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

Opera singer Andrea Bocelli once quipped, "All that counts in life is intention." Because I believe this statement holds true in the United States courtroom, I espouse Bocelli's quote and the PRO side of this resolution, which states: RESOLVED: In the United States, true intent ought to have a higher weight in court than ends. Before I begin, I offer the following DEFINITIONS to clarify the round: TRUE: real; genuine; authentic INTENT: purpose; design; intention OUGHT: (used to express duty or obligation) WEIGHT: importance COURT: a place where justice is administered ENDS: a result; an outcome (all defined from http://www.Dictionary.com...) Move with me now to the RESOLUTION ANALYSIS, an explanation and evaluation of the topic: 1. The resolution pertains to a United States court; thus we must view this round through a judicial perspective. A United States Court is concerned with determining whether someone is innocent or guilty and whether or to what extent they deserve punishment. The question of the resolution, therefore, is whether the judgment of the court should depend more on the intent (motive) of the action than the ends (effects) of the action. As the PRO, I will attempt to convince you, the judge, that the motive is more important than the ends in making this judgment. 2. The PRO is not bound to argue that, in an imperfect world, court decisions can practically be determined by true intent. Rather, the PRO is obligated to prove that, assuming the courts were equally able to base decision on ends or intent, using the intent would deliver more justice. With these standards for debate set, we can now move on to CONTENTIONS, the meat and potatoes of the case. My position will be split up into three points: I: The morality of an action is based on the intent of the actor. Various philosophers have based their systems of moral evaluation on different conditions. Bentham and Mills considered only the ends, independent of means or intent; Kant considered the action, independent of intent or ends. However, the surest way to determine whether an action is morally right or wrong is to observe at the intent - the desired outcome - of the actor. An action may lead to good or bad "ends," but this can occur independent of the rightness or wrongness of the action. II: The ends and the intent of an action often contradict. When an action is successful, the actor's intent is the same as the action's ends. However, often actions have unintended consequences. The best way to understand this is through examples: a. A surgeon is presented with a patient in critical condition. The only way to save the patient's life is a heart transplant, which, due to the complexity of the procedure and the condition of the patient, would be a risky operation. There is not enough time to summon an expert surgeon, so the surgeon attempts the transplant and fails to save the patient's life. The surgeon's action was morally right, despite the undesirable ends of it. b. A burglar breaks through the window of a house in order to steal the goods inside. Unbeknownst to him, the shattering of glass is heard by a murderer in the next room, who runs out the door without committing his crime. In this case, even if the burglar gets cold feet and leaves without stealing anything, he or she may have achieved desirable ends, but his or her action of breaking and entering is morally wrong because of his or her intent to steal. In both of these situations, the ends are opposite of the intent. Yet no rational human being would condemn the surgeon and commend the burglar. However, if the court were basing its decision chiefly on the ends, they would do precisely that. III: United States courts ought to judge based on true intent rather than ends. A crime is committed by acting on criminal intent. Yet oftentimes the varying ends that crimes create lead to varying punishments. But consider for a moment the legitimacy of this variation: What makes an attempted murder less severe than a successful murder? The latter generally receives a more severe punishment, yet only one difference separates the two scenarios: their ends. To determine the degree or length of punishment based on the success or failure of the criminal action creates a double standard and does not sufficiently punish the true crime or the true criminal. The only just way to punish a criminal is to do so based on that criminal's true intent, and not the ends they bring about. All that counts in life (and law) is intention. It is because of this that I urge a PRO ballot.