Murder, Attempted Murder? Part II
The other day, I attempted to answer a philosophical, legal, puzzle from a libertarian perspective (as is my wont). See here for this attempt: https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/murder-attempted-murder-i-need-help-on-this-one/. This concerned poisoned water, and who was the murderer.
In this essay, I called for help, since I didn’t think I had nailed it. I received two very insightful responses, from S (he says both X and Y are the murderers) and P (he says X is the murderer). See these responses below. I agree with S, both X and Y are guilty, but, for different reasons. S’s reason is that there really is no relevant difference between actual and attempted murder. I cannot see my way clear to agreeing with that. I see a gigantic difference, from the vantage point of libertarian punishment theory, between someone who tries and fails to murder someone else, and someone who succeeds in this evil deed. Yes, they both had equal mens rea, guilty intent, bad motive, but one succeeded in this, and the other failed.
Why, then, to I think both X and Y are guilty of murder? I think so because suppose both of them were in league with each other. They conspired, together, to murder the innocent victim, and, yet, each of them would be charged, if found, only with attempted, not actual, murder. We libertarians can’t allow them to get away with that! True, we can posit they each acted alone. But, intriguing, challenging, questions call for desperate responses. The point is, if they acted in concert, clearly, both are murderers, neither is merely an attempted murderer. If they did not, still, in baseball, the tie goes to the runner. Here, I think the “tie” (or better yet, the irrelevancy) should go to the Draconian end of the spectrum. Hang ’em both high, X and Y, say I!
Again, I don’t quite think I’ve nailed this one. All I can do is the best I can, in the hope that my (and S and P’s) attempt(s) will call forth an even better answer.
Isn’t this a great way to start off the new year!!!???!!!!
From: S
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2019 7:51 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Murder? Attempted murder?
Dear Walter,
You listed these options:
X guilty of murder, Y guilty of attempted murder
Y guilty of murder, X guilty of attempted murder
X and Y both guilty of attempted murder
I speculate that Solomon in his wisdom would instead pronounce them both guilty of murder. For what is the moral difference between successful and unsuccessful attempts? Both X and Y intentionally took (normally) adequate steps to ensure the victim’s death – only by fluke did X’s attempt fail, yet he was still murderous in his heart (as Christ condemned). Both X and Y desired the victim’s death, and were willing to arrange it by their own hands, thus both ought to be punished accordingly.
The distinction between attempted murder and actual murder is a legal one (and, obviously, a practical one). How various legalists would assess the case, though, I wouldn’t dare to speculate.
Regards,
S
From: P
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 10:37 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Poisoned Water Problem
Hi Walter,
Regarding the poisoned water, before Y appeared on the scene X had already sealed your fate, barring some supposedly highly unlikely intervention by man or nature (I won’t mention any god, as you are an atheist). Therefore if someone needs to be charged with murder, it should be X. Y should be charged with attempted murder, since Y’s action did not affect the ultimate outcome (your death).
BTW it was a pleasure meeting you at the Mises Circle in Seattle a couple of years ago, even though you seemed to not like my comment that philosophy makes my teeth hurt (that is not strictly true – I agree with many other libertarians that lack of a coherent philosophy is a serious failing of many “conservatives”). I just find theoretical mathematics to be less “slippery” to grasp than abstract philosophy.
In Liberty,
P
2:28 pm on January 3, 2019
