In the United States, true intent ought to have a higher weight in court than ends.

1. First of all, please note that the CON has conceded that true intent can be determined. At this point, all argumentation about true intent being impossible to discover is moot. Secondly, the U.S. judicial system is already based on intent (insanity pleas, manslaughter vs. murder), so this is entirely possible. Thirdly, even if a court case occured where the intent could not be determined, this does not mean that the principle of weighing intent heavier than ends is bad. 2. I apologize for the confusion. When I said "chiefly" I meant "with the most weight." And indeed, if ends had more or even as much weight as true intent, the same unjust rulings would occur. 3. This argument no longer matters when both the PRO and the CON have agreed that true intent can be determined in a U.S. court of law. 5. Again, the CON has admitted that true intent can be determined. And this does not refute the fact that a judicial system based more (or equally) on ends than means would invert justice or vacillate between justice and injustice, respectively. True intent must have higher weight. 7. The actions are not the ends, because they are not the end result. When murder is committed, the dead person is the end result. The act of murder is merely the manifestation of the intent, and is founded on only the intent. Also refer to #10 of my previous speech for further analysis. 9. True intent is by no means the "icing on the cake." Again, look to the "opening band" analogy: the ends are the first thing that alerts the authorities to the crime, but this DOES NOT mean they have a higher weight in the court than true intent. Also, pull through the points in #8, which show that ends are determined at the scene of the crime, and not the courtroom, so in reality ends have weight only outside the court, and not in it. And, again, the PRO has given examples of when true intent can and has been determined, and the CON has agreed that it can be determined. Therefore, the last "reading minds" point does not hold any water. Please pull through the attack on examples in #13, as well as the unattacked examples provided by the PRO which demonstrate how relying more on ends than true intent leads to injustice. Now let's go to the VOTING ISSUES. These are three reasons why, when the hurly-burly's done, when the battle's lost and won, you as a judge are going to vote PRO: 1. BOTH SIDES AGREE THAT TRUE INTENT CAN BE DETERMINED. Do not buy into the siren song that is "true intent is impossible to determine." At the point where the PRO can give examples of when true intent can be (and has been) determined, and the CON concedes these examples and even admits that true intent can be found, there ought to be no question over the real-world possibility of an intent-based legal system. 2. TRUE INTENT AND ENDS OFTEN CONTRADICT The nurse/ex-husband example has proven how valuing true intent over ends leads to a different verdict than valuing ends over true intent. With ends mattering more, the ex-husband would be punished less. With true intent mattering more, the nurse would be punished less. These two disparities in punishment cannot both be just, so one system must be right and the other wrong. 3. TRUE INTENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ENDS. A mentally unsound man who kills someone is considered less guilty than a mentally sound man who fails to kill. Why? Because true intent matters more. They both may be brought TO the court because of the ends, but as soon as the court starts its jurisdiction, their goal is (and ought to be) to determine the TRUE INTENT and assign a verdict based on that determination. You can look all the way back to the surgeon/burglar example in the first speech to determine this. The surgeon killed someone. The burglar saved one or more lives. Yet no judge or jury in this country would rationally condemn the physician and commend the purloiner. No, they would do the exact opposite, because they rightly place more weight on true intent than ends. And with that, I urge a PRO ballot.