Is Guilt Determined by Intent? (In this scenario)

I would like to apologize to my opponent and the voters for forfeiting the previous round. I know it is no excuse but I am in the middle of writing my senior thesis for school and got a little distracted. However, I will try to include my rebuttal into this round as well as my conclusion. Rebuttal:My opponent claims that the blame and responsibility is solely on the hijacker, who forced the "focus" to commit this homicide. My opponent also claims that I have avoided the moral question of whether or not our "focus" is guilt of murder. I believe that I forwardly addressed this question in my previous round, but I will leave the voters to decide that. I believe that our "focus" in these scenarios holds as much responsibility as any other person. He can choose to ignore these hijackers commands. He would be choosing to kill everyone on the plane, however, he is very much in control of himself in these scenarios. So I do not believe that blame and responsibility falls solely on the hijackers in these scenarios. In my opponents explanation of the second scenario he claims that malice does not equate to intent. I believe this point is moot, however for argument's sake I will acknowledge this and claim the opposite. Malice is intent. (Wikipedia source below) For his explanation of the third scenario: I do not believe that the hijackers offering him an easy excuse for murdering his friend exempts him from being guilty of murder. His intention was to murder his friend, and he chose to murder his friend. He had a choice, he could either murder his friend or let the plane crash (blow up.) He had responsibility in his choice and his intention to kill his friend out of malice and not out of necessity makes him guilty, more so than in scenarios 1 and 2.Therefore I would reassert that intent is the driving force of guilt in this scenario.Conclusion:Again I would like to apologize to my opponent and to the voters for forfeiting the previous round. I tried to keep my rebuttal solely focused on my opponents opening statement, out of fairness. If I addressed anything from his rebuttal round please ignore it out of fairness to my opponent. And I thank my opponent for allowing me to complete my rebuttal above.Our focus chose what to do in each scenario. His intent also changed in each scenario. I argue that because his intent changes in each scenario, so does his level of guilt. I would like to remind the voters that I only have to prove guilt changes between at least two of these scenarios. I believe I have given the voters plenty of reason to vote in favor of Pro, because I have shown that the level of guilt changes with each scenario as his intent changes. His intent to save the people on the plane outweighs any guilt, from the eyes of the public, that he may have earned by killing his friend. However, his intent to murder his friend is not outweighed because he also happened to save the people on the plane. My opponent claims that action outweighs intent, however in our society both action and intent matter. If I accidentally hit someone with my car and I purposefully hit someone with my car the level of guilt is different, both in the eyes of the court and the eyes of the public. Mens rea and actus reus are both important. Intent defines guilt because intending to murder someone and accidentally killing someone are not the same. Intent defines guilt because choosing to save a hundred lives at the cost of one and choosing to kill one person with the added benefit of saving 100 lives is different. Source:https://en.wikipedia.org...(law)