It begins with crime and ends with rape.

In your column on causality, you wrote that the case of starting with a crime and ending with rape is parallel in terms of the legal liability of the guard to the logical and not the physical causal component, but apparently also in the logical component, the cause is a sufficient condition for the occurrence of the event, while in the case of starting with a crime and ending with rape, the crime is only a necessary condition but not a sufficient one (since he was not supposed to be stolen in the forest – but without the negligence of the event, it would not have happened, so A is not the cause of B, but rather the opposite of A is the cause of B).