Fairly straightforward question, do you think people are ever culpable for someone else's actions?

Can you really drive someone to do something?

Should you ever receive blame for this? Be held accountable?




I tend to think that first and foremost people are always responsible for their own actions. However, just because people are responsible for their own actions doesn't necessarily mean, in my mind, that no one else is as well. I think multiple people can be responsible for someone's actions. However, I don't usually think this a valid argument. It only applies in rare cases, and it doesn't let the doer out of their own personal culpability - it just adds someone else to the list of "people to blame for this".

Actually, I think this is founded on a belief in the responsibility that everyone has for their own actions. I can't go around making someone's life miserable and then act blameless if he/she snaps and does something violent or suicidal. I did play a role in that. That person still made that decision and is still responsible for the actions themselves, but I can't, in my opinion, act like a blameless angel. I'm responsible for my actions as well and they led/pushed/pressured the person to do what they did.

However, I think it's important to view this rationally and understand where the line is. If my best friend develops a drinking problem, I don't think it's fair to blame myself for not noticing the warning signs in time, or for not policing his actions and feelings. However, if my best friend has a drinking problem and a buy him a drink and he subsequently falls off the wagon then obviously I did play a role in that even though he made the final decision.

So my answer is "Yes", but that it isn't usually the case, and that it almost never removes culpability from the person doing the primary action (it's still their fault, it just might be someone else's too to some degree).

Thoughts and opinions?

-Kevin

What's the point in posting anything when Kevin's said it already?

I voted "Yes" to because of the word "ever" in the question. There are, in my mind, circumstances where a person can be culpable for another's actions. Unlike Kevin, though, I believe there are also times when the person whose actions are in question can be innocent. Again, it will be exceptional circumstances, but they would include situations such as where a person was given a hallucinogenic without their knowledge. Similarly, when it involves children, people with a lowered mental capacity or other situations where the person concerned can be ignorant of the consequences of their actions, but the person enticing them is not:

"Go on. Pushing that big red button will mean you get all the lollies you'll ever want."

"Are sure? You're not fibbing me, are you?"

"Why would I lie? Trust your Uncle CJ and push the red button. I promise you, you'll be famous!"

The little boy pushes the red button, launching the nuclear missile....

I said yes for a very clear bit of reasoning that I will lay out shortly:

1) There are very manipulative people out there. They are responsible for the actions they manipulate others into doing.

Of course if you want to get really technical they're responsible for their own action: specifically, manipulating someone else into doing something, and as we tend to view such manipulation as tantamount to committing the action oneself...

Bleargh. Why am I awake at this hour?

I have nothing to add. Kevin and Graeme, as usual, voiced my opinion perfectly.

BeaStKid

I voted yes also, but I was thinking of another aspect : the problem of the collective responsability. It's an old story. Are the Germans as a Nation responsible for the crimes of the Nazis (the Holocaust, the killing of russian war prisoners, aso) ? The German governments said yes and 60 years ago it was also my opinion. Now I doubt. Is the american people responsible of the way some members of the army acted in Vietnam or in Irak ? Finally, we are all together with a same fate on this earth. Since Caïn and Abel, the problem of the responsability is one of the most problem in one's life."What have you done with your brother ?" Will our soul have to answer this question in front of a Court (any one) ?
Sorry to bring such point of view .But the question Kevin asked is much deeper than I thought.

Ever heard of the idiom---> one dirty fish spoils the whole pond???

I can't count the number of times our entire class has been punished for the wrongdoings of some classmates...



BeaStKid

I voted yes. Kevin and previous posters have covered the subject well. You could argue that responsibility and culpability are not the same thing, culpability being a legal concept. One example: In some jurisdictions, parents may be held legally responsible for the criminal conduct of under aged children even though the parents did nothing to promote the conduct. The reasoning is that the parents had a responsibility to properly supervise the children.

