Gee, you're tough!
Serendipity's not an excuse, either, although it is tempting.
So if somebody does a bad thing but winds up with a good outcome (I assume saving lives was a good thing in the long run), that's no excuse.
Do you also feel the opposite, that if somebody does a good thing but it winds up having a bad result, are they also responsible for the bad result? Say, somebody sees a passenger fall off a cruise ship and heaves a lifering to them but the ring hits them in the head and knocks them unconscious and they drown. Presumably we would say throwing a life ring to a drowning person is a good thing. But in this case, it turns out that the person actually jumped on purpose as a part of a Fear Factor stunt (no cameras or anything in evidence to show this) and they were due to be rescued by a submarine as part of the Fear Factor stunt, so they were actually perfectly safe, and the person killed them. Guilty of manslaughter?
In both cases, a person is dead. In one, bad motive, good outcome. In the other, good motive, bad outcome. Serendipity in both cases. Is it necessary to have BOTH a good motive AND a good outcome to be innocent? |
