| Yes, there was malice, in the ordinary sense, or she would have exhausted all solutions before striking. If she had not thought that he had no right to impose further misery or care upon her family, and therefore deserved to die, he would not have been killed. But beyond this, whether she feels hostility is not quite what I mean by malice. Technically, malice is an intention to do wrong (to cause harm or transgress the law) which one knows is not truly justified. That is the importance of whether there is the ability to discern between right and wrong. It is presumed, of course, that everyone has motives for what he does, and seek to persuade others that he is in the right. But the law regards persons who are sane as acting in bad faith when claiming exoneration, because they knew that they were choosing between adherence to the rules and self- satisfaction. The essence of choice is that, on the one hand, the solution is indeterminate, but, on the other, that the implications of the choice are clear. Thus, the women did wrong, knowing that an objective observer would not absolve her, because she was tired of living with the problem. Thus, she acted with malice....... |
