Unintended Consequences
Unintended Consequences and Blame
In difficult situations, a claim of unintended consequences is often made. This claim can be valid or made by someone who wants to avoid or lessen their guilt. Let’s refer to the person who sets off the chain of consequences as the “initiator or perpetrator.” Can we blame the initiator for these consequences to the “victim,” or do we ignore blame because the initiator says that the problematic result was not “intended”? Some initiators can say the consequences were unintended, and they therefore assume they are free of any guilt or responsibility. I don’t think so. The point of this essay is that while some consequences can be unintended, there still can be blame and responsibility.
Consider that you are shown to be responsible for an unwanted pregnancy, perhaps because of failed birth control. Claiming unintended consequences, while true in a sense, does not eliminate legal or personal responsibility.
Consider traffic accidents. They are certainly unintended, but yet the courts assign blame with financial consequences.
Consider the case of a divorcing couple. The children have some emotional and school problems as a consequence of the divorce. Certainly, the parents did not intend this outcome, but it should have been anticipated. The divorcing parents have some responsibility here even though the consequences were unintended.
Suppose that an initiator wants to commit a crime. In the course of committing the crime, something extra bad happens that was not intended. It seems that this will make judgment of the unintended consequence and crime harsher.
But sometimes consequences are unintended, and very little blame can be assigned, and there are no legal repercussions. Also, the other side of the coin must be considered. That is, something positive can be an unintended consequence. Yay for good luck.
Is blame ever 100 percent? If someone is blamed for a bad outcome (maybe a crime), they may claim as part of their defense that nothing is ever 100 percent anybody’s fault. They may want to blame others. While their motive might be suspect, sometimes others do share some blame, but how much?
Suppose someone robs a small pizza store. Certainly, that person is rightfully blamed. However, the situation might be such that blame can be shared with others. Maybe there were gang members who forced the perpetrator to commit the robbery. Or maybe the robber had a starving or sick or addicted family that couldn’t find help. There are obviously many possible scenarios where others can share some blame. But it may not totally eliminate blame.
One can also consider a failure at work. The failure is blamed on the person with the failed assignment. But there could be more to consider. Perhaps training was not adequate, or work overload led to tiredness and sloppiness. Perhaps the person assigned to the task was not skilled enough for that job. It may take a courageous colleague to step forward and point out the extenuating circumstances.
Also, intention matters. If someone intentionally breaks the law for gain, that is more blameworthy than someone acting out of complete ignorance. But the legal system says that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Depending on the circumstances, some blame can be assigned.
Assuming the perpetrator is an adult and sane, in most cases, the perpetrator will likely carry blame, and rightfully so. In defense, the perpetrator may blame others or perhaps claim unintended consequences. The perpetrator may also blame the victim for various reasons. While spreading the blame may be justified, the perpetrator cannot be completely forgiven in almost any ordinary circumstance. They share some fraction of the blame.
The following articles relate to this essay: https://peteranthonygales.com/2010/03/17/nothing-is-ever-100-anybodys-fault/#iLightbox[gallery1009]/0 accessed on 8/14/23.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpability#:~:text=In%20criminal%20law%2C%20culpability%2C%20or,behaviour%2C%20Strict%20Liability%20being%20prohibited. accessed on 12/21/24.