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

"1. The judges are not required to read minds or administer justice in a perfect world to determine true intent. Witness statements, evidence, and even testimony from the accused often bring this true intent to light. Also, in cases of accidental or mentally-unsound actions it is very simple to distinguish what is true intent." Sometimes intent can be determined, but sometimes it can't be. And if we were to set up the system to be based on intent, you would have to have a certain way to know intent- which we can't. "2. Even if this hypothetical world were required to learn true intent (which the PRO does not advocate is true), this would not make using the ends right or conducive to justice. Indeed, if we convicted bad-ending situations and acquitted good- or neutral-ending situations based chiefly on the ends, we would garner more injustice than justice." I am not saying the intent should be given no weight, just that the ends should be given greater, or even equal weight. "3. The most fair way to consider the round is to give each side the equal chance to prove their position – if the resolution were "Unicorns are better than regular horses," the debate ought not center around the existence of unicorns, but rather which one is superior. And again, true intent is no unicorn – it is obtainable and understandable in many circumstances." The problem with this is that the topic is "In the United States, true intent ought to have a higher weight in court than ends." This debate does not apply to some hypothetical world, but to the United States. If the topis was, "We should ride unicorns rather than horses in the United States," the best counterargument WOULD be that unicorns don't exist. "5. You say that both ends and intent are factored into the present system. I agree with this to an extent, but the intent is still the more important of the two. Which of the following ought to be (and is) more severely punished: a nurse who injects a mislabeled drug into a patient, thus killing her, or a vengeful ex-husband who injects a dangerous drug with intent to kill? If charges were brought against the nurse she would be quickly acquitted, but the ex-husband would likely face life imprisonment – even if he failed in his task." Hypothetically, I completely agree. But in real life, the siyuation might not be so simple. In such situations, it's likely that all that is known is that the nurse lethally injectedx the patient, and so did the husband. We don't know the intents- even if they tell us something, they could be lying. The nurse could have purposely injected the patient, and the ex-husband could have been committing a mercy killing to put his wife out of her misery. You can make up all the hypothetical situations you want, but in real life, we cannot base decisions on peoples intents because we can't know what their true intentions are. "And regardless of whether the ends happen as a result, the crime has been committed by the intending and acting on the intention." The key part of that statement is "acting on the intention." Actions are ends, not intent. " But viewing a round judicially assumes that the criminal has already succeeded in or attempted his or her crime – otherwise they would not be in a court of law. The question of the resolution is that, during that trial, what has a higher priority – true intent or ends. And it is indeed true intent that makes-or-breaks a prosecution's case." This proves my point. If the ends were not met, the criminal would not be in a court of law. Intent is just the icing on the cake. If we gave intent a higher weight than ends, most of trials would be trying to prove the defendant's intent- and since we can't read minds and can't actually know what their intent is- yes, we can make inferences or believe what the person says, but we can't actually KNOW, it will be impossible to achieve justice.