Attempted Murder vs. Murder: Intent, Morality, and the Law

Introduction: The Case for Equal Treatment

When a person commits a murder, they have not only completed the act but have also engaged in the intent, planning, and implementation of a planned killing. Accordingly, the crime of murder consists not only of the actual killing but also of the steps leading up to it. Intent is therefore an integral factor in the crime of murder. When the crime of murder goes awry and a person's attempt to kill another fails, however, that person is treated differently than an actual murderer — they are charged with attempted murder instead. The only difference between the crimes of murder and attempted murder is the result: a death. The intent and actions of the person are identical; only the outcome differs. Because an intended murder is disrupted by unforeseen factors — and not by any change in the person's conscience — anyone charged with attempted murder should be treated by the legal system no differently than someone who actually commits a murder.

A crime is an offense against a law — performing an act that is prohibited by society and specifically included in the official list of prohibited acts known as laws. There can be a vague area, however, in cases where a person attempts to commit a crime but is somehow stopped from completing it. In response to such cases, the law provides for people to be charged with an attempted crime. This also raises the question of what exactly constitutes a legal attempt to commit a crime. A very specific definition has therefore been established: an attempted crime is a planned endeavor to actually perform a criminal act, carried out beyond the preparation phase, but failing to accomplish the crime.

Defining Attempted and Resulted Crimes

The cause of the failure must be something independent of the person's intent to commit the crime — an accident or an unforeseen turn of events, but not a change of mind on the part of the perpetrator. If, for instance, a person sets about to commit a murder, undertakes preparations, and begins the actual plan to kill another person, but then changes their mind and does not carry through, the law holds that no attempt has occurred. But if the person's plan goes awry because of some outside influence and the attempt is thwarted, the law considers this to be an attempted criminal act.

On the other hand is a resulted crime. Like the definition of an attempted crime, the definition of a resulted crime is very similar but extends beyond the attempt to the completion of the intended crime. The crime itself must be something prohibited by statute or common law, and can be considered either mala in se — bad because of its nature — or mala prohibita — bad because it is prohibited by society. When a person plans, prepares, and commits an act prohibited by law, a resulted crime has taken place.

These distinctions naturally imply some standard by which acts are judged to be bad — a morality that governs society. It can therefore be asserted that morality is the basis of the legal system and that a criminal act is directly related to the morality of the society in which it occurs. Morality sets the standard for behavior in society, while the law, along with its authority, is the means to enforce that standard. Insight into the way criminal activity is viewed in a society allows a glimpse into the morality underlying it.

Morality as the Foundation of Criminal Law

Because of this moral basis, the morality of a society is sometimes a controversial subject. One prominent example is the Roe v. Wade decision, upon which a woman's right to obtain a legal abortion in the United States is based. Supporters of the decision assert that it morally balanced the right to life of an unborn fetus with the life and liberty of a woman, while opponents claim that the woman's rights are immorally favored over those of an unborn child.

Another complex issue is the right to kill in self-defense and whether it is morally acceptable. While many claim that killing in any form is morally unacceptable, many others argue that morality permits killing in self-defense. Those who favor this view assert that its moral basis lies in the concept of self-love — that the desire to preserve oneself is grounded in natural law. If the desire to remain alive is a natural reaction, it must be good and acceptable. While cases such as abortion and self-defense killing may be controversial, many moral precepts are generally accepted as good for society, including the prohibition on murder.

When discussing the prohibition on murder, one must consider not only the act committed by the accused but also their state of mind. It has been a centuries-old tradition for the law to incorporate the concept of free will and knowledge of the accused through the idea of mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"). This has been especially important during the punishment phase of legal proceedings, where the morality of society plays an integral role.

Mens Rea and the Role of Intent in Murder

In the modern world, the definition of mens rea is generally divided into three concepts: intent, knowledge, and recklessness. The intent of the accused is important because a person who intends to harm or kill another person is morally deserving of punishment. Knowledge as a legal concept is often interchanged with the concept of "oblique intention," in which the accused may be guilty of a crime if they know that their actions could result in harm to another person. This differs from recklessness, which goes further and requires that the accused knows harm is being risked, that it may most likely occur, and continues regardless.

In the case of murder — or even attempted murder — mens rea is necessary to establish the defendant's purpose: the intent to kill another person.