Accident or Deliberate?

I'm not sure why, but today I remembered being a child and having justified my actions (possibly hitting my little brother, ) as an accident (we were probably playfighting at the time and then it suddenly got ugly after the accident ) But it struck me as an interesting question.

Does it matter whether it was an accident or not?
Does sorry make up for an accident but not for a deliberate action?

I'd like people to be aware that this is not just related to minor childhood fights.
We could also apply this to-
whether the earth was made by design or fluke?
the matter of abortion ("It was an accident, I was drunk." General idea of because it was an accident, they don't want to keep it/the baby.)

Make up your own questions. Then post what you believe about it. Then answer whether it was an accident or deliberate matters in that case.

Just for a hopefully interesting discussion.
Have fun

It may be somewhat off topic, what i am going to say, but I think it relates up to some point.

Legally it does indeed matter wether we are talking about a deliberate action or an accident.

In Spain, at least, criminal law rests on the basis of punishing those who commit a crime deliberatelly or at least are seriously negligent and therefore cause harm. If the crime was committed by accident without there beeing any negligence it cannot be punished by law because the subjective element of the crime is missing.

Bottom line, the legal system states that the deliberate action, if illegal, has to be punished, but if there is no intention, if it is not deliberate,it will not be punished (except if the actions that caused the criminal result were negligent, in wich case the sentence is less serious)

To elaborate on the above, it would be the difference between manslaughter (accidental death of another) vs murder (premeditated killing) here.

So the actual question is, did you MEAN to hit him? Or was it actually an accident? That would affect the severity of the punishment, at least in regards to my son and his sister.

As far as saying sorry, it helps in unintentional situations, sure. It still would not be sufficient depending on the severity of the injury, say loss of life, limb or deep scarring. When it is a premeditated slight, I don't think it matters. Usually what a person is saying is 'im sorry I got caught, not so much that I did it, tho I will act like I am really sorry to try elicit sympathy and or lessen my punishhjment.' Again, at least with my kids.

The rest of it is kinda off on a tangent.

I think that in a criminal sense it matters, as JORIZQUI stated. However, in a personal sense I think it varies, but regardless, saying you're sorry doesn't change a thing.

Someone once told me that, on a personal level, knowing why someone did something and getting an apology are two things we care way too much about for how little help they actually bring to us. Neither matter. At all.

For example, if someone ran me over and left, knowing if they did it on purpose or on accident would do nothing to help me. Getting an apology from them would change nothing. It isn't our job to forgive others, anyway. They face too many natural consequences for their decisions and us going around holding grudges will destroy us.

As a Jedi, my job is to pardon injury - I don't think there is a clause stating that I should only pardon injury if the injury was an accident and/or I received an apology.

In that light, wendaline, it comes down to someones fundamental viewpoint on jediism and their own place within it. As jestor has said somewhere, 'jedi aren't saints, and sith ain't evil.'

There are some slights that I personally could never forgive. Would even make it a priority to insure that 'evil' act was not only punished to the fullest extent of the law, but also served as a warning to others that that kind of action will never be tolerated. At least not by me.

But yes, by and large, I have pardoned many, many injuries, physical, mental and emotional, and will continue to do so the vast majority of the time. Just sayin, there's a line, once crossed, will not be forgiven.

I'm pretty sure the law states somewhere, "ignorance is not an excuse" or some such along the same lines which is what Joriqui was going on about- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat Although from a legal point of view this means that even an accident (sometimes through ignorance) is still found guilty. Perhaps in Spain the law is different, but in England and I believe America this law of "ignorance matters not" holds true. The wikipedia article goes on to say that whilst ignorance doesn't clear someone of guilt, it does come into play in the severity of the sentencing of that person.

To Reliah, wouldn't it give you some peace of mind to understand that person? Empathy? http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_richards_a_radical_experiment_in_empathy.html (if it doesn't work, please search google "ted empathy") This may have been posted here before, but sometimes it's nice to re-post. Can I ask- are you trying to stay objective and above the scenario, by seemingly not caring why they did it, or whether they apologize after committing the act? You wrote that
"Someone once told me that, on a personal level, knowing why someone did something and getting an apology are two things we care way too much about for how little help they actually bring to us. Neither matter. At all."
On my personal level, i believe it does help me to know why they did something, I'm more likely to understand them as a person and connect with them better that way. Perhaps you're right that we care too much about that. But we are not only individuals, and via understanding one another whether right or wrong, surely we can work better together? I believe that if I am hurt by someone's actions and they apologize that does give me some small peace. It feels like reconciliation. You sound somewhat nihilistic with "Neither matter. At all." which brings me back to the question, "Are you trying to stay objective and above the subjective view?" I'm not sure if that is even possible to remain entirely objective. (Someone once told me that it is one of the most ego-ist ideas to try to Deny the ego)

