Attempted murder means that someone intended to murder, but due to some circumstances they did not succeed depite trying.
To take an example, Joe John attacks Bob, hits his head repeatedly with a hammer until Bob is unconscious, hits a few more times just in case, and flees.
- case 1: Bob dies, John is accused of murder
- case 2: Bob lives because he has a strong skull and whatnot, and John is accused of attempted murder.
In other words, the weight of the accusation depends on some random characteristics of Bob (stronger, healthier, or luckier), and not on the intent John had.
Why isn't John accused of plain murder in the second case?
I guess that this is not just because of semantics - so phrased differently: why is there a concept of "attempted murder" accusation that does not rely on the intent of the perpetrator (that is: no matter whether the attempts succeeded or not, the action should be qualified as "murder" because that was the intent)?
If the context matters, I am more interested in Civil Law (such as, broadly, in Europe) more than Common Law.
EDIT to may clarify further. A murderer leaving with a "now he is dead, job done" state of mind is (for me, of course) equally guilty whether the victim survives or not. At least in France the verdict and sentence will be different - something I cannot wrap my head around.
Why should there be a difference in how the attacker is treated when he has an intent, which did not go through just by sheer luck (for the victim)
