It sucks but the world seems to punish people who are honest (like this guy) and help people who lie (like everyone who did what this guy did and lied about it). In the same vein, police get away with brutal abuse because they know what lies to tell to justify it ("I felt afraid for my life", etc). But the police would not get away with it if they told the truth, ("They showed me disrespect and I knew I wasn't going to get caught so I beat and arrested them on trumped up charges.")

It similarly sucks that our justice system punishes the clumsy criminals and lets the really skillfully sneaky ones go unpunished. Nobody has yet faced charges for robbing the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum.

That's why I find the fact that real murder and attempted murder have different sentences to be a grave injustice. Criminals should not receive a discount on their sentence because they happened to be a bad shot or because the good trauma surgeon was on duty that night.

From what I've been told, the reason for the disparity is to discourage trying again or escalation.

If attempted murder and murder have the same penalty, there's no reason for a psychopath to not attempt it again. On the net, it might even be better for them since dead people can't testify.

I've heard a similar argument for why we should lower penalties for drug crimes. When people routinely have enough drugs laying around to be charged equivalently to murder, the law ceases to be a deterrent. There's no additional penalty for more crimes, because we've already maxed out the punishment. It's not like we're going to make them live to 270 so they can serve out their full sentence.

Unfair as it may seem, it's better that the legal system limit itself to actual occurrences and not extrapolate to hypotheticals

Interesting, I see both sides. I agree completely with you that they shouldn't extrapolate. But in the case of attempted murder, wouldn't this just mean proving beyond doubt that someone tried to kill? If there is doubt that the accused meant only to harm, for example, then I get it. But if they provably tried to kill, however you prove that, then I see the argument that it's irrelevant whether they succeeded or not.

Anyway, it's moot imo because I don't believe in a retributive justice system, I think the only concern should be preventing recidivism. But your post has made me think a bit, I'm still not sure what the "right" answer is here

> in the case of attempted murder, wouldn't this just mean proving beyond doubt that someone tried to kill?

I'd assume yes. Otherwise, it would be a charge like gross negligence or assault+battery.

FYI: There is a famous robbery from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in 1990.

Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_Stewart_Gardner_Museu...