In the same sense the intention, whether it be positively good or no, so long as it is not bad, may be termed innocent. In the case of mis -advisedness with respect to any circumstance, which, had it been what it appeared to be, would have served either to prevent or to outweigh the mischief. A few words for the purpose of applying what has been said to the Roman law. Unintentionality, and innocence of intention, seem both to be included in the case of infortunium , where there is neither dolus nor culpa . Unadvisedness coupled with heedlessness, and mis-advisedness coupled with rashness, correspond to the culpa sine dolo .
Direct intentionality corresponds to dolus .
The division into culpa , lata , levis , and levissima , is such as nothing certain can correspond to. Culpa , upon any other occasion, would be understood to extend to blame of every kind. It would therefore include dolus . The above-mentioned definitions and distinctions are far from being mere matters of speculation. They are capable of the most extensive and constant application, as well to moral discourse as to legislative practice.