posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 04:00 PM
When a punishment is handed down, why is there no consistency between the intention behind an action and the consequence resulting from an action?
Children are often spared any punishment when the break something in the home due it not being their intention. Drink Drivers however, are often
severley penalised if a car accident results from their drinking compared to no accident resulting. In AFL if you hit someone intentionally and it
results in a broken nose you will be much more severley punished than if he escapes without injury, despite having the same intention.
I was watching a movie the other day where, in a classroom, some kids made a few unsavoury remarks about the teacher. When the teacher asked the kids
to let him in on the joke, they told him, and they were punished. Now if the intention was the crime, the kids should have been punished regardless
of what they said for disturbing the class, and if the consequence was the crime, then the teacher is at fault because the kids were only answering