quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

No, the would be terrorist found supposed accomplices, but they were FBI. They hooked him up with the "explosives" which were of course duds.

They played the scene until the kid actually pushed the button. Then they swooped in and arrested him. This was of course to prove intent. That he would go through with it. Thus the question of result rather than intent.
i would think they would prosecute him for "conspiracy to bomb" or whatever, the way that people are prosecuted for "conspiracy to commit murder". It is still a crime, no?

And should that be a factor?
i think it should be a factor. Conspiracy to bomb (or murder, whatever...) should be punished more lightly than murder itself. Not MUCH more lightly, but more lightly. It does matter whether or not the crime that was planned actually took place.

You are driving a car, you black out. You did not drink, but it is found that maybe you're diabetic or epileptic, or just damn tired from saving babies from a burning bulding, whatever.
That is an accident. Depending on the circumstances, the person might be charged with negligent homicide, if it could be proven that the accident was preventable if the person had excercised reasonable caution.

In another case let's say you drank too much, and shit happened. It does.
Drunk driving is negligent behavior, and should be punished as such. It is fair to expect a person to understand that driving drunk increases the chances of an accident. Thus, when someone chooses to do that, they are choosing to engage in risky behavior, with a full knowledge of what the risks are beforehand. So, if shit happens, it's not purely accidental. The bad result could have been prevented if the person responsible had excercised reasonable caution.

But then there is another case where you intentionally intended to kill someone.
That is a much more serious crime, and the punishment should reflect that.

But then if someone, say a kid, inadvertently causes the untimely and unpleasant deaths of several (or more) people ? Do you judge this kid with the same criteria as the would be bomber ?
No, i would judge them the same as in the first question of accidental homicide. i would also make allowances depending on how old the kid was. If a five year old shoots someone, he should not be punished because he's not old enough to understand the consequences of his actions. i believe that the law (as i understand it) is right. A person's actions should be judged differently according to their INTENT to commit a crime. In other words, whether what happened was completely accidental, partly accidental, or done on purpose, as well as how conscious they were of the fact that they were doing wrong.

There are more questions than answers.
In my opinion, the examples You have given are fairly clear cut. All things being equal, i would have no problem doling out one punishment for person A, another for person B, and another for person C. i think that the question gets stickier, gets much harder to judge, when you start taking into account the fact that "all things" are NOT equal for most people. Socio-economic status, upbringing, education, intelligence, personality, age, mental or physical illness, and a hundred other factors, including pure dumb luck, also play a role. If You ask, how much of an allowance should be made for those factors? Well, that's a debate that could go on for ages.

pam

T

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

No, the would be terrorist found supposed accomplices, but they were FBI. They hooked him up with the "explosives" which were of course duds. (if you remember they did the same thing in 1991 concerning the first attemp to bomb the WTC, but that time they gave up some explosives, just not as much as the guy wanted)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I think you can argue intent if he sat in a bar and drank too much, with the keys in his pocket.