To Desolous, have you ever tricked yourself? Do you believe it possible? I was wondering... I believe I can trick myself. I've set my phone time 6 minutes ahead to try and convince myself to leave sooner and arrive on time or early for general meetings. And it has worked to some extent, my microwave clock is also ahead of time, and so I confuse myself with the different times and trick myself.
The reason I say this is because at the moment, perhaps I, your son or daughter (or perhaps anyone) deliberately hit one another and then after, did not regret it but rather told ourselves it was an accident, to avoid deeper regret, shame or harsher punishment, tricking ourselves. What's the best way to trick or lie? Personally, I think it is for the person to believe the trick or lie.
I enjoy the random tangents we start taking, So please just reply as you like...

No. I am untrickable. At least by two fighting brats.

I'm not denying the existence of the ego. I'm not denying the fact that every single person would wonder "why". But just because we wonder it, just because there is ego, doesn't mean we have to, or should, entertain it. Sometimes knowing why someone did something (again, on a personal level) could cause much more pain. Besides, what kind of an answer would suffice? Would there be any reasoning that would make something like that seem okay to you, personally? I doubt it. In my experience, there never has been. Knowing "why" always brings up more questions... and what person wouldn't adjust their answer to "why" to make themselves not look so bad? You will never get the 100% honest truth and sometimes have to live with that fact.. it's no different than what I'm saying, anyway... You have to sort of "force" yourself into a place where you are able to realize that no answer will fix anything.

So... when the ego pops up wondering why, we are fully capable of reminding it that it doesn't matter or change anything. We mind our thoughts - we don't allow our thoughts to take over. I'm not sure what anyone intends for themselves. When I read the vows, teaching, creed, etc. of the Jedi, I'm reminded that, that is what/who I want to be. I am here because I want to be that person. When I recite the creed, I'm not just saying the words with no meaning behind them - why else would I be here? Me, personally. I fail far more often than I succeed, but I want to be able to shed my ego, to have control over my own mind - thoughts, actions... It may sound extreme, but I want to be able to actually be this and do this. Again, I'm not saying that anyone else doesn't want the same things - I'm speaking from my own heart on the topic. I think of the people I admire and why I admire them.

As far as injustices done to the degree that the law comes in, I believe that one should have legal consequences. I don't think criminals should be legally forgiven and allowed second chances just because that's what I want to be able to do for them in my personal life. There's a difference, there. However, just because someone had done something bad enough to put themselves behind bars wouldn't negate the fact that I would want to forgive them and find peace within myself about it. Holding on to that does nothing to the other person no matter how badly one may want it to - (and that's a whole other thing - to desire the pain of another). Would I trust them again? No. But I would want to forgive them. Those are all different things to me..

Vusuki wrote: I'm pretty sure the law states somewhere, "ignorance is not an excuse" or some such along the same lines which is what Joriqui was going on about- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat Although from a legal point of view this means that even an accident (sometimes through ignorance) is still found guilty. Perhaps in Spain the law is different, but in England and I believe America this law of "ignorance matters not" holds true. The wikipedia article goes on to say that whilst ignorance doesn't clear someone of guilt, it does come into play in the severity of the sentencing of that person.

You are right, that maxime also applies to spanish law. The Spanish Civil Code clearly states that the ignorance of the law does not excuse from not compliing to it. But it contemplates a legal figure wich it calls "error of law". To make it simple, imagine a hunter who shoots at what he thinks to be an animal and it turns out he killed a person hiding in the shrubbery by mistake. If that error could not have been avoided (The Judge has to determine that) the person is not responsible for the crime because there is no subjective element (intent or negligence)but if it could have been avoided then there is a crime, because the hunter was negligent, but it is punished less severely, depending on the degree of negligence.

For the law to punish someone there has to be some personal element in play, either the person wanted to do harm or the person was careless.

Disregarding one's emotions, motivations and perception on an issue is selfish unless you disregard your own as well.