> This shows the fallacy of adopting the criminal justice single-case
> paradigm and applying it willy-nilly beyond it's possible scope.
>
> On such a basis, matters such as conscious intent -- nay, PROVABLE
> conscious intent -- are of utmost importance.
I agree that "intent" is abused in practice, especially in the discrimination cases you take note of.
But intent is not irrelevant either. Take two factory owners, one who allows a practice that he knows to be dangerous beyond illegality, and the other who is blissfully ignorant. The effects are the same, but are guilt and appropriate punishment the same? I'd say not, though there is guilt at some level in both cases.
> . . .
> So, the point of calling the factory owner a murderer isn't to put him
> on trial or to sweep aside considerations of motive, etc. as you
> suppose.
Au contraire. If we're only talking about the realm of political rhetoric, you'd be right. But we've been talking about appropriate punishment directed at individuals, where calling somebody a capital murderer, criminally negligent, or something in between ought to make all the difference.
mbs