In any formal jurisdiction I know in the world such as the United States, one cannot be convicted of any crime on the basis of the action alone (actus reus). The prosecution must also prove the mens rea, i.e. the guilty mind/intention. In other words, crimes are defined not only by the action (e.g. pulling the trigger on a gun which causes a bullet to shoot out into someone's head) but also by the intention (choosing to do it knowing it will kill the person because you want them dead). Different intentions can mean it's different crime even if the actus reus is the same (e.g. pulling the trigger). If there is no intention at all to commit a crime, then there is no crime.Homicidal Pacifist wrote:Should it be a law against an action (killing), a law against killing certain victims (the innocents), or circumstantial (premeditated murder, self-defense/justifiable homicide, accidental/manslaughter) and where do we draw the line?
In short, you question doesn't make sense because intention is inherently part of what makes a crime a crime and determines which crime it is.