Intent vs Causation

The matter presented here is an interesting one. On one hand, both

Bob and Jack had equal goals and equal intentions. But, only Jack was

successful, but does that really make a difference? Should one be

punished more simply because the other is a bad shot? Is intent alone

grounds for the same level punishment? Should one be held just as

liable even though their action wasn’t completely fulfilled? This

dilemma is an interesting one to examine and can be approached from

different perspectives.

This isn’t a cut and dry matter. Generally to be convicted of murder

one must have either acted with intent to kill or have exhibited

extreme disregard for human life (Adams387). Yet, the common law

position has been for lesser punishments for unsuccessful crimes

(Adams389). That alone seems to contradict one another. Should

tradition hold more weight or should we use ‘evolving standards of

decency’? These are all factors that must be considered.

Liability can come in three forms with regards to attempt. What sort

of intention must be proved to establish an attempt? This establishes

the fault involved. Second, is the matter of proximity. This handles

the question as to when an act goes from merely being thought of to

actually happening. Finally, if one’s conduct completely carried out

wouldn’t be a crime what circumstances would? In this case Bob

definitely had the intension to kill Leroy, and he took the shot so

proximity is not an issue either. Most of all since he took the shot

it definitely was possible and would have been a murder if he

connected. In terms of the law it can be further simplified to focus

on fault and conduct. All this brings into account the principle of

causation. Causation has its origin in a norm; man’s interpretation

of nature has a normative juristic character, and has its beginnings

in 19th century (Kelsen47). And from that we add to its relation to