I think it's about trying to ensure that the law is applied evenly, without prejudice. Most criminals will probably have some rationalization for why they did something. If we get into judging their guilt based on such things, that could open the door to the law only applying to some people at some times, and as a society we want everyone to be subject to the law equally. So instead we take into account the entirety of the circumstances when deciding how much punishment is deserved and necessary, but someone is still guilty if they committed the act.

This is just a wire story from AP, but still a bit surprising that someone at Fox posted it

How is this onion material? It's quite literally what they believe and how they structured their laws. Nobody should be surprised by this.

The original texts stating this law are securely stored in a mooseum.

Some crimes do have intent requirements. First degree murder must be willful, deliberate, and premeditated, for example. So if you trip and accidentally stab someone with a knife you're holding and they die, that's not murder because it doesn't fit any of the intent requirements, and testimony about intent would be relevant.

But even with intent crimes, the ultimate reason for the intent isn't usually relevant. It's more about "did you mean to do X". The law won't punish someone for an involuntary action or an accident, only if someone chose to do something is punishment justified. But the reason for the choice rarely matters. If you intentionally walk into the road when the crosswalk sign is red then you're jaywalking and it doesn't really matter why. That sort of thing.

Voluntary manslaughter is a rare exception that gives an imperfect defense to murder for certain kinds of provocation, so we actually do need to examine the why there.

2 days later : The train was hauling agent orange.

He's powerless against this terrible disease!

Agreed, but, I mean, they use the same logic for other things, like alcoholism and kleptomania.

Oh, OK. As long as Norfolk Southern says it's OK. I am sure they wouldn't mitigate the problem at the risk of local population, right?

I think they meant to say sectarian.

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[removed]

[deleted]

“We are living in a secular country and must have respect for all religions and in Hinduism, the belief and faith is that cow is representative of divine and natural beneficence and should therefore be protected and venerated" is kind of a paradoxical sentence

I literally said that I didn't think that, you dummy.

It's not a question of the act and it's consequences, it's a question of the intended act and it's intended consequences. You seem to have lost your edge on the ethical and philosophical considerations that are massive in determining how we are suppose to condemn certain behaviour, and your defence of this mechanism of the legal system comes off as infantile, reductionist and, ultimately, quite flaccid.

I lost my mother within the last year in an instance where faster ambulance response might have saved her, but I can recognise that not being able to explain yourself in court is a far wider problem than just me.

Sounds like he probably does have a mental health and addiction problem.

Didn't know scumbag was an illness.

Convincing people to pay him £700 grand for sleeping outside in the balmy temperatures of North Devon is a great achievement. He should probably become a politician. In Northern UK we make children join the cubs and scouts. That way they sleep outside (in the cold) for free and are forced to enjoy it.

Portion size becomes irrelevant when you start eating proper food, the appetite returns to normal and it becomes increasingly unpleasant to overeat after a while. All you have to do is stop adding artificial crap, salt, sugar and high-glycaemic index fillings. It does wonders, you actually start feeling proper nausea when you eat too much.

What's incompatible with a fair trial is making a mockery of procedures to determine if you blocked a road or not by doing a PowerPoint on climate change. It's incredible you are dancing around the fact that no level of "I think I'm right" allows you to block a road and act like an asshole in court.

Wouldn’t be surprised if it’s due to activity and good. The FDA grandfathered in so much toxic items, some we put in our food or on our crops. Europe is super strict about what is allowed. Like how America’s eggs are frozen because they’re sprayed with stuff to keep them fresh longer but in Europe they’re not refrigerated.

There's a little something called scientific objectivity that separates some of those things from others. Courts are supposed to be scientific.

The fact that you think you're right doesn't mean you should be able to block emergency responders, but putting an outright ban of explaining the defendant's reasoning is stupid and is not in any way the necessary response. It's not one or the other and I'd argue it's antithetical to the concept of fair trial. Courts are supposed to have nuanced reasoning and the judge does when deciding upon a punishment.

What's licking his butthole gonna do?

Castration is effective treatment

Calling out partisan media makes me a scumbag. Peak reddit.