You are ultimately responsible for your own actions no matter what the situation, barring that your body is being controlled by someone other than yourself. Since I can't imagine a realistic scenario in which this would occur, my answer stands with "No".

If you allow yourself to be manipulated, then that's your problem. Live and learn and don't make the same mistake again.

First, I want to make one thing clear. Unless, someone has reached the point where he or she is so mentally ill that he or she cannot differentiate between fantasy and reality, that person is still ultimately responsible for his or her own actions. However, since some people are manipulative and capable of easily convincing others to do whatever they want, then the manipulative person is culpable, especially in any case in which a minor, mentally challenger person, or any other person who can easily be convinced or manipulated is involved. Still, even those who are easily manipulated and are still able to differentiate right from wrong are still responsible for their own actions. My answer is yes, for the culpability is sometimes shared.

I voted no earlier this morning, and I was trying to think of a constructive way to describe the reason I feel that way, but it's no use, so here goes

I think that labeling someone as culpable for another's actions is a cop out. Now, as stated above, there are some rare exceptions, like the severely mentally handicapped and mentally ill, but even then, depending on the circumstance, it's still a cop out.
Here are a couple of scenarios to illustrate my point:

• Husband is beating his wife and screaming at her, "Do you like making me do this?" He's automatically trying to make his wife the culpable party in his own sick way. But even worse, his 14 year old son is watching. 5 years later, he gets married and does the same thing. He and his wife are in counseling, and it comes out that he witnessed his dad beating his mom when he was growing up, and all of the sudden (in a lot of cases, not all), his actions are forgiven because it's not his fault. His dad is to blame because (according to counselor and the son) because of the example he set.
  While the father may have set a poor example as a father and husband, in the end, the son could have chosen a different path for himself and his wife. He made a deliberate choice to beat his wife, even though he knew the pain it caused his mother when she was going through it.
  
• I'm driving along the interstate, about to cross over the Chesapeake Bay on a long, two lane stretch. There's a driving lane and a passing lane, and I want to pass because the car in the driving lane is going 55 miles an hour. I start to go around but suddenly realize that I can't pass because there's a homophobic redneck in an SUV hauling a horse trailer with a marriage = a man and a women bumper sticker in the passing lane sitting side by side with the car in the driving lane, and there's no one in front of him. He's also going 55 miles an hour, and he won't speed up or slow down and get over.
  When I finally have an opening to go around him, he speeds up deliberately to prevent me from passing him, then he flips me off. After a minute or two of this, my blood starts to boil and I want to make sure that this jerk never drives like that again. Eventually, I get around him, but I'm pissed off past the point of no return, so I swerve violently in front of him so that he's right on my bumper, then I slam my brakes on. He has to swerve to miss me and he crashes through the guard rail and into the choppy water.
  Eventually, the state troopers catch up to me and I explain to them that he was provoking me on the interstate by refusing to allow me to pass. Obviously, they look at me like I'm crazy before they draw their guns and holler at me to lay on my stomach.
  Is the homophobic redneck somehow culpable for what I did? I think it can be said that he was a jerk, but ultimately, I would have committed a crime on my own, no matter how directly related my road rage was to his actions. Full responsibility lyes (lays?) on my shoulders, and it's now my responsibility to own up.

I know that those are only two possible examples, but that was the line of reasoning behind my vote.

Nick and Razor, I think you're both right in the vast majority of cases. People need to be responsible for their own actions, and, as I told my eldest son after he hit his younger brother, just because someone does something to you, that doesn't mean you should do something back. There are too many problems today because people don't take responsibility for their actions.

HOWEVER, the question used the word "ever" and I feel that there is a small minority of cases where, yes, a person can be culpable for another's actions. In a much larger set of cases, they can be an influence in another's actions, but the majority of responsibility lies with the person who acted, and that is where I agree with Razor and Nick.

