system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Attempted crimes should be treated identically to their completed versions

**I believe that attempted crimes** (attempted murder, attempted rape, attempted kidnapping, etc.) **should not exist, but rather should be charged, prosecuted, and sentenced as their completed versions** (murder, rape, kidnapping, etc.).

Implicit in the very act of an attempt is the intent to commit the crime, and I believe that that is the only thing that should really be considered in a criminal justice system. A person's intent is what informs our knowledge (at least in part) about their willingness to commit the crime, their commitment to actually carrying it out, their remaining danger to the public, and their likelihood for successful rehabilitation. It also implies that the crime was premeditated; there needs to be purpose and intent for there to be an active attempt. Completion of the crime does not inform or imply any of those things in a way that simply a criminal's intent alone does not. Because of that, I don't believe that *succeeding* in the crime should be a relevant factor to the criminal justice system - but I am open to having my view changed on the matter, so **explain why I should CMV, Reddit!** Note that I am in the US and am thinking specifically about the American legal system, but am totally open to examples/points/reasoning/etc. from other countries' legal systems.

*Things that I can already tell you will not change my view:*

* Trying to convince me that this is a pointless discussion because the US criminal justice system is broken/isn't fair/is biased/etc. I agree with that statement as well, but that's not what I want to discuss here, and I think that this discussion is an important part of any other criminal justice reforms we could talk about.
* Any argument specifically related to Trump and/or the current impeachment proceedings. Yes, the whole "well he only *tried* to bribe Ukraine" defense is why this is on my mind so much right now, but for a wide variety of reasons, I don't think that any case study specific to the current president will make a compelling argument as to why my viewpoint is right or wrong *in general,* and I don't want this to be some sort of partisan bickering.

Also, you may intuit that this is part of a broader viewpoint of mine that retribution should have no place in a criminal justice system. I'm certainly willing to discuss (and possibly have my view changed) on that as well, but I wanted to pose this more narrow problem to make the scope of the discussion a little more manageable.
gpt
I agree mostly with this but have one concern.
When guilt or another change of heart causes a person to stop before committing the crime and hands themselves in. This should definitely be treated as a different case for determining punishment as they have already made the realisation it’s wrong, so the punishment is simply the next step, while someone who gets caught hasn’t decided to stop they were stopped so they should be held accountable as if it had happened entirely.