It is intent that constitutes presents or lack of morality. If intent is just but action is not we can not punish those who commit action. To do so would be to hinder well being of society. If action does not coincide with intent how can we assume that further actions will not. We also can not assume if one killed while intending to preserve then that persons future intent would be to kill. The only thing we can assume is that if one intended to preserve that their future intent is going to be to preserve. If we hinder those future actions we must also assume that we are hindering well being of society.

Every man at some point will intend to kill rather than preserve. That is why we can not judge, based on a single intent, worth of a man. To accurately judge whole of ones intent must be taken into account. If that whole is in favor of preservation then we must assume further intent will coincide. If that whole is not to preserve then we must also assume their further intent will coincide. In such a case to ignore this would be to ultimately harm society. In either case, if harm to preserve ratio of ones intent is high enough some action must be taken. If rehabilitation is possible to swing ratio in favor of preservation then that is proper action. Otherwise influence of that persons intent must be taken away from society in such a manner that action itself does least harm to our well being.

Richard Martin is a contributing writer at LegalClips.com. LegalClips.com has Personal Injury articles. LegalClips.com is a collection of lawyer articles and other resources.