the Principle of Expanding Culpability

[Nehemiah Scudder]

See, I don't get the "excuse" part.

In the case of the insanity defence, etc. circumstances are related to mitigate the sentencing not the determination of guilt or innocence.

Every person listed in the very first post that committed a crime is going to be punished. Rightfully so. It's a question of what kind of punishment.

 

[P95Carry]

Conversely, those who are willing to blame the criminal tend to totally discount the possibility that upbringing may have caused it

Doc ... if I may be (seem?) pedantic .... may I change your word ''caused'' to ''mitigated'' ... or ''influenced''.

I say that because I am with carebear here regarding the final onus, being on a perpetrator (in general a legal adult), regardless of ''mitigating factors''. Right is right - and wrong is wrong. Tho I agree the perceptions of those things are colored by outlook and mindset - all of which have been forged at an earlier time.

To some degree - maybe each and every case needs analyzed on its merits/demerits when aportioning blame and culpability. This is quite a convoluted subject when you boil it right down!

 

[gc70]

I am responsible for my actions, although others have contributed (positively and negatively) to making me the person that I am.

 

[BigG]

Thoughts are not crimes. For a crime or offense to take place, an action has to occur.

This conversation sounds like something Spiro Agnew had to say about mental mastur... uh, forget it.

 

[Werewolf]

This whole debate reminds me of the age old question of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" This question annoyed philosophers for the better part of 200 years or so until one smart guy figured out the answer and ended the debate. The answer boiled down to, "who cares and why is this important?"

The problem with assigning responsibility for action and reassigning responsibility for the causation chain is the same in my estimation. Free will negates the whole notion of causation and we all have free will. We choose our actions - each and every one of them. Just because Johnny was molested doesn't require him to do the same. He can choose not to molest others. Not molesting may not be the choice of preference for Johnny but he can still make that choice.

Responsibility lies with the one making the choice - all of it. Researching the causation chain may be an interesting exercise from which others may learn but it in no way lessens the responsibilty attached to the choice.

A major part of the problem that exists today with our justice system is this constant effort to reassign responsibility/blame away from the chooser and on to others. Let's get back to basics and assign responsibility where it should be - on the shoulders of the individual actor.

 

[DRZinn]

Responsibility lies with the one making the choice - all of it. Researching the causation chain may be an interesting exercise from which others may learn but it in no way lessens the responsibilty attached to the choice.

Yes. But then, after the person committing the act bears the responsibility - all of it - there could be more of a price to pay if someone else, ummm.... influenced the action.

Doc ... if I may be (seem?) pedantic .... may I change your word ''caused'' to ''mitigated'' ... or ''influenced''.

"Influenced" makes a lot more sense, thanks. "Caused" is what they use when they try to shift the blame.


Cannibal: If we're talking about children then all this goes out the window. Children are by legal definition not responsible (not totally, anyway) for their actions.


gc70: That's it in a nutshell, but too concise for some to understand. Remember what I said before:

I really want to get this explained in a way that even <a well-known trial lawyer> could understand.

 

[R.H. Lee]

There is not a person on earth who has not been negatively affected by others at some point in his/her life. All of us have baggage; yet all of us do not commit crimes as a result. I'm probably still screwed up from 8 years in Catholic school. The one who does the deed is ultimately responsible for their own action(s). Now, there are mitigating circumstances when it comes to sentencing and punishment. Diminished capacity, whether it be from demonstrable developmental disabilities or insanity should be taken into account; this however does not shift the blame from the doer. The notion that the perpetrator is somehow the victim is just a slick defense lawyer's trick.

 

[gc70]

DocZinn,

I really want to get this explained in a way that even <a well-known trial lawyer> could understand.

You are asking for an explanation of something that is already fully understood by lawyers.

Lawyers, particularly of the trial lawyer variety, are primarily responsible for your "theory of expanding culpability." By expanding culpability, they can achieve one of two quite different goals:

1. When used as a legal defense, expanding culpability means that the defendant is not entirely responsible for the actions at trial; therefore, the portion of the "blame" assigned to the defendant is reduced and the defendant gets a lighter punishment.
2. When used by a plaintiff or prosecutor, expanding culpability means that multiple parties can be involved in responsibility for the actions at trial; this is the typical ploy used to rope parties with "deep pockets" into a trial when the primary defendant doesn't have enough money to satisfy the greed of the plaintiffs, lawyers, or prosecutors.

