No, the issue here is the crux of criminal law: Do we punish for intent (mens rea) or for results (social harm)?
There is constant debate as to what the purpose of criminal law is, and in fact, it encompasses all of the arguments.
Here's a little example, illustrating the complexity behind what fuels the law:
For the sake of this example, know that Grand Larceny involves theft of something over, lets say, a $1000 dollars, while Petit Larceny involves theft of something under that amount. The sentence for grand larceny is, lets say, 10-12 years in prison, while the sentence for petit larceny is, lets say, 6 months in jail and a fine.
Hypothetical #1
I go into a store to intending to steal a diamond necklace (worth $10,000 bucks) in the store window, but when I get caught, it turns out that I was mistaken, and the necklace was only glass (worth $20 bucks).
Should I go down for the Grand Larceny, or Petit Larceny?
Culpability argument --> I intended to steal a diamond necklace, and regardless of the outcome, I should be punished for what I desired to do. Despite the outcome of the crime, I am a person who engages or attempts to engage in grand larceny and should be punished as such, both for the fact that I should get the punishment for the violation I intended, and that it will keep yet another Grand Larcener ff the streets.
Results Argument --> It doesn't matter what I intended, the fact remains that i only stole a glass necklace. Society is not as hurt financially by a glass theft, than by a theft of diamonds.
What the law Says --> All Courts would hold you to the lower crime. Results argument wins. Guy only gets the 6 month jail time and fine.
Hypothetical #2.
I go into a store to intending to steal a glass necklace (worth $20 bucks) in the store window, but when I get caught, it turns out that I was mistaken, and the necklace was a diamond one(worth $10,000 bucks).
Should I go down for the Grand Larceny or Petit Larceny?
Culpability argument --> I intended to a glass necklace, and regardless of the outcome, I should be punished only for what I desired to do. I only intended to steal glass, not a diamond necklace. I do not hav the mind of a hardcore robber, simply one who engaged in petty theft. To hold me to the higher crime would be to punish me for something I had no intention of doing.
Results Argument --> It doesn't matter what I tried to do, the fact remains that diamonds were stolen. Those who engage in crimes should not be excused just because the crime that occured is worse than they expected - to engage in crime itself is a dirty and morally wrong thing, and one who goes down the path of sin should take all the consequences.
What the law Says --> Most Courts would hold you for the Higher crime. Intent Arguments win. The Guy goes down for 10-12 years.
So, in one instance, the results were the deciding factor, and iin the other, the intent is. See what's going on?
