Proving Intent

I saw a news article about a case that was dismissed because the claimant did not prove that the respondent intended malice. It went on to say that it was clear that there was a lapse of judgement on the respondent's part but since the claimant was a public figure, and there was no irreparable damage, there were no grounds for the case to proceed.

I am not a lawyer, I am sure a good one can argue both sides pretty well. My question is, "Does a transgression hurt any less if the person did not intend to hurt you"? I have been on both sides, the giving and receiving end. I have on occasion inadvertently hurt a few people by a few misspoken words. The intent is always good, normally I do it to speak the truth, but the reception seldom is.

On the receiving end, I can say this with certainty, a wrongdoing always hurts. The degree of pain does depend on how big the infraction is. Another factor is how much I care about the person committing the error, and how it affects my life. On one side, it does help when the person apologizes and explains their motive; on the other hand, a certain amount of damage has been done. Just because there was no ill will does not mean that a misbehavior was not committed.

I hope that we all think before we act. A court of law cannot always decide on whether a misdemeanor has been committed. There are always lasting effects specially if there is no resolution, or the verdict is not acceptable to both parties.