RE: Re: Re: Re: Fw: The Fall of 'Challenge'?

["David Shemano" <dshemano@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Prof. Rosser writes:


<<<      But, I do think that these deaths must be viewed
in a very different light from the kind brought about
by people being shot for political heresy.  There
was a much lower level of "intendness" by the
leaders about them, although some claim that Stalin
wanted many Ukrainian kulaks to die in the early
1930s both for nationalistic as well as class reasons,
than was involved in the outright executions.  Indeed,
Mao actually did engage in a public "self-criticism"
for the "errors" of the GLF.  It was a huge bungle, a
very huge one.>>>>


The following is from the the Second Restatement of Torts, Section 8A:

"The word 'intent' is used throughout the Restatement of this Subject to
denote that the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or that he
believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it."

In other words, with respect to legal culpability under the common law,
there is no distinction between "desiring" the death of political opponents,
as opposed to simply being indifferent to the inevitable results of your
policies.

Not that you are required to agree with the common law, but why, exactly,
must the deaths be viewed differently?

David Shemano