As I read my morning paper today, I came across a story that caught my interest. In it, there was a vicious attempt at murder, as a bicyclist's throat was slashed. The man who committed the act, one Anthony Scholl Jr. of Pittsburgh, received a sentence of 7 to 14 years in prison, which will be followed by 27 years of probation.
http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/6461042-74/scholl-prison-family#axzz37kEuWcQ2
I understand the sentencing in this case may differ from that in normal one, as the man claimed that voices in his head told him to stab the bicyclist, one Colin Albright, also from Pittsburgh. Though his throat was slashed, he miraculously survived, and reports no ill effects today from the 2012 stabbing. The cycling community has generated more outrage then Albright, who spoke on behalf of his attacker in court. Albright requested that Scholl not be taken away from his family, and reported no ill will towards his attacker. At the time of the ttack and now, the cycling community was outraged, as they felt that if Scholl had the resources to avoid police for almost a week, he wasn't as devoid of his faculties as his lawyer claimed.
Again, this is a special circumstances case. I didn't examine Scholl, so I can't attest to whether he's of sound mind or not. The judge saw him as not insane but mentally ill, hence the 27 years of probation. Those are to guarantee that School receives the mental health treatment he so obviously is in need of. Scholl and Albright were not acquainted with one another, as this was a random attack.
My biggest contention here is the difference in sentencing between attempted murder cases, and one that involves murder itself. Someone who is found guilty of first degree attempted murder spends on average approximately 10 years in prison. For those convicted of first degree murder-not counting those on death row- the average prison sentence is close to 25 years, with some getting life with no parole. My question is, why the difference?
With attempted murder, the intent to kill is there. The attempt is there. The only difference between an attempted murderer and a killer themselves is that they were unsuccessful in their attempt. Other than that, there's no difference. The argument could be made that the murderer actually took a life, a human being, away from their loved ones. But that in itself isn't factored into sentencing. Intent and attempt, along with follow through are what is considered. But why shouldn't the attempted murderer-be they found to be of sound mind-be held to the same standard that the murderer is? Truly, what's the difference? Their desire was to take a life, and as we see with Scholl, the attempt on Albright was certainly there. Slashing a man's throat can have no other intent than trying to take his life.
25 years to life is generally reserved for the cold-blooded killers, the ones who attempt and are successful at killing their target. But what if a man attempted to kill several people, and was simply unsuccessful because of incompetance? Shouldn't the option of a life sentence be there? From what I've read, the fact that the person survived is the only thing that prevents a life sentence.
It doesn't change the malicious, murderous attempt made on a person's life. Why should the sentencing be any different? The goal of incarceration is to get the worst of the worst off the street, and the worst for good. Attempted murderers, be it by incompetence or sheer luck, can still qualify as the worst of them all, can they not?
Should life sentences without parole- or even death row if the crime is heinous enough- be an option for attempted murder? Why or why not?
Was the sentence for Anthony Scholl Jr, after slashing the throat of Colin Albright, a proper one?(7 to 14 in jail, 27 years of probation following.)
Off to you for further discussion.
http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/6461042-74/scholl-prison-family#axzz37kEuWcQ2
I understand the sentencing in this case may differ from that in normal one, as the man claimed that voices in his head told him to stab the bicyclist, one Colin Albright, also from Pittsburgh. Though his throat was slashed, he miraculously survived, and reports no ill effects today from the 2012 stabbing. The cycling community has generated more outrage then Albright, who spoke on behalf of his attacker in court. Albright requested that Scholl not be taken away from his family, and reported no ill will towards his attacker. At the time of the ttack and now, the cycling community was outraged, as they felt that if Scholl had the resources to avoid police for almost a week, he wasn't as devoid of his faculties as his lawyer claimed.
Again, this is a special circumstances case. I didn't examine Scholl, so I can't attest to whether he's of sound mind or not. The judge saw him as not insane but mentally ill, hence the 27 years of probation. Those are to guarantee that School receives the mental health treatment he so obviously is in need of. Scholl and Albright were not acquainted with one another, as this was a random attack.
My biggest contention here is the difference in sentencing between attempted murder cases, and one that involves murder itself. Someone who is found guilty of first degree attempted murder spends on average approximately 10 years in prison. For those convicted of first degree murder-not counting those on death row- the average prison sentence is close to 25 years, with some getting life with no parole. My question is, why the difference?
With attempted murder, the intent to kill is there. The attempt is there. The only difference between an attempted murderer and a killer themselves is that they were unsuccessful in their attempt. Other than that, there's no difference. The argument could be made that the murderer actually took a life, a human being, away from their loved ones. But that in itself isn't factored into sentencing. Intent and attempt, along with follow through are what is considered. But why shouldn't the attempted murderer-be they found to be of sound mind-be held to the same standard that the murderer is? Truly, what's the difference? Their desire was to take a life, and as we see with Scholl, the attempt on Albright was certainly there. Slashing a man's throat can have no other intent than trying to take his life.
25 years to life is generally reserved for the cold-blooded killers, the ones who attempt and are successful at killing their target. But what if a man attempted to kill several people, and was simply unsuccessful because of incompetance? Shouldn't the option of a life sentence be there? From what I've read, the fact that the person survived is the only thing that prevents a life sentence.
It doesn't change the malicious, murderous attempt made on a person's life. Why should the sentencing be any different? The goal of incarceration is to get the worst of the worst off the street, and the worst for good. Attempted murderers, be it by incompetence or sheer luck, can still qualify as the worst of them all, can they not?
Should life sentences without parole- or even death row if the crime is heinous enough- be an option for attempted murder? Why or why not?
Was the sentence for Anthony Scholl Jr, after slashing the throat of Colin Albright, a proper one?(7 to 14 in jail, 27 years of probation following.)
Off to you for further discussion.