Razor -- you were looking for a realistic scenario where someone else controlled a person. Would you consider the drugging a person with a hallucinogenic drug such a case? I'm not talking about where someone has taken such a drug voluntarily, but the case where a person gave it to them without their knowledge. I can't see how the victim in this case can be responsible for their own actions.

Graeme, that was what I was essentially trying to say. Also, there are some who are easily manipulated for one reason or another. There's also cults of personality. People like Hitler were able to convince a lot of people to do terrible things. Are those who followed still responsible? Of course they are, but that does not remove the guilt of people like Hitler.

This is an interesting question. Do you mean legally culpable or morally culpable?

I'd say there are cases where both are true. Legally, things like incitement to violence, murder for hire, or conspiracy are all prosecutable offenses. Here in Canada, it's illegal to advocate genocide or to incite hatred against any 'identifiable group', defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' In all those cases, the illegal action is only illegal because of what it is likely to drive others to do - in other words, making person A legally responsible for the actual or potential criminal actions of person B that may result from person A's behaviour.

Morally, I'd say it's even easier to make the case. Yes, ultimately, people are responsible for their own actions, but responsibility can be on the shoulders of multiple people. Someone who drives someone else to do something should share some moral responsibility for it. That doesn't make the person any less responsible for his or her own actions, but it also means that there are other people who share in the blame.

I think we all have the power to effect the lives of those around us, either positively or negatively. Maybe more power than we realize. Sometimes it doesn't take much - a smile, a word of encouragement, a listening ear to a friend - to make a positive difference. And similarly, sometimes it doesn't take much - a word in anger, a slip of the tongue, a spilled secret - to ruin someone's life or to drive them to do something terrible. And I believe we all have the moral responsibility to be aware of our power and to try to use it for good, as much as possible.

I think this is appropriate:

Young, Gay and Murdered

http://www.newsweek.com/id/147790

I definitely agree with the comments made by everyone thus far, including and particularly Jamie and Nick. However, to me this sums it up:




I don't think that he 'diffusion of responsibility' really does weaken any one person's responsibility - at least it shouldn't in principle. Of course in the examples Nick illustrated the road rage guy and the domestic abuse guy are definitely culpable. However, that doesn't mean that other didn't also play a role for which they too should be held accountable morally, and even legally in some cases.

A simple analogy is if I go up to someone and say "hit me, hit me, hit me! What's wrong with you, you ***** are you too afraid to hit me?"....if that person eventually strikes me, yes they're still responsible and culpable. But does anyone rationally think I can claim a blameless, completely innocent and victimized stance?


A wonderful article! Thank you, Nerotorb! I must confess that I hadn't researched this case as thoroughly as I should have and I was indeed taking it at face value. It was far more complicated than that (and really it was dim of me to assume it wasn't).

It's so interesting in fact that if you don't mind I'll start a new discussion for this particular case in the Soap Box and link to that article.



-Kevin

Re-reading what I posted, I think I should clarify, actually. People are only ever responsible for their own actions. But there are certain types of actions that lead to worse actions on the part of others, and that makes the original actions worse by extension.

For instance: Someone who gives a hateful, fiery speech against a certain ethnic group, after which a bunch of people who were in attendance go out and beat up people of said ethnic group. The person who gave the speech was not responsible for the consequence action (the beating) but he was responsible for the act of delivering the speech in the first place, an act made worse by its intent and his awareness of its likely consequences.

Kevin's example is another good one. If he yells "hit me" repeatedly, he's not responsible for the punch that gets thrown at him, but he is responsible for the act of goading the other person. That's a separate act, and one that he is solely responsible for. And each act, of course, must be judged on its motivation, its inherent action, and its consequences.

Basically I'm talking about the domino effect here, but it's a tricky thing, because people always try to shift the blame onto others for their own actions. There's a fine line between "he provoked me" and "he made me do it".

Excellent points!

I think there's also a distinction between responsibility for an action and responsibility for an outcome.

