The resulting injury exceeded the intention.
The culprit did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. The person’s lack of such intent may suffice to mitigate his criminal liability – as it ought to be.
But would one really have been innocent of committing so grave a wrong. Is it not logically and rationally apparent on the surface the repercussions of one’s own intended acts? I could frown in utter doubt – only because I find it ridiculous to believe that a person could not have anticipated the likely series of injuries and trouble he would cause for his disdainful acts. And I don’t think either, with such irresponsibility and wickedness , he’d even consider employing a bit of a ‘damage control’. Only one crime may be committed but apart from damages, I bet the resulting injury or injuries would most likely always exceed what have been intended – precisely because a crime by itself is disastrous in nature or would he not have known better.
While I cannot seem to reconcile this concept in criminal law, I probably should defer from appreciating a mitigating circumstance in such a case. Or should I? Anyhow, the accused always gets the benefit of a so-called doubt.
The culprit did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. The person’s lack of such intent may suffice to mitigate his criminal liability – as it ought to be.
But would one really have been innocent of committing so grave a wrong. Is it not logically and rationally apparent on the surface the repercussions of one’s own intended acts? I could frown in utter doubt – only because I find it ridiculous to believe that a person could not have anticipated the likely series of injuries and trouble he would cause for his disdainful acts. And I don’t think either, with such irresponsibility and wickedness , he’d even consider employing a bit of a ‘damage control’. Only one crime may be committed but apart from damages, I bet the resulting injury or injuries would most likely always exceed what have been intended – precisely because a crime by itself is disastrous in nature or would he not have known better.
While I cannot seem to reconcile this concept in criminal law, I probably should defer from appreciating a mitigating circumstance in such a case. Or should I? Anyhow, the accused always gets the benefit of a so-called doubt.
