The Instigator
alyssalettera
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kteran55386
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is guilt determined by intent?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 501 times Debate No: 89658
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

alyssalettera

Pro

I do believe that guilt is determined by intent. The dictionary definition of guilt states that guilt is "the fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime". The word implied is significant here because the definition of that word is "suggested but not directly expressed". Guilt can be determined by intent because according to "The Definitive Guide to Guilt.", "it"s true that you didn"t actually commit the act, and so you"re still sitting on the moral high ground. However, we all know that the very fact that you"re contemplating an act that violates your own standards can be as guilt-provoking as the act itself.". For example, if someone has an idea to shoot up a school and they purchase the guns and all weapons they need, but last minute they don't go through with it, are they still guilty? Yes they are still guilty because they intended to hurt innocent people, they suggested that they were going to harm others with weapons and, they were ready to commit a significant crime that was against the law.
kteran55386

Con

Individual blame, being left to one's own particular profound quality, is a delicate thought. If I somehow happened to talk about the situation regarding the blame felt by the "center," I could just make the contention that, as specified by another, he is a sociopath and in this manner feels no blame all through. Li Si said once that "on the off chance that one get's an open door, one ought not be moderate to seize it." So, is it sensible to trust he felt blame in the wake of driving Qin's Second Generation Emperor to suicide when confronted with the chance to pick up power?[1] So, I should contend blame as an open prospect in reasonableness to my kind adversary.

"Individuals will revile you for kind deeds, much the same as abhorrent deeds."[Niccolo Machiavelli] The deeds of men are regularly judged paying little respect to plan. On account of the situation laid out, the idea of legitimate crime becomes an integral factor. A contention can be made that, in spite of his thinking, his goal still stays, at that time, to shoot his companion. Does this goal make him blameworthy? Nobody debate that it doesn't. The fault is consistently put in the ruffian's hands.

In the second situation, the possibility of noxiousness becomes an integral factor. In any case, Malice does not compare to expectation, so my thinking stays particularly the same. It's not until the third situation that the parameters shift - that the inquiry changes; regardless of his purpose would he say he is liable? On the off chance that the plane landed and he proceeded with the homicide, he would be liable for the homicide, however to the extent the situation, the accuse stays with the robber.

How about we consider this inquiry from both people in general and individual prospect of blame. In the event that we consider this activity from an individual stance, he proposed to slaughter him, so why might he convey any blame with him, being ethically stable inside of himself? From an open point of view, he spared a plane brimming with individuals. His expectation holds no worth in such dialog, remaining altogether inside of himself and having nothing to do with the moves that made spot. The fault, or blame, remains altogether with the individual who is in charge of the activities - the thief.

All through every situation, the blame stays with the individual in charge of the activity, and aim is somewhat unimportant to the occasions that happen. Aim is not the main thrust of blame in this situation.
Debate Round No. 1
alyssalettera

Pro

Although some may believe that because this individual didn't commit the legitimate crime they are not guilty. However, if someone thinks or even plans to do something that they aren't supposed to be doing they are already guilty. According to "Mens Rea - A Defendant's Mental State" "Most crimes require what attorneys refer to as "mens rea", which is simply Latin for a "guilty mind". What this means is that in other words it is based on what the defendant was thinking and what the defendant intended when the crime was committed. Many individuals believe that although someone thought of the crime and planned it out but didn't go through with it, they are not guilty because maybe they had a change of heart or their conscience came into play. However, these factors don't matter in this situation because like stated before, guilt is "the fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime" which means you don't have to commit the crime to be guilty because you can suggest an idea or even think of one. For instance, in a more relatable example, if an individual is in a relationship with someone but they are flirting on the side with someone else and has a plan to meet up with that someone else and cheat on their significant other but at the last minute they decide not too. They are still guilty!! If this was your significant other and they explained this to you, would you forgive them and act like they are not guilty just because they walked away? Did their thoughts of wanting to be with someone else not make them guilty? Would you be okay with this?
kteran55386

Con

.Liable personality and liable activity. Basically blame is controlled by a blameworthy aim AND some striking activity or arrangement towards satisfying that purpose.

some situations have have mens rea however no actus reus - being compelled to execute somebody at gunpoint without wanting to spare yourself and numerous other satisfying customary meanings of self preservation. Consequently he is liable of nothing. Consider what number of individuals may be upbeat to see a divisive figure like Trump (to those on the left) or Obama (to those on the right) kick the bucket. Simply wishing something or being interested in something does not characterize blame
Debate Round No. 2
alyssalettera

Pro

Guilt is determined by intent because your thoughts can be just as bad as your actions. Intentions and ideas are just as effective and important as physical actions. Although this may differ in other circumstances such as wishing for something that is beneficial or being interested in something that is not harmful or hurting other people. For instance, "simply wishing" that you could blow up a city or being "interested" in shooting schools 100% characterizes blame.
kteran55386

Con

there is how ever a loss of intention once the action is no longer committed
if the person chose no longer to bomb the school , it because the individual lost all intent on doing
or
maybe he or she never wanted to do it in the first place
maybe they were pressured into doing something they did not want to do and in the end they end they finally thaught for themselves
so who or or what motivated that person into doing whatever they were gonna do
they are just as guilty
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.