Nobody needs to explain the theory of expanding culpability to <a well-known trial lawyer>; that is how he makes his living.

 

[carebear]

Which is funny (not ha-ha) because in example #1, they are positing a finite amount of "blame" that must be spread, while in example #2 everyone is at 100% individually.

 

[DRZinn]

nononononononoNO!

expanding culpability means that the defendant is not entirely responsible for the actions at trial;

NO! It means (as I use it) the defendant is ENTIRELY responsible. THEN, after that's settled, if anybody else was criminal in influencing the defendant, they might be liable too. And I mean criminally, not civilly.


As for your point 2, it's a valid principle, that a manufacturer might be liable if a product is defective. The problem is it's gone too far. It needs to be reined in.


RileyMC:
I'm not talking about "baggage," I'm talking about actual abuse. Or like the case mentioned by carebear, if the driver were actually taught as a child that killing someone he doesn't like or is angry with is a valid way to deal with that person.

this however does not shift the blame from the doer.

I never said it did.

----waitaminute-----Are you trying to restate what I said, or arguing? If you're restating, forget everything in the above paragraph.

 

[Roadkill Coyote]

It is simple.

The person who committed the crime, is responsible for the crime.

The person or persons who laid the groundwork for the crime, or made it more likely, are responsible for just that, a seperate, individual wrong that they committed before the fact.

There really are two wrongs here, and its our current, modern, sloppy thinking that tries to roll them in to one negation, if not right.

 

[DRZinn]

By Jove, I think you've done it!

 

[Nehemiah Scudder]

Nothing personal, but I'd like to see an example of our "current, modern, sloppy thinking".

The person or persons who laid the groundwork for the crime, or made it more likely, are responsible for just that, a seperate, individual wrong that they committed before the fact.

It's my perception that 99.9% of Americans would agree with that statement.

 

[carebear]

I think the aforementioned CMST (current modern sloppy thinking) refers to our collective willingness to allow what should be fairly simple black letter case law to be stretched and penumbraed due to our desire to be "progressive."

 

[FPrice]

An interesting current example...

"http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/12/29/girl_4_asleep_in_stolen_car_is_found_safe/"

"Girl, 4, asleep in stolen car is found safe
December 29, 2004

A 4-year-old girl was safe last night after an inadvertent kidnapping that occurred while she slept in the vehicle while her mother ran an errand on Cummins Highway. According to WBZ News, someone stole the car, which was left idling outside of a Hyde Park auto repair shop with the girl asleep inside. The thief pulled over in Mattapan and fled on foot after police spotted the car, and the child was unharmed. Police are still searching for the thief."

People are criticizing the mother for leaving the child in the car.

WHO is responsible for this?

 

[Nehemiah Scudder]

The thief is responsible for the theft and will be charged accordingly, I'd hope.

There's an argument lurking in that story about whether he should be charged with kidnapping in addition to the theft.


The mother I wouldn't charge, but she left her car idling with her sleeping child inside. Not exactly a swift move.

 

[carebear]

Keep in mind, I think most of us are using "responsibility" in the legal sense, not necessarily moral.

 

[BigG]

The person or persons who laid the groundwork for the crime, or made it more likely, are responsible for just that, a seperate, individual wrong that they committed before the fact.

Yep. Lawyers call it conspiracy.

You are engaging in legal sophistry with your inquiry, Doc, not reality. The actor is responsible for whatever action, period. :banghead:

 

[familyman]

ok -but what of the family man who tries to

the family man who tries to protect his family while cornerd in a 2nd floor home with no other way out
{actual happenings}
future brother in law
verbaly assults me{in my fathers home}

so i call 911 "i want this little prick outa here"

so then 10 seconds after i hang up with 911
he charges at me in my room where i have not just my self but 2 daughters and my wife while cornerd in "our room"
i say
"get out of my room"
once-
twice-
3rd-times a charm -
click while i take aim
"GET OUTA MY ROOM!"

and the {later to be found 2 b stoned mother}
calls 911
michigan state police show up and take my gun{1 38 special}
and tell me that i was as of then guilty of a fellonius assult and ask "what will it take for this to just subside between you 2"
my reply
"TAKE HIM AWAY..GET HIM AWAY FROM MY FAMILY NOW!!"

