How is an intent to kill mentally different than actually doing it?

A lot of us either have bad thoughts or go further into the planning phases of bad things. But if a crime has been carried out or not is a pretty big difference.

I could sit here and think about robbing my boss with every intent of doing it. It takes a step before I start actually planning to do it. In that step I've taken it to an all new level. I've bought the black outfirt and the glass cutter and the big bag for the loot. I've cased the joint. Yadda yadda yadda. But it still takes a step for me to actually act on it and carry the plan out. Thats taking it to another level.

What your suggesting is playing thought police. Ignoring the differences in the steps and punishing the same regardless. You may as well punish someone just for thinking about bad things then since it can lead to x which can lead to y.

No, I'm not at all.

In this case, you need to follow the link and read the story. The guy attacked a woman, beat her, and threw her on some subway tracks to be run over by a train. She didn't die.

It was NOT some thought someone had.

I responded to your general question not this specific instance.

There is a difference between attempt and success.

I don't see why. If someone breaks into a bank and fails to get any money, they are charged exactly the same as if they did. It's the act that is usually prosecuted, not the result. In the case of murder, only the success is punished. ( I know the legal diference, I just don't agree with it. Attempted murder is only prosecuting an unsuccessful murder. What is the ethica differenc? The intent to kill is exactly the same. )

The difference is very simple: She is not dead; therefore he did not commit murder and cannot be punished for anything but the attempt.

Then we should strap him in an electric chair and attempt to do the same.