Quote:
Originally Posted by RLAJay
Personally I feel that ignorance is not a factor that should absolve someone of their actions, it should however mitigate things.
|
agreed, to an extent! carelessness resulting in ignorance is blameworthy tho, see below
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLAJay
What is probably more important when judging a person on their actions is their intent, a person might use such conditioned behaviours because they have served them well and become habit, the question is whether there is malicious intent or not.
That at least is the way law looks at things.
|
FYI your talking about criminal law here, tbh its a high standard to judge against in this instance, u cant let people get away with being dumb just because they didnt have some sort of malicious intent to be dumb.... :S
for example judging by intent doesnt take into consideration carelessness or even negligence (civil law concepts). in civil law a person can be blameworthy if they have been careless or negligent in doing/not doing/realising something. the test to see if someone has been negligent is two pronged, it has an objective aspect to it and a subjective aspect to it. i wont digress into legal BS cos im on my lunch. ill post it when i get a chance, tis good to know
so, ye basically intent is not the be all and end all