Sentence "Attempted" Crimes The Same As Successful Ones

Rebuttal Argument 1I listed off 3 rational reasons for the criminal justice system.It is true that four basic purposes are often listed. However, even though retribution is still often cited as a justification there is nothing rational about retribution.Retribution is not as I stated a "rational reason", since rationality can not consider sunken costs. Retribution does not bring the victim back(in the case of murder) or reverse the crime in other cases.Retribution is just a fancy word for revenge. "Retribution" for its own sake solves absolutely nothing. It does not reduce crime(or by definition it would not be "for its own sake" and could be called "deterrence" or "incapacitation").And it does not make people in society into better people. In fact it does the exact opposite by validating and normalizing "revenge" as a legitimate motivation for doing things. The clear message being sent is that revenge is OK. When people see "revenge" as a legitimate thing rather than a vice to be avoided they will be more likely to make choices based on trying to get revenge. This contributes to instability in many areas of society, and in particular in people's interpersonal relationships and may even lead some people to murder. In many conflicts people argue over who started it, which means the "retribution" could last indefinitely. The fact that some religious texts support it is irrelevant, since religious texts say a lot of things we no longer follow. The fact that Kant, the Supreme Court, and India all supported it shows these people are only human. Retribution as a factor in criminal justice should be consigned to the history books.Rebuttal Argument #2 & Counter-Rebuttal 1st RebuttalThe source Con cites is referring to people sentenced for burglary who say they had committed the crime against the same target several times. It does not say they were sentenced several times for the same crime against the same target, just that they were sentenced and then they said they had done it multiple times in an interview.Indeed, "Succeeding" in the commission of a crime but then "getting caught" doing it would be very unlikely to elicit the response "it was so easy the first time", since it clearly wasn't "easy" as even though they committed it they were caught.Another reason was "to collect things". A person who attempts burglary but fails may have seen a lot of things he wants to go back for and may learn from his previous mistakes, and then be even more motivated to commit the crime.Although as Con said it is possible for someone to commit a crime, become more confident, and then reoffend out of jail or for someone to fail, lose their confidence, and not reoffend it is also possible that a person who succeeds will be shocked at what they did and not reoffend or that a person who fails will feel they have "learned from their misakes(talking mistakes in executing the crime not morality)" and become more determined to try again. Given the environment within prisons if someone is determined to try a crime they failed at again once they get out it's not unlikely they will find allies within the prison inmates to learn from and to join in helping them with the crime once they get out.So a successful criminal may in some cases be more dangerous, but in other cases a criminal who failed may be more dangerous. This makes "success" a bad criteria to use in sentencing.Counter-Rebuttal #2This is a strawman argument. It does not follow that because we should not declare jumping a red light a capital offense therefore we should factor in the success or failure of a crime in sentencing.The purpose of the criminal justice system is to achieve "good". Otherwise there would be no point in having it. But we have to recognize that implicit in the criminal justice system is "harm". Penalties harm the people who are sentenced. It is still justified in order to bring about more "good" than the "harm". However, the "harm" of executing people for merely jumping a red light would far outweigh any gains from the "good" that would come from deterring people from doing that.This does not negate the value of deterrence just that like anything worthy of consideration it should not be affoarded absolute consideration. Counter-Rebuttal #3It is possible, it is however not definite. Some cases of attempted murder involved ruthless attacks the victim was just lucky to survive from. Some failed crimes failed because of heroic efforts to stop it. In any case it is possible to judge on a case by case basis from what happened during the crime whether it was done ruthlessly or not independent of whether or not the crime succeeded. We already do this to an extent. There is 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree murder, and 4th degree murder. 1st degree is planned upon, and so is the most ruthless. 2nd degree is out of angry. 3rd degree was killing from indifference or negligence. 4th degree is killing by an accomplice. In addition the use of a firearm often weighs in to sentencing in many criminal cases as it indicates more ruthlessness.Differentiating based on success is imprecise, so we should use more precise means of measuring ruthlessness when sentencing. Factoring in whether and what weapons were used, the extent of planning and the lengths the criminal was willing to go to see it done, and whether there is any history of previous criminal offenses would be more reliable than considering whether the crime in question failed or succeeded. People should not be getting lighter sentences just because their intended victim was lucky.