|
The respondents so far seem to agree that attempted murder should be a crime. Why? Why not apply the principle that you only commit a crime if you actually deny someone their property or their person. If someone is conniving right now to kill me, good for them. They haven't done me any harm. If they invade my property with a sharp kitchen knife in their mit, then that is a trespass that should be deemed a crime. On public land, you could have a rule (as a second best option to the privatisation of the land) that people are deemed to own a personal space - it could be, say, a 1 metre radius wide in a non-built up area, a 1 foot radius in a built-up area and 5 centimetres on public transport! Anyone entering your public space would be committing an offence (without or without a sharp kitchen knife in their mit). I'm also not even sure that it should be a crime to scare me by letting me know of a plot to kill me. Letting me know is actually doing me a favour. If they let me know by yelling their plan from the footpath outside my place, then maybe they could be guilty of a noise violation. (Remember, religious folk are allowed to scare the daylights out of me by telling me that I'm going to burn in hell for eternity.)
Applying the principle that you only commit a crime if you actually deny someone their property or their person also means that: -being an accomplice, aiding and abetting, blackmail, bribery and entrapment would be perfectly legal. The person who shoots someone is solely responsible for the crime, even if the person was paid to do it (bribery), was goaded into doing it (entrapment), was assisted in doing it (accomplice), or avoided being hit with some cost because of it (blackmail). -you don't need speeding laws - only a big penalty if you actually cause an accident. (Again this would be best dealt with through private roads.)
| 