For example, you're right; the person who delivered the hateful speech certainly isn't technically responsible for the beatings as an action, in a direct sort of way (he didn't go out and beat anyone). On the other hand, I would most definitely say that he's very culpable for the outcome, in other words the beaten people.

Charles Manson.

That's the aforementioned cult of personality angle. While Charles Manson has culpability for ordering his group to brutally murder multiple people, they are the ones who actually physically took part in the brutal murders. As mentioned before, this makes Charles Manson guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, which has the same penalties as actual murder. In fact, Charles Manson was originally sentenced to death, but it was lowered to life in prison with the possibility of parole due to a California Supreme Court ruling in California versus Anderson. The cult of personality is a powerful phenomenon. There are many examples of cult of personality. At times it can even be argued that a cult of personality exists in United States Presidential Politics. Basically, one person becomes a rock star, and the "rock star" gains a sizable following. The followers are sometimes willing to break the law. The "rock star" sometimes encourages the followers to break the law. In such a case, there can be a shared culpability.

There aren't a lot of drugs that can make you truly lose control of yourself. People *say* they lost control, but the truth is that you know exactly what the hell you're doing, you just don't care.

Hallucinogens, by and large, are not what people who have never done any drugs believe they are. With hallucinogens it is generally fairly easy to differentiate between reality and hallucinations; there's a distinct difference between the two. It's generally a deliriant that'll screw your world up enough for you to really lose control. That, I think, possibly releases you from culpability but only in very specific, very special circumstances.

Ultimately you shouldn't have let another person drug you in the first place. How did they accomplish this? You shouldn't ever leave your drink unattended in public places. If it was at your home, then why the hell was this person there? Did you know them? Did they just rummage through your fridge and plant said drug in your two liter of coca cola?

That sounds kind of out there, but really, if you surround yourself with the right type of people there's a lot less chance of something like that happening.

Supposing someone did manage to slip you say twenty benadryl or some datura tea (both of which are pretty easy to detect, lol), then you are more than likely not to do anything to harm another person directly unless you're already a pretty malicious person and have that thought in the forefront of your mind already. Otherwise you're just going to probably get naked and fall down.

I'm not very forgiving as far as placing blame. Of course I realize that no one's perfect and everyone screws up, which is why I really am a very forgiving and easy-going guy. However, it is STILL your fault, even given the extremely rare circumstances when you didn't mean to do it.

Hypnotic suggestion, aka 'The Maltese Falcon'. People implanted with commands they execute upon receiving a 'trigger'. It's supposed to be true. Those people wouldn't be responsible for their actions, I don't think.

Note that I haven't said yea or nay to the culpability question. I'm just suggesting possible scenarios.

I don't think this should really be a factor. I mean let's say you are someone with homicidal or violent tendencies but you do a very good job of keeping them suppressed and under control. Isn't that a good and even laudable thing?

Granted, under those circumstances perhaps as a person with a predisposition to violence the person in question should be extra careful to avoid 'loosing control', but should they be held more accountable than someone with benign tendencies who, for whatever reason, commits the same act?

Here's an example. I'm a remarkably pleasant drunk. Everyone says so. I'm cheery, I never get angry or sad, and at worst I just get a little too flirtatious and sexual (but I don't try to force myself on people). As such, I have no reason to believe that it's a risk for me to get completely drunk (in a suitably safe setting) and interact with others. What if for some bizarre reason something does set me off and I do hurt someone? Am I less culpable than someone who does the same action who knowingly put him/herself in the situation of becoming drunk when they knew they might have a tendency toward violence or aggression when drunk?

I'm not sure that's a viable example, Kevin. Drinking lowers the inhibitions - it's common knowledge - so by drinking to excess you are demonstrating your willingness to let go your inhibitions regardless of outcome. If that were not the case, you wouldn't drink as much.

