Voodoo Case

Under the definition, can victor be convicted of attempted murder?

Yes, under the definition of attempted murder victor meets all the charges. His belief was the he would be hurting his wife if he is hurting that inanimate doll. He was hurting her in his mind even though no harm was done to his wife, but the fact he though it would hurt her held him in conviction of attempted murder. He would be hold accountable for attempted murder. Not only that but he had a strong guilt believing that he had kill his wife for sure which lead to his confession to the police. 

How would Kadish analyze this case?

Kadish would examine this case based on what prior primitive cases and evidence that have actually taken place. In this case there was a doll which victor used to repeatedly stab assuming it would murder his wife but no such event occurred. This case would have taking a different turn if his wife would have been affected by the voodoo actions. Kadish would compare this case to a person who has hurt someone physically and than in the use of this lifeless doll.

What is Kadish’s criticism of the “harm doctrine” and how does it apply to this case?

Kadish criticism of the harm doctrine is that it has no reasonable basis, and finds it to be not rationally supportable. Kadish also find the “harm doctrine” to be hypothetically illogical while being unproductive when it come to prevent crimes. Kadish claims that there are two functions of criminal punishment: to prevent further criminal acts by criminals, and to discourage criminal acts by others. 

According to Kadish, why do we still have “harm Doctrine”?

When it comes to ethical and moral values society has a hard time adjusting. We still have “harm doctrine” according to Kadish because it takes time when changes come based on our ethical views.