Joel Feinberg's The Classical Debate

The degree of interaction the criminal has with her unlawful object should hold a great deal of weight when deciding how to administer repercussions. No attempt should merit the full weight of a completed crime’s sentence, but the severity of the penalty should increase in harmony with the amount of effort the expectant violator expends. The attempt should not merit full offense because the full extent of damage has not been incurred and the possibility that one might not complete the full amount of damage if given the chance should be considered. As Joel Feinberg has mentioned in the article “The Classical Debate” the austerity of the punishment must be in line with the severity of the crime else it undermines the system of deterrents (800). …show more content…
A failed attempt can be either the fault of an internal or an external force. An internal reasoning would have far more weight in ceasing a criminal attempt because the offender herself would have to decide that the actions she is committing are unwise, immoral, or otherwise unbefitting. An external contribution to the failure of an attempt would lack any moral or mental substance as the budding felon would have little if anything to do with the cessation on the attempt. Failure to complete a crime due to an external factor would also potentially indicate that the aspiring wrongdoer could try to commit the crime again, this time successfully, as she had not personally decided to abort the mission on her own recognizance. Attempts fouled due to external stimuli should carry a far harsher punishment than internally fouled ones, though not as harsh as a completed crime as they are not equal. Exemptions should be made if the severity of the attempt dips into failure of completion due only to unknown circumstance. In the case of the People V. Dlugash, Dlugash was found guilty of attempted murder, due to his violent shooting of a potentially dead man, but, due to the completed execution of his actions, he should have been punished as harshly as one who legitimately commits murder. The case points out there is no conclusive evidence that the Dlugash’s …show more content…
The potential harm towards innocent civilians’ freedoms is too great to harshly punish anything more than the direct obviousness of a physical intent matched with malicious intent. While one must focus largely on reality and what actually takes place, one must still account for any probable impacts that may cause harm or impugn upon the wellbeing of the general populace. Considering the lesser degree of impact that pure intent has, it should not carry a punishment at all and nor should intent equal an attempt as there has been no action. One cannot prove Intent alone, and to try to do so would interfere with citizens’ own mental thought and privacy. Intent with the addition of several potentially malignant accoutrements is worrying but still provides no actual attempt or show of willingness to cause harm. It is highly concerning and more than slightly stressful, but not action has been made; as such, no arrest or punishment should follow these actions. Citizens have a right to do what they will in most cases and should be free to live as unhindered as possible in that pursuit. No action has been taken and thus no exhibition of meaning by the culprit. At most, the situation should be watched carefully, and quietly and politely investigated by officials. If the suspicious person reveals in-depth