If you were the type of person to become a 'mean drunk' then you would know beforehand that drinking to excess would make you more violent. Alcohol does not create new personae but rather enhances latent aspects of the existing ones. By drinking you are automatically accepting responsibility for your actions before you encounter your first 'buzz'.

That's sort of exactly what I mean. Someone who knows they are a violent drunk would be more culpable for the actions that getting drunk would lead to (because they are to be expected) than someone who had hitherto only been a pleasant drunk.

I think people who do something while drunk are still culpable, but I think the level of culpability is slightly different depending on the circumstances.

hello.
To me there is also the responsibilty of recognising what went wrong in history and not allowing it to repeat again. so recognising the signs of when society or a group is starting down a slippery slope of bigotry or tarnishing a group of people. I don't think its eassy to define, but to me people have a responsibility to stand up against wrongs, but can't easily say everyone was guilty of not preventing something. but I do in some sort of way. for me elections are an example of that at times.

edit to add: when in times of crisis then things may be different, I couldnt justify saying that someone is guilty of not stepping foward when the consequences for them of doing so are too high, ie their death. but before then people IMO should stand forward to stop things getting anywhere near that far.





Hmm. Recently in the UK there was a courtcase regarding compensation for rape victims. Some people had been denied compensation on the grounds that they had been drunk or at least had a drink or a smoke of cannibis and therefore they didnt deserve to get the money available. This decision has been overturned when somebody challenged it, but past victims who didnt recieve compensation are not going to be entitled to reclaim. Now, are people who have a drink partly responsible for their own rape? or if not responsible, a little bit to blame at least for letting a substance put them in a more vulnerable state. the same goes for the date-rape drugs and keeping an eye on your glass. or trusting a pleasant stranger. or what about walking home after a night out and getting attacked. is it fair to those people to say that to them, what about their recovery. and then there is somebody who goes along with the beginning of sex then decide its not what they want and say no, is it rape or not when the partner continues regardless because they are too far gone or is it the others fault for getting themselves in that position....?

celia

celia

.......Interesting, there was a time when the defense of an accused rapist would tear down the victim, claiming her provocative attire was the reason for the rape. (In some case's the jury agreed) So the 15 year old girl caused her own rape because she was walking down the street in a skimpy outfit. Interesting!

Isn't that always the case in Moslim lands? There the raped person is guilty... Because, you said it, they were wearing provocative clothing..

In, i think saudi arabia, a women who is raped is automatically guilty. there was a case where a women was married. she was raped. she was then acused of adultery. she was then beaten and sent to jail for this adultery. even if the girl was single they'd be done for sleeping with someone outside wedlock and the rapist goes free.

its disgusting!!

celia

It's sad that this still happens... ~.~

I don't know where I stand on the muslim clothing for women. (is it called a burka??) its supposedly for the womens protection, no? because men have no self control... So its actually as one muslim man in Egypt told me (if I remember its a little while ago) liberating for the women.

this is off-topic abit. I don't know what to think about it really, especially since I don't know that much about the muslim faith. but, this developed when I went to Turkey when I was 13/14 and the men there were disgusting and very inappropriate in the street where we were. ever since I have been uncomfortable especially going to muslim countries. I've also been warned as usual whenever I go to such places that some of the men automatically think british girls are easy, they are gagging for it, and so they use it as an excuse to be inappropriate and rude, so yes don't wear such clothes, where your shoulders are bare etc etc. but even then I've felt uncomfortable. it could have been I was just in a strange country so as outsiders people are going to stare at you. but, and maybe it is a mental thing on my part, I feel uncomfortable talking to muslim men, especially in their own countries, as I always thinking what are they thinking of me, or about me, and can I behave in the same way as I usually do. and then the women as well, do they look down on me for not covering all of my body. I don't know... it's just how I think. but then I became great friends with an Iranian guy last summer who isnt muslim but all his family are, some of whom I've met and they were fine.

celia

I think that it is important to distinguish here between criminality and compensation. The behaviour of the victim does not affect the criminality of the rapist and he is found guilty and sent to jail whether the victim was drunk or not. Compensation is where society (i.e. we taxpayers) pay a victim some money to contribute toward the victim's recovery from the crime. The convicted criminal does not pay that compensation.

