The basis for my arguments are from English law. Who is guilty of what has been fine tuned over centuries. It's not enough that something bad happened. There mu

The basis for my arguments are from English law. Who is guilty of what has been fine tuned over centuries. It's not enough that something bad happened. There must be either intent to harm or gross negligence. The modern trend both in law and society of statutory offenses and ex post facto "something bad happened so let's see what we can charge him with" is something I find deeply disturbing. I find the original articles proposals as yet another step upon that road. Our forefathers accepted the universe was unpredictable. We seem to feel we have enough grasp now that if bad things happen someone must be to blame.