Reply #225: I disagree with your definition/relation

[qazplm]

We do not excuse the person who kills someone through gross negligence versus the person who does it with malicious intent.

We do however lower the punishment based on reduced culpability because state of mind matters.

Why in the world would state of mind matter for murder, but in your view, not matter for a similar difference between a sober man raping someone forcibly and a drunk man who has sex with a woman who is too drunk to legally consent.

Both people are dead, and the person killed them and it wasn't a mere accident we excuse, yet we do assign different levels of culpability and therefore different punishments.

Why would changing out dead/killed with rape(d) change that equation?

It is absolutely not about excusing, it is about however recognizing that there are different levels of culpability and motivations involved which require different approaches and addressing and punishment because state of mind matters.

And if you think the state of mind of each of those guys is the same, then I have no idea how to bridge that divide because it makes zero sense to me.

The only way you get to excusal is if you are saying that ANY differentiation in culpability or assessment equals partial excusal. I don't think that's remotely what excusal is about but if you do, then yes, there is a lowered culpability for someone who does something with no malice versus someone who does it with malice. State of mind matters.