THE TROOPER TOOK MY 38 AND LEFT HIM WITH 4 RIFLES AFTER HE CHARGED ME LIKE A BULL NOWAY THATS IT I WAS DEFENETLY TICKED OFF

come to find out the little pot head had been smokin pot in the laundry room {its in my daughters clothes}

and to top it all off i didn't get a receipt for change of possesion and now they can't kind it

and i'm still facing fellonius assult charges
for protecting my family

don't that suck
what a great christmas !

 

[DRZinn]

You are engaging in legal sophistry with your inquiry, Doc, not reality. The actor is responsible for whatever action, period.

PAY ATTENTION. I never said in any form that any circumstances would in any way lessen the responsibility of the actor for the action.

Awww, what's the use.

Roadkill Coyote got it right, in a nutshell:

The person who committed the crime, is responsible for the crime.

The person or persons who laid the groundwork for the crime, or made it more likely, are responsible for just that, a seperate, individual wrong that they committed before the fact.

 

[DRZinn]

I think most of us are using "responsibility" in the legal sense, not necessarily moral.

I'm using it in the moral sense, which in this case should be the legal sense as well.

 

[BigG]

I think most of us are using "responsibility" in the legal sense, not necessarily moral.
I'm using it in the moral sense, which in this case should be the legal sense as well.

Then we're all damned. Call this the world of the damned and be done with it.

 

[Nehemiah Scudder]

Well, the question is...

If we're too morally lax as a society, how to we tighten up?

Should we be more like, say, Singapore?

 

[Roadkill Coyote]

Nehemiah Scudder,

Your right, I should have been more specific about the CMST thing. By that I did not mean to simply suggest a state of lax morals. I think the problem has more to do with the societal belief that if we only found the right spot to apply the blame, all wrongs could be prevented. After all, why is the blame getting moved around? Obviously it's all about deep pockets in some cases, but I believe the larger problem is the modern belief that if we only find the right lever to turn we could stop all tradgedies from occurring. The essence of CMST is the idea that we can pre-emptively prevent humans from doing all wrong, and if you believe that, as some people clearly do, is reponsibility after the fact so important? Or is it just another spot for the aspiring social engineer to tune the system?

More of a utopian perfectability thang than a laxity...

 

[pax]

Roadkill Coyote ~

I've been scratching my head over this one for two days. Didn't post because I didn't have anything useful to say -- but in both posts above, you're absolutely right.

I want to add here, as an extension of what you said, that sometimes people think if we only understand why the criminal acts the way he does, we have to forgive or excuse him acting as he does.

The problem with this is twofold:

1) Sometimes, a complete understanding only worsens the offense. The woman in Texas who drowned her five babies can be 'understood' by any woman who has ever felt depressed, overwhelmed, and hopelessly outnumbered by a houseful of little kids. But I can tell you, having walked perilously close to that line myself, a full understanding of what she was facing does not mean that I'm willing to excuse any acts that she performed while she was severely depressed. I can feel compassion for the spot she was in, but utterly loathe the act she did -- loathe it even more because I know she had a choice no matter how overwhelmed she felt. Which leads me to the second problem.

2) People are not animals. Any attempt to place blame for my actions onto someone else's shoulders, or simply to claim unavoidable circumstance that forced me to act in a certain way, reduces me to the level of an unthinking animal. An animal may have no choice but to respond in certain ways to external stimuli. While humans have a lot in common with the lower beasts, we are not mere beasts ourselves -- we are thinking beings, capable of making choices that can (and often do) override our base inclinations.

(The sig is in response to Roadkill Coyote's last post above.)

pax

The single most important thing to know about Americans--the attitude which truly distinquishes them from the British, and explains most superficially odd behavior--is that Americans believe that death is optional. -- Jane Walmsley