Intent, not outcome, is the basis for criminality

Dean del Mastro is getting desperate.

Del Mastro, who has been leading his party's defence in the controversy over live and automated election phone calls, said nobody has come forward to say they didn't vote because they first went to the wrong polling station.

"So where are these people? Where are these people? Where are these people saying that I got the call, I went to the wrong station, and then I didn't vote?" Del Mastro said on CBC's Power & Politics.

"There haven’t been any. No one has stepped forward and said that."

"Some of these things, as I've already indicated, could have well been mistakes. I don't understand why folks jump to these things and run to a conclusion that they have no evidence of."

Mistakes?! Parties were told not to direct voters to polling stations. He's claiming "mistake" as a defence?

You walk into a bank with a toy gun and demand the all the available money (in small bills) but encounter an operation where the customer service associate has no money.

You flee.

The cop outside captures you.

In court your attorney stresses to the judge that you didn't actually get any money. It's not really a robbery and the gun wasn't really a gun, but a toy. It's all one big mistake.

The Criminal Code section 85 (2) says your toy gun is still a gun. Section 343 says you attempted a robbery. Enjoy prison because you get a five year minimum sentence.

We have evidence dripping off the walls, and Del Mastro is very close there to shifting his defence to the right - we did stuff but it didn't prevent anyone from voting.

The illegal act was doing stuff.