* he misunderstands the legal concept of guilt, which contrary to what he says is not a "legal consequence of causality",
I will answer just because you are insisting on this, although I know my post will probably be deleted. And it is really an innopropriate place to discuss this kind of subject.
But anyway:
guilt in a broader sense is, along with other meanings, a breach of conduct.
In continental law systems guilt is a term used both in criminal and civil cases (with a distinction between intention - dolus - and "culpa strictu sensu" in criminal cases), in common-law systems it is more common to see the term used in criminal cases, although technically guilt is also a necessary step in almost all civil cases (putting aside objective liability).
Ok, let us say that in many cases guilt is a consequence of causality. Not in all cases.
In the examples I gave YES guilt is a legal consequence of causality as without the act or ommission being a cause of something one is being accused of being "guilty" there isn't that specific breach of conduct (or wrongful conduct) although there might still be another one.
Example:
1 - The drunk driver that causes an accident when some other people die.
For him to be guilty of killing those other people our dear prosecutor has to prove that the accused being drunk while driving was the cause of the accident.
2- The drunk drive being accused of .... driving while drunk
In this case you don't need causality.
There are some wrongful conducts that are expressed in themselves...You don't need the results... Others demand a result - murder, for instance. And then guilt is a consequence of a relation of causality between the accused's ommission or action AND the circumstance which he is being accused of being guilty of.
Maybe this became clear now...
