2007-02-16 04:46:07 · 6 answers · asked by Diesel Weasel 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
On the whole, yes, but that includes careless behavior without the intent to harm (such as driving drunk or not putting a fence around your swimming pool). But if someone forces you at gunpoint to do something, you aren't culpable if you go along with it (although someone might argue that you shouldn't harm someone else even if it means losing your own life). If someone doesn't have the mental capacity to make choices (too young, for example, or psychotic, or developmentally challenged), then they can't be held responsible, though, and I think you could argue that those in these categories don't really have free will -- they are limited in their capacity to choose freely.
2007-02-16 06:24:36 · answer #1 · answered by Corinnique 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. In criminal law there are some laws that have strict liability. This means that you are liable and can be punished no matter what your state of mind. In practice, though, the police or prosecutors could drop a case, even if there was strict liability, but didn't think you should be responsible.
Take a silly example. Someone puts a gun to your head, tells you to drink a 1/4 of vodka then drive them around. In many areas there is strict liability for drinking and driving (there is no excuse). However, the police may choose not to charge you since they don't feel that you are to blame.
In civil law, people are often responsible for things they do by accident (not of their free will). Take the example where your brakes fail, you run a red light and hurt someone. That was not 'of free will', it was an accident. Will you still be responsible for the person's injuries? ... yup (Depending on your region).
2007-02-16 13:00:06 · answer #2 · answered by Peter 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course not, we are also held responsibly for accidents and negligence that may be the direct result of ignorance, and therefore not free will.
2007-02-16 12:49:58 · answer #3 · answered by smedrik 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can easily be charged as an accomplice even if forced to do something. Depending on the situation the court may give a lesser charge but there is no guarantee.
2007-02-16 12:52:45 · answer #4 · answered by waitingon2angels 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We can potentially be held responsible by our peers for anything, but luckily we are not the ultimate judges...
2007-02-16 13:08:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
nope
there are such a things as strict liability and negligence which do not require any intent
2007-02-16 12:51:08 · answer #6 · answered by BigD 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