Good evening!
Have you had dinner?
I am readind the book, criminal law as follows:
Its last chapter describes the crime of aggregated consequential offence.
The professor of CCU said that it shouldn't be divided 2 subjective purposes,
and it should be "the purpose of specific potential damage offence" as the
main intention instead.
Furthermore, the outcome of the crime should be divided 2 types:
one is "synonym", the other is "antonym".
The former depicts that the purpose of intention creats the same result of
crime; the later illustrates that the purpose of intention results in
a more severe outcome of crime.
Moreover the seminar in Deutschland has raised a lot of discussion about the
re-definition of the crime of aggregated consequential offence.
As I know, the purpose of specific potential damage offence shall not exist
because the later outcome of potential crime doesn't exist yet.
If it does exist, why the outcome of the crime shall be divided 2 types:
synonym and antonym?
The logic is thoroughly contradictory.
Therefore, as you know, my books are all edited by your highness.
My upper level doesn't want me to read or study because they forbidden me!
I am bullied.
So, should I choose SSS corporation and commit suicide after several years?
It is a brave exhibition and just like what I chose at the first time
when your highness asked me the question: "Crazy or Dead?"
(I chose "Dead".)
Am I a fool?
Thanks! have a nice day!