Carelessness or neglect without regard to the danger to others is a criminal act, as defined in U.S. law. A person who runs a red light when they know such an act is illegal, and hits someone is definitely guilty of a crime, whether they intended to hit the other person or not.

When Hillary Clinton acted with extreme disregard to her duty to protect classified information, she was guilty of a crime, whether or not she intended for that information to get into the hands of enemies. She signed acknowledgement of her duty to protect classified information, whether or not she actually took the time to read what she signed.

Society accounts for stupidity versus malicious intent by the gradation of punishment. The driver who runs a red light without hitting anyone gets a ticket and a fine. The driver who runs the red light and hits someone is punished by the severity of the damage created by his carelessness, up to the charge of reckless homicide. We do make distinctions.

“Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm; but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.” T.S. ELLIOT

The time has come to distinguish between permission and right. Laws give the government permission to take some act. For a right, there is no need to get permission. One does not enter another's property without permission so it is not a right to do so. For a right, everyone gets out of the way and cannot stop you but may think that they can and will try to pass a law to force your action.

There are many crimes commited by “good intentioned” people that pave lots of roads to hell for the “greater good.”

Courtesy of Robert Heinlein:
"(1) Every citizen is free to perform any act which does not hamper the equal freedom of another citizen.
"(2) No law shall forbid the performance of any act, which does not damage the physical or economic welfare of another person.
"(3) No act shall constitute a violation of a law valid under this provision unless there is such damage or immediate present danger resulting from that act."

As Joe Friday used to say, "just the facts, mam."
A crime is the act of takigh what does not belong to you. Be it material items, sexual choice, money, or good name. What you have earned, and they have no tearned.

a crime is when someone's choice creates a debt to another. Justice is when the debt is paid.

"doesn't crime to be true crime require a malicious intent?"

No. The intent itself (whether carelessness, lack thereof (ignorance), maliciousness, spite, envy, etc.) is an attending emotion to the crime. Reality doesn't really care why you did something - it only care that something happened. The laws of natural response don't care how you chopped the tree down, they still mandate the tree falls.

Can there be invented laws of man which attempt to unreasonably burden us? Assuredly. As long as there are men with a penchant for power and who attempt to coerce others to their own ends, there will be ridiculous and stupid laws. In fact, there are whole books of ridiculous laws. I have one and I alternate between laughing at the ridiculousness and shaking my head at the blatant vindictiveness.

In other words, if I aliviate you of your possessions because, in my sincere belief, they are rotting your soul, you would not consider it a crime?

If malicious intent before committing a crime is the only thing that makes it a crime, then isn't the malicious intent itself the crime?

Sounds a bit like Orwell's Thought Police.

Would it still be a crime if what you described above was done with full and willing participation of the girl? What if she had regrets the next day, or 10 years later?

The state defines criminal intent as any violation of its decrees (which are always intended to enslave and control) while a criminal intent is the desire to create harm to another individual. Running red lights can be careless. I was once targeted and fined for running a stop sign, it was three in the morning, there was no traffic in the quiet neighborhood, I slowed almost to a stop, there was no intent to be careless or create harm but it cost me $180 anyway. Some rules are designed to keep us safe as in all driving with the same intentions. Others are just to create income for the state, i.e. the right of the state to take your money for any intent, to indebt your property and demand payment or the right to take your property if you fail are examples of enslavement.

If you murder someone without malicious intent, such as doing it for the victim's own good with alleged "good intentions" of believing you are sending him to heaven, it is still a crime. Guilt or innocence in committing the act is not based on assessment of motive.

You have repeatedly baselessly asserted in different posts as fact that she was only "klissed" or tried to "kiss a boy", with no evidence and in complete contradiction to what she reported herself. You continue to make the arbitrary assertion expecting it to be taken as the base of discussion. An arbitrary premise is not "objective unemotional review".

Kavanaugh had nothing to do with it. He said and presented evidence that he was not there at all. He did not contradict her description of what happened to her by whoever did it; he said that he did not. No one said "she must be 100% correct". Going off on a tangent about imagined "good intentions" in what you concoct as an account of what happened is irrelevant.

Many people have your point of view.
I respectfully disagree.
If there is no malicious intent, then there is no crime.
There are accidents, misunderstandings, etc which government force can and should be used to rectify or discontinue such actions. They would only become criminal, in my view, if the person involved continued to do the actions after being fully informed that their actions were harmful.

True, if that is what happened.
But that contradicts what he stated.
Being objective, one should not assume that one person is telling the truth and one is lying.
We can't know for sure what happened, we can only try to make sense out of the data presented. Doing so with an objective unemotional review of what has been presented does not lead to: she must be 100% correct.

A drunk at a party pulling a girl into a bedroom, groping her, trying to take her clothes off, and gagging her to stop her from calling for help is the crime of assault regardless of malicious motive; it is not "good intentions" or "tries to kiss a girl and then she freaks out".

A crime is a violation of someone's rights whether or not by malicious motive.

Yes, but isn't that a problem?
If there is no difference between a malicious act and a foolish act, then what kind of society do we have?
Where I am going with this is, if Kavanaugh, or any young boy, tries to kiss a girl and then she freaks out, is that a crime?
If a person has good intentions, or at least not malicious ones, should we be condemning someone for the results?

I remember learning about this at some point. Thins like not obeying a traffic light do not require criminal intent. As you say, trying to hurt someone on purpose does require criminal intent, but then every crime the person commits involved with that is covered by the criminal intent. Prosecutors don't have to establish intent for each law violation.