...is the considered judgment one can make of another's bad behavior (i.e., something that person did or said or caused was wrong, or hurtful, or inappropriate) and that communicates condemnation for the person's behavior while leaving open the consequent judgment of how much responsibility should be attributed to the individual, and thus the measure of accountability to be expected or imposed.
Our civilization - more specifically here meaning our country with it's laws, and our culture with its social constructs and expectations - puts the responsibility for personal actions and behaviors on the individual; our legal system and the social judgment of others are how we enforce such rules and expectations, and thus hold one accountable.
But the aforesaid "responsibility" can be a bit sticky to clearly identify and attribute, not because of the who (that's already been established) but because of the why - as in what factors, influences, experiences, and conditioning brought about the bad behavior? The excuse of "They made me do it..." may sound childish - but the grim reality is that we are as much a product of our conditioning as our genetics; i.e., it may be important, relevant, and even necessary to consider what their Elephant had been subjected to and learned.
Yet such excuse does not excuse...but may explain, and thus potentially mitigate the harshness of one's judgment and expectation.
In short, "It may explain but does not excuse..." means an indefensible but understandable wrong was done.
Most humans tend to prefer a black-and-white, good-or-bad, dualistic simplicity in making sense of the world. But that "grim reality"? It's more often gray...
