snuff those fockers out.   it maintains an equilibrium.    severe, even life extinguishing, punishment assures a proper balance in conduct of the entire herd.    \ncases have to qualify for the death penalty, and I think those that qualify must warrant such a punishment.   its logical, even reasonable.
610395
I hear what you're saying but there are certain factors that are taken into consideration when a defendant is being sentenced such as if this is a first offence or a first time offence for a crime of this nature and any mitigation put on behalf of the defendant. \n\nThese factors can result in a 'lenient' sentence.\n\nI also think these youths that are now walking around with pit bull terriers are pretty worrying, looks like they wouldn't think twice to set it upon you should they feel the need to.
535526
An officer has the right to clear a path of people that obstruct a crime scene, or pose a potential threat to him and could argue you  failed to comply with his lawful order to remove yourself from his proximity\nwhich is why he would resort to using non lethal force if all else failed.  And depending on the situation, hed probably win his arguement.\nBut this is more an argueable hypothetical, for in real life, people know when they might be a threat to an officers duty.\n\nBest illustration I could use, is when my nephew purchased a  used vehicle from someone.  We drove behind him on the freeway because there was no license plate and w tried to cover the fact.\nWell police stopped him anyways\n\nWe pulled over some way past them, and walked back to try to help explain, while the officer conducted his checks on the vehicle and my nephew.\nWhen the officer saw us walking towards him, his hand reached for his weapon, and he ordered us to keep away -- for his own safety.  which makes sense nowadays, because people are killing police officers in the streets when theyre being pulled over for silly reasons\n\nHad we decided tostay and present a 'potential' threat to him, he would have been justified in tazing us, or drawing his weapon at us.  Not shooting us, because we kept distance and showed no weapons.  But use of non lethal force would be justified, and no one could really argue that.\n\nI hope that illustration helps some.
488709
This is an interesting question in light of the laws that punish some people more severely than others because of their opinion, even when committing exactly the same act. I am referring to "Hate Crime" laws that enhance a criminal offense because of the person's opinion/rationale for committing the crime. So, if one person kills another person because he hates that person’s ethnicity or religious views then he will receive a harsher punishment than another guy who kills without hate, simply because he enjoys killing. The point is, you may be entitled to your own opinion, but you will be punished for your thoughts and NOT just the act.
317857
It still does not matter. Killing a person is much worse than injuring them in any case.
377401
"Fair fight?"  How can it be fair?  If the people fighting originally were not shooting, just hitting with bare fists, maybe it could be "fair" by some stretch of the imagination.  Everyone aiming a gun at another person should be charged with attempted homicide, and those who killed someone?  Murder in the first degree.
305808
If someone kills someone out of self defense then that person probably had it coming and the person who killed because the were defending themselves should have no punishment.  I think war is a different subject.  The point of war is to kill and they are taught to do it therefore they should not be punished.  I know wars are sad but humans aren't perfect and they still happen.  If anyone murders someone on accident (manslaughter) than they should spend some jail time.  If someone killed someone on purpose, whether they planned to do it or not, They should be killed.  If someone sexually or physically harassed someone they should be beaten and put in jail (yes it's brutal but there would be a lot less crime if we had harsher punishments) .  If someone was raped, than the rapist should be put to death.\nI think that punishments should be very harsh when someone purposely harms someone else, unless it is self defense.  If punishments were more harsh on things like these there would be a lot less of it.
633671
Laws vary by state and enforcement varies by jurisdiction.\n\nCommunicating a threat is a crime in most, if not all, states, adding the word "terroristic" only provides for increased penalties.\n\nThe question you ask is a good one, but it cannot be answered in this forum because courts hear those cases and rule different ways depending on circumstances.\n\nWalking around claiming you are going to kill everyone when you clearly have no means or intent to do so would probably not be considered a valid threat within the meaning of the law. But, it might get a person confined for observation as posing a threat to himself or others, in other words, a public nuisance.
418760
Hitting a child teaches violence.  Therefore it isn't a effective punishment.\n\nThe death penalty is effective since the person who is executed is no longer around to commit crimes.  However, I do not support the death penalty because there is always the risk of convicting/sentencing the innocent.  The chance of putting innocent people to death isn't worth it.
413714
Criminals are barred from possessing a firearm.  However, if the decision is not yet executed, one can still apply for a firearm.
388141
Agree.  Criminials like for their victims to be unarmed.  The only thing a gun law ever did was cause crime rates to go up, because criminals are no longer afraid they might get shot.
138007
No, it's fair to kill someone who is attempting to kill you. Once the danger passes, it becomes revenge, and revenge is not legally recognized as a justification for a homicide. You'll get more satisfaction out of the life you have left if you press charges for the assault and the theft, and keep a liberal distance from her in the future.
157274
Each state has its own set of sentencing guidelines.\n\nAs to the other apart of your statement, the charge would stick, as long as the person lives...additional charges would be filed if should they die as a result of the action. And NO, the judge isn't going to lenient because you're a lousy shot!
342669
A wise and experienced judge weighs both justice and circumstances.  The purposes of imprisonment in this case would be to ensure the crime is not committed again (done, by virtue of his being too ill to drive ever again) and to ensure that he is made to pay a price for what he did (done, by probation).\n\nIf an 89-year-old man went outside with a shotgun and purposely murdered people, that would be different and I believe handled differently by a judge.  This was, for the most part, an accident.  I agree that there is no reason to spend taxpayer money to imprison a very ill man when he will surely never drive again and is experiencing punishment that probably goes beyond what prison could inflict upon him anyway.