Nah, the actual question was, where the defendant foresees the prohibited result as a virtually certain result of their actions, the jury can conclude that the defendant intended the result.
I am arguing as the prosecution and in favour of the statement.
See, the problem is, what defines "virtually certain"? If the guy throws a lit cigarette out of a car and burns down a city block, I am "virtually certain" he did not mean that. Although, what if he sets a woman on fire or a trash bin? That probably is more arguable, but it's all speculation as to the forethought of his actions.
See, the problem is, what defines "virtually certain"? If the guy throws a lit cigarette out of a car and burns down a city block, I am "virtually certain" he did not mean that. Although, what if he sets a woman on fire or a trash bin? That probably is more arguable, but it's all speculation as to the forethought of his actions.
Over here, these things are all about what is reasonable, and you then have to look back at old cases to find out what is considered reasonable in whatever circumstances.
It's certainly pretty debatable where the line should be drawn in a lot of cases.
Over here, these things are all about what is reasonable, and you then have to look back at old cases to find out what is considered reasonable in whatever circumstances.
It's certainly pretty debatable where the line should be drawn in a lot of cases.