Now I'm not trying to equate rape and car theft, but the distiction between criminality and compensation is analagous. If you leave your car unlocked with the key in the ignition and someone steals your car, then your negligence does not alter the criminality of the thief. However, your negligence might well affect whether or not your insurance company will pay up.

Obviously, it is debatable whether or not getting drunk with strangers should be be regarded as neglligent behaviour with respect to it contributing to a rape. FWIW, I personally don't think that it should be. Certainly, it's not the same order of negligence as leaving a car unlocked with keys in the ignition. However, the theoretical idea that a degree of negligence can affect compensation without affecting criminality is not completely unreasonable.

Kit

I agree, its not unreasonable theoretically. but there is a big But here. rape is unacceptable. in an ideal world it wouldnt happen, so is it wrong to assume that the people around you are decent human beings not animals. unfortunatley I do think that a Woman who gets absolutely blind drunk in a dodgy setting is partially to blame as you say for negilence (depending on why they are caught up in that situation). However I wouldnt deny them compensation. They've been through an ordeal and as society we should look after her and aid her recovery as much as we can rather than further destroy her/or his confidence and financial ability to get things they need. I also think the government and of course, society - the people in it, are responsible for creating and ensuring a safe environment where these sort of concerns, being wary that people will take serious advantage, aren't needed. therefore as I already said, although its not the governments, or taxpayers, fault that they were raped per se, it does go towards repairing the damage that shouldnt have been there. the car insurance one is different, there is not bodily harm involved and its only a possesion.

I totally agree with you about how things should be. Unfortunately, that is not how things actually are. Our whole criminal compensation system is a complete mess. There are (quite trivial) set amounts for an eye, leg, hand, finger etc. and (AFAIK) they don't take much (if any) account of psychological damage. Within the system the degree of negligence of the victim is also taken into account.

FWIW, my opinion is that there shouldn't be any 'compensation' as such at all. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should ignore the victims hurt by crimes; in fact, I mean just the opposite. i.e. society should look after them according to their actual individual needs, and not according to some 'tarrif' system. That way, there would be no need for any specific compensation.

Thus it should be a bit like the health service - when your leg is injured you get whatever treatment you need, you don't get a fixed sum of money to 'compensate' for your injury.

Kit

Yeah I was suprised when I saw the news about that courtcase because I hadnt been aware that victims got compensation. a friend of mine was raped and I wasnt aware she got any money, but she may have. I am wondering now as she had had a drink but wasnt drunk. but in this case it definetly wasnt her fault in anyway plus she was only 17. back to topic, I assumed that a victim was taken care of by the NHS and other means if necessary as a matter of course. and surely that is the case anyway as the nhs is free, so the money is for some other purpose?

celia

Well, I'm not sure about this, but as I understand it, the compensation is supposed to make up for losses not taken care of by other means. So, for example, if you lose a leg, you will get free medical treatment, possibly disability benefits, etc, but they won't be able to deal with all the 'inconvenience' of not having a leg. Compensation is supposed to cover you for the 'inconvenience' and other aspects not totally covered by other things. Of course, it's totally inadequate and goes back to Anglo-Saxon times when the perpetrator could avoid blood feud by paying a compensation.

As you say, if society were to provide all the medical, psychological, social backup required, what would the compensation be used for? I suppose it might be considered part of the psychological aid - e.g. buy yourself something nice to cheer you up?

That's why I think it shouldn't be needed in a proper, caring society. However, we live in an increasingly 'compensation culture' and people now feel that they are being deprived of their rights if they don't get compensation. But how much money would be required to make someone really feel better about being raped?

Kit