Two scenarios -
1- Someone drives drunk, as many do regularly where I'm from. No crash, everybody lives
2- Someone drives drunk, crashes. Death.
Is person 2 more deserving of punishment than person 1? And if so, what is the purpose of the punishment?
More interestingly-
1- Someone drives drunk. crash. No death
2- Someone drives drunk. Crash. Death.
If the actions of person 1 and 2 are the same, but the outcomes are dramatically different due to outside variables, should persons 1 and 2 be held to different degrees of responsibility?
Death happens, often as a result of the dumb, casually reckless shit a lot of us do regularly. A valid argument exists that we shouldn't take risks at all, but that brings up the spectrum of risk taking, within which both extremes are as absurd and destructive as each other.
Unfortunately, legality necessarily requires a certain level of rigidity in order to function, and intention is too formless and open to interpretation to apply. Because of this lack of clarity, it is the results of actions that become priority.
But in the case of morality - the only standpoint with any validity outside of courts - I think it's intention that matters. I don't think person 2 is any more of a villain than person 1.
I guess what I mean is I hope this doesn't ruin Cory's life, because people have done dumber shit and gotten away with it.