If someone thinks they are doing the right thing, does that excuse them from doing the wrong thing?

Nope.

Otherwise those parents who kill their children to prevent them from having to endure the "apocolypse" (that still hasen't come) would be excused for their crimes.

to respond to your question:it is your OPINION that Obama is doing all the incorrect issues! Why do you act like not one of the subject concerns dealing with u . s . of america replace into Bush or the republicans' fault? might we've ever invaded the two Iraq or Afghanistan if Bush had no longer willfully compromised national secure practices until 9/11/2001? Why replace into the certainty a federal terrorism analyze in Minneapolis replace into obstructed via FBI HQ only a footnote interior the genuine 911 record?

Essentially you're threading the needle in religious territory held sacrosanct by those who have endlessly harmed other people for, (wait for it!) "all the best intentions".

This clearly illustrates why hybrid fantasy constructs inherent to saturated religious cult immersion paradigms, are so dangerous to humanity, because these people who imagine they're doing their mental fantasy object or deity's "will", inevitably tend to do whatever they interpret their mind is telling them to do to other strangers.

Once they convince themselves that someone is lacking a religious manifestation, then it's up to them, the penitent, to supply the innocent victim/person with an unwelcome projected internal mental fantasy without a single iota of prediction or concern for the potentially disastrous results!

This is actually one of the thorniest questions in our legal system.

Inherent in many of our legal statutes is the idea of intent: that you had to intentionally and maliciously commit a crime, and had to know it was "wrong" to do so.

For instance, if you kill somebody...if it can be shown you intentionally killed someone, and knew it was "wrong" to do so, it's first-degree murder. If you didn't intend to kill, it's manslaughter. If you can show you didn't (at the time) know what you were doing was "wrong," you can be found not guilty by reason of mental defect (note, however, that implied in that is the assumption that not knowing killing was wrong is considered a mental defect...). Finally, if you can show that you feared for your life (even if there really was no threat to your life -- all that matters is that you *thought* your life was in danger in most cases), you can be excused from prosecution for "self-defense."

It's a complicated issue with no easy solutions, no one-word "rules." I won't pretend to be able to simply say, "No, that doesn't excuse them," because I clearly see cases where it does excuse them, and cases where it doesn't.

That's what we have courts and juries for :)

Peace.

Is the belief in the rightness of the act both subjectively real and objectively reasonable? Did they have a duty of care to the one injured? Was their failure to do the right thing the proximate cause of the harm to others or was it an unforeseeable by product of it? Were they mentally competent? Was the thing done malum prohibitum or malum in se?

Your question is to simple to be answered without details.

Sometimes circumstances mitigate bad acts...like punching a drowning victim in the face to knock them out to make them safer to rescue....slight harm, big good....

Stealing babbies for anything but BBQ doesn't fly in my books.

Well, ultimately there is no right or wrong, it's only wrong because we say it is. If you're telling someone the truth and it offends them, that's not wrong in my mind at all. Telling the truth may be offensive, but it's not a sin.

Do You Have A Cyber Paper For me To Cyber Sign...

No. Suicide bombers that kill innocent civilians think they are doing the right thing. If people get hurt because of your actions then your actions were wrong, no excuses.

Of course not. That is why we have Law.

What does it matter if the woman who drowned her kids in the tub in order to save their souls "'meant well"?