Sentence "Attempted" Crimes The Same As Successful Ones

==Introduction==I gladly accept my opponent's definitions as it is. Both of us agree that in the while sentencing criminals - several factors must be considered. We are not talking about is talking about 'attempted' crime vs. 'successful' crime being the only factor involved in sentencing. The burden of the Pro is to show that success or failure of crime should not be considered during sentencing process AT ALL. My burden is to show that this should be considered as one of the factors. Even if I can show it to be small factor that should be considered, I will be considered as the winner of this debate. We are using murder case as an example - perhaps because it is most extreme. The arguments will be generally applicable. ==Arguments==1. Purpose of criminal justice system: RetributionWithout providing any sources, Pro has presented the three purpose of criminal justice system. Contemporary research lists four basic purposes [1]. They are 'retribution', 'deterrence', 'rehabilitation', and 'incapacitations'. As we can see that the Pro has not mentioned the first among the four reasons! Retribution is the oldest and well established basis of justice. In Exodus [2], it is mentioned as the law of 'an eye for an eye'. This law is backed by Quran as well [3]. Emmanuel Kant has defended this law in his book 'Metaphysik der Sitten' [4]. In United States Supreme Court judgments the role of retribution in criminal justice system is acknowledged [5]. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) considers cases of attempted murder under separate section from murder (Section 300 and 302 for murder, 304 and 307 for attempted murder) [6]. In attempted crimes, victims have not been harmed. So this factor can be dropped from consideration while administering justice. This may, in general lead to some or major reduction in punishment. Of course the reduction will still depend on other factors, but it stands to reason that a reduction will be applicable in many cases. Failure of crime should be considered as one of the factors while sentencing.2. Chances of repeat:One of the purpose of criminal system is 'Incapacitation' or to prevent repeat of crime by same criminal. It can be argued that a person who commits a crime successfully for the first time, gains confidence. On other hand a person who fails to commit a crime may lose confidence. Thus the capacity of a person to repeat a crime may be less if the person failed to commit the crime successfully the first time. The demands of justice may be consequentially reduced. This is not an argument for letting unsuccessful criminal go scot free - but this factor should definitely be considered in quantum of sentencing. In a study on repeat vicimisation [7], reserchers tried to understand the motivation for the criminals. One of the common answer was - 'it was so easy the first time. ' ==Rebuttals==1. This makes both individuals just as dangerous to society, so there is equal reason to incapacitate both criminals. As I have shown above, a successful criminal may be more dangerous. This factor has to be considered.2. Since we want to deter people from even trying the crime in the first place the same purpose of deterrence is fulfilled by equal sentencing. I agree that deterrence has to be considered as one of the factors and unsuccessful criminals should not be allowed to go scot free. However that is not sufficient as an argument for ignoring the success of crime as a factor. If jumping a red light is declared a capital offence, it will act as a good deterrence. Everyone will think a million times before trying anything. However the punishment has to be proportional to crime. I am sure my opponent does not want anyone violaters of traffic rules to be shot dead on the spot as deterrence!3. Failing at a crime is not evidencne that a person will take less time to rehabilitate or that they will be easier to rehabilitate. Actually it might be an indication that it will be easier to rehabilitate such criminals. It is possible that the crime failed because the criminal was not ruthless. During sentencing court should examine why the criminal failed and grant him some reprieve if applicable. I have definitely established that outcome of the crime should be considered as one of the factors while passing sentence. I look forward towards further arguments from MasturDbtor. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... and . http://gme.grolier.com...[2] The Holy Bible: Exodus 21:23-21:25[3] The Holy Quran 5:45[4] . http://www.jstor.org...[5] . http://scholar.google.co.in...[6] . http://www.netlawman.co.in...[7] . http://www.bra.se... - Page 3