Originally posted by wolfgang59http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=115593&page=3 (6 posts down)
Man A gets drunk, drives his car and loses control on a corner and mounts the pavement (sidewalk).
The next day Man B does exactly the same but this time there was a child on the pavement who is killed.
1. How do their crimes compare?
2. What should be their punishment?
Clearly, each person is equally dangerous and present the same level of threat to society.
The difference in their punishments reflects nothing more than society's "need" to exact retribution from those whose actions harm society... it's almost like the civil "eggshell" rule, which is a tort law principle that states that once a tort is committed, the person is responsible for the full extent of the injury even if the extent of the injury is unforeseeable.
Interestingly, for reasons implied by your question, the Model Penal Code and the federal sentencing guidelines both equate the punishment for attempt with the punishment for the completed crime if all actions reasonably necessary to complete that crime were committed.