No.

Yes

It's because I think there are many different degrees of violations of the law.

That is not in dispute. Ceteris paribus, the violation of the law is the violation of the law no matter who violates that law.

only if their mental states are also identical, there are 2 elemnts to any crime, the same unlawful (injurious) action can be done accidentally, knowingly or intentionally, in English parlance "negligent" Reckless or intentional. In the extreme case of injury which is to kill, it is the difference between Accidental Killing (no prison sentence), Knowingly killing, Manslaughter (5 yrs inside), or intentional (murder) life imprisonment

Mental state is irrelevant if their mental capacity is equal. Murdering someone because you love them is still murder. Murdering someone because you hate them is still murder. A motive must exist, what that motive is does not matter. The action is what qualifies the breaking of the law.

No one's mental capacity is equal.

untrue.

If you wish to play that game you will never be able to do math again.

If you try to bring up the 0.1% as the rule and not the exception, people are going to shake their heads at you.

mental state IS the difference between murder, manslaughter, accidental killing, and justifiable killing !

No. You are arguing, that because 1 + 1 ≠ 2, then persons should never beheld to the same standard of performance for their actions.

... no?

Yes, that is what you are arguing.

No?

And @ReclaimTheLaw planning the deliberate commission of a murder is not a mental state. it is a mental action.

the same standard is "reasonable" but that which is reasonable is differentin each case , , , I can say no more

Accidental homicide is not a thing. Negligent homicide is a thing.

What is reasonable depends on crucial contexts you seem to want to ignore for whatever reason.

What..?

Tree falls down in front of the highway, you unfortunately have less than 250 milliseconds to react, you roll your car and hit a pedestrian. This is completely, 100%, out of your control.

I didn't use eithe r of those terms . . . I am from UK so there is some difference in parlance, but the principles of "accidental", "kknowingly" or "intentionally" are common to all Common Law jurisdictions

@ReclaimTheLaw, you just advanced to level 4!

Where the cases have the same elements they are equal. Ceteris paribus requires that the same act is illegal or legal in both cases. (I hate my keyboard right now. It double spaces and doesn't space at random, backspaces and wont at random. Making this very difficult, lol)

lol, I need a new keyboard too.

Know that feel.

@Maw Then it is a justifiable action, not an accidental one.

get a mechanical keyboard

How is that negligent?

pricey but they are hard to break

unless you are prone to spills

It is a mechanical key board. I need a key puller so I can clean the contacts.

It is not negligent. It is justifiable.

my keyboard is the same !

Negligent is when you knew the risk existed and acted without caring about the consequences. Where you don't know the risk exists cannot assess that risk it is justifiable.

There are no accidents and no coincidences, as a general rule.

I have a magegee mechanical keyboard, red gaming, bluekey.

negligent is without knowing, criminal negligence is when you didnt know but should have known (strict liability), reckless is knowingly, and intentinoally is with intent

Roughly parallel language.

Again, laws are written by lawyers to be accurate not comprehensible. Otherwise, everyone would practice law.

it would be good to be able to talk rather than text !