Frome a purist Libertarian perspective this should indeed be irrelevant. For the purist libertarian the criminality of rape is irrelevant, since it’s only the property rights in the womens (or mens) in her/his person has been violated. Based on this the offender, be it by intention or accident has to pay damages.
Let’s assume the poor victim couldn’t afford a private insurance contractor in an anarcho-capitalist society. In that case one could rape her with impunity. The offenders only risk would be that his insurance company sees him as a higher risk and canceles the contract. But certainly this is a risk that would covered, if the insurance fees are increased or not?
As of my 2003 Law A-level; for a crime to occur there must be both an actus reas and a mens rea. That is the defendant must have carried out the proscribed act and had the intention to act. Or at least been able to reasonably foresee that his actions might be criminal. Failure to have one of these means that there is no crime.
I am a little appalled that some people on this board think that people who do not meet the mens rea criteria should be jailed? The rejection of this legal doctrine leads to absurdity. If you reject the mens rea critera then if someone put a chip in your head and controlled you with a joystick, then sent your body out to kill. It would be you who would be held responsible. That is why Automatism is an absolute defence.
Now maybe the man is lying, maybe he could reasonably foresee that the action of going to sleep would lead to rape. But otherwise it is a clear case of automatism. Not guilty.
Despite the criminal act being unconscious, it is still your body doing the crime, and as the owner of your body you are responsible for restraining it from doing anything criminal when you allow yourself to become unconscious. If you cannot control yourself, then others must then take control of you.
I hesitated committing here since I believe the topic is so broad but,
IMO, motif is irrelevant to action. To venture down this road of weighing motif and intent with consequences is simply an infinite moral regress. All action has a root at some subatomic chemistry–The gunman did not kill the person the bullet did and it was the finger who pulled the trigger and the muscle that contradicted finger and it was a sodium imbalance that caused the involuntary contraction, etc, etc, until no one has fault.
Why can’t we accept responsibility for action? If you act, you are responsible for its outcomes?
Now there is much to delineate in terms of domino effects of action and placing blame, and the outsourcing of ones will (like the microchip in the head example), but if you believe that the body is inalienable to another (meaning voluntary slavery cannot truly exist) since the will is inalienable from the body then I believe we can simply accept action and forget about intent
I didn’t take that law program so I’m missing the training you have on the subject.
Can you clarify if this is a legislative thing or a common law thing (the extra background will help with the comprehension)? I would still assume that someone guilty of “negligence” or “manslaughter” is still guilty of a crime.
Can you clarify how this fits into the sleepwalking?
For my part, I’m not saying that they should be punished in a specific way (jail or otherwise), just that they are responsible for having raped or killed. Guilty of killing (whether sleeping or awake). I know there are different “titles” under US/Canadian law (manslaughter, murder of varying degrees etc.), but the original question was about responsibility.
Is the person acting not responsible for their actions (regardless of their level of judgement)? I’m sure the victims family, or judge dealing with compensation, would take that into consideration but on the subject of responsibility, what are your thoughts?
I am curious as I keep thinking back to the drunken example (if you’re drunk you are still responsible), perhaps I’m thinking about this the wrong way?
I believe the mens rea (guilty mind) requirement is a common law element. “Strict-Liability” laws (where the perpetrator is guilty regargless of intent) are a fairly modern invention. Accroding to Wikipedia they were first introduced to make it easier to prosecute factory owners under labor laws because it was hard to prove mens rea for worker safety laws.
It’s interesting that (from the wikipedia link) “crimes require proof of mens rea except in cases of public nuisance,”
I should really think about this a bit more, but something doesn’t sit right. Killing someone accidentally seems worse to me than a case of public nuisance
I know the question was about “responsibility” but this whole legal side adds an interesting element to the conversation
Because a crime is an act, a true act requires some sort of psychic relation (culpa) to the “physical” act and that requires conciousness. A person who “acts” while unconscious is as guilty as a storm which sank a boat. A storm too is a source of some consequences on someone’s body or property. Do you find it sane to blame, let alone sue or prosecute, forces of nature?
Are you in favour of prosecuting babies too? Let’s say a six months old baby accidently pushes his finger into somebody’s eye too much. You know, babies like to touch and feel stuff around them. Send him to Folsom, right? [:)] Now, we don’t sue or prosecute babies for a reason. The reason being that they don’t control their “actions”…just an unconcious adult doesn’t.
.
If you want to claim that humans have no real free will and go strict determinism, then the only justifiable use of force against a person is to prevent him from doing any further harm, preferably by curing him and in case it is impossible by isolating him from other people. Jailing sick people is…ehh…something I thought this part of the world has overcome.
Ad kid on a bike and a car hitting him - have you ever driven a car? It is impossible to prevent or avoid everything. If a kid suddenly runs into the road a a few meters in front of a car, then there is literally nothing the driver can do.
That legalese junk is obsolete. The idea of prison is the idea of revenge and satisfaction, a.k.a an eye for an eye. A system based on the idea of protection and restitution is not at all similar. A baby poking your eye out does not suggest a propensity toward aggression, nor is restitution possible. The question of control of actions is irrelevant. You don’t take action against the baby because there is nothing to be done. There is nothing to be done about storms.
Prison is just one of the possible form of consequences of responsibility for a crime. It has nothing to do with the concept of criminal responsibility itself.
What is “propensity to agression”?
And that is not obsolete junk. Unless by obsolete you acutally mean used all over the world.
Ok, then legal responsibility. Those are some fancy words you throw out there - protection and restitution - but those are again just guides for modelling the legal consequences of legal responsibility, not the concept of responsibility. Responsibility can be either objective - based on the consequences of an “action” or subjective - based on the “action” AND intent/negligence (which is not motif as somebody suggested, motif is indeed irrelevant).
No. In other words, the baby lacks a persistent intent. Have you ever read an explanation of libertarianism? You don’t seem to have a clue where I’m coming from.
I someone’s house had been burned down by a fire started by a baby, if I where an arbiter I’d certainly award damages to be paid by the parents. The only difference I see between “intended” and “unintended” crimes is that the crimes committed without intention (accidents) are less likely to be repeated, and hence will command a much lower malus (how much you insurance premium goes up when you make a claim) than an intetful crime. In some cases restitution too could be less than full. It depends on the case at hand. It’s pointless to try an set out rules for everything that could ever happen.