Question My question has to do with why we attribute differing levels of blame for equivalent actions that produce different outcomes. For example, why does attempted murder go along with a much lesser sentence than actual murder. If I try my hardest to kill you and you get away, how is that action less punishable than if I was sucessful? Another example would be drunk driving. Consider three drivers driving home after one too many drinks: One arrives home safely. Although there is a spectrum on this issue, most will consider this a minor offense. The next driver was pulled over and arrested. He goes to jail and is considered by most to be a criminal. The last driver hits and kills a pedestrian and is charged with Vehicular Homicide. When he eventually gets out of jail, this person is a pariah. Given that these three drivers had the same number of drinks in the same amount of time, how are any of these three situations different? From a judicial standpoint I can see an argument for the differing levels of punishment, but why is my (and I'd wager to say most people's) opinion of the three hypothetical drivers different in each case? It seems like their outcomes are based on circumstance and not any additional wrongdoing.

Accepted:

August 13, 2009