Hi-Phi Mens Rea vs Moral Luck

The podcast episode on men's rea vs moral luck poses the question of whether we prosecute based on the outcome or the intent. I thought it was very interesting how they explained this concept as acting in the interest of the victim vs acting against the perpetrator. If someone attempts a robbery, they would have the same mens rea as someone who successfully robs someone. If you were focused on punishing the perpetrator, you would charge these crimes equally, as their intent is the same. However, our justice system does not charge these crimes equally. the guest speaker in the podcast explains that if you as the victim are robbed vs if someone attempts, and fails, to rob you, your injury is greater when they are successful, regardless of men's rea. Our justice system reacting without regard for men's rea is where the idea of moral luck comes in, an attempted murderer is not a better person less deserving of justice than a successful murder is, he has more moral luck.

The speakers connect this to the idea of negligence as we discussed in class last week, sometimes just because a person does not have intent does not mean they don't hold some form of guilt. They talked about this concept through the lens of parenting, and the thin line of when a child may not have known they would cause harm but should have. They go back and forth on whether it is more human to feel sorry for a child who didn't know they would cause harm or frustrated with that child despite their ignorance.