3 ms·

The two issues brought up (obstruction in cricket and the murder trial) say more about rules than they do about evidence. In the cricket case, the problem seem

The two issues brought up (obstruction in cricket and the murder trial) say more about rules than they do about evidence. In the cricket case, the problem seems to be that small differences in a player's reaction time can make the difference between acceptable and unacceptable actions. Why should it matter if the player intentionally blocked the ball? Justice is much more difficult when rules depend on precise subjective judgement. The same is true of the murder case. Clearly the robbers committed a second degree murder. In the hypothetical cases, was the prosecution pushing for first degree murder instead? Why rely on precise subjective judgement? This like trying to decide from a grainy photo whether a character is an 'A' or a '4'. It's an unavoidably difficult problem, but in the two cases above, we can change the rules to avoid it.

ballenf 10y ago
Intentionality plays a role in most criminal definitions. The exceptions are the strict liability cases like statutory rape or DUI (just to name a couple). I think the law looks to intentions because it's very human to base our judgments on our sense of the person's intent. Beyond me why it developed evolutionally (or if it's just a very recent phenomenon), but we have a soft spot for good intentions. As to the case at hand, I have similar questions. I would think in the U.S. this would have just been a felony murder case where intentions are irrelevant. Agree that a first-degree murder charge in a robbery case would be odd (unless the robbery was a cover story for the planned murder??). As for sports, the pendulum seems to shifted in the other direction with most rules of the 'strict' variety. And I would agree with you that any rule that can be formulated as a strict rule, should be.
- slededit 10y ago
  In a world filled with randomness intent is the only thing we can control. I think the trend towards statutory crime comes from the fact we feel we've tamed much of the world. And therefore what occurs is most likely someone's fault - instead of an act of god.
  - ballenf 10y ago
    Very astute observation. Allowing for bad acts or bad outcomes without a scapegoat (because accident) makes us feel less in control of our world.

ballenf 10y ago

Intentionality plays a role in most criminal definitions. The exceptions are the strict liability cases like statutory rape or DUI (just to name a couple). I think the law looks to intentions because it's very human to base our judgments on our sense of the person's intent. Beyond me why it developed evolutionally (or if it's just a very recent phenomenon), but we have a soft spot for good intentions. As to the case at hand, I have similar questions. I would think in the U.S. this would have just been a felony murder case where intentions are irrelevant. Agree that a first-degree murder charge in a robbery case would be odd (unless the robbery was a cover story for the planned murder??). As for sports, the pendulum seems to shifted in the other direction with most rules of the 'strict' variety. And I would agree with you that any rule that can be formulated as a strict rule, should be.

slededit 10y ago
In a world filled with randomness intent is the only thing we can control. I think the trend towards statutory crime comes from the fact we feel we've tamed much of the world. And therefore what occurs is most likely someone's fault - instead of an act of god.
- ballenf 10y ago
  Very astute observation. Allowing for bad acts or bad outcomes without a scapegoat (because accident) makes us feel less in control of our world.