This is correct. Nevertheless, I am torn in how to response to CWuestefeld's point. I want to say that it would be just as bad to obsess over intent without wo

This is correct. Nevertheless, I am torn in how to response to CWuestefeld's point. I want to say that it would be just as bad to obsess over intent without worrying about act, but I'm not sure that's true. Even in the cases presented (accidentally posting a nude photo and arresting someone who had not committed a crime), the crime is still not just in the act itself. The crime is also in the negligence involved. A negligent police officer should be punished even if no one is mistakenly arrested. If someone negligently handles nude photos (I'm not sure why you'd have them in the first place, but let's leave that aside for now), they should be punished even if the photos don't get leaked. If social security numbers are leaked on a public website, those responsible should be punished even if no one loaded the page. If, however, a company is absolutely devoted to security but someone still breaks in and steals social security numbers, the company's punishment should be less, even though the act (social security numbers falling into the wrong hands) is less bad than the negligent company's act (social security numbers being mishandled but never falling into the wrong hands). I'd rather my social security number wasn't leaked, but I'd place greater trust in a company which handled it correctly and still got broken into than one that handled it recklessly but got lucky. Really, I think that's the point I want to make above all: Luck should have no bearing on the law.