Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Responsibility for the consequences of a crime

rated by 0 users
This post has 6 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 100 Contributor
Posts 850
Points 27,940
Eugene Posted: Fri, Feb 10 2012 7:42 AM

 

Do you think a person is responsible for the consequences of the cirme he commited?
 
 
1.
For example, if I robbed a store, and as a result of it the store owner got broke and commited suicide. Am I liable for it?
 
2.
Another example. If a planet an evidence to incriminate someone, and that someone was found guilty and hanged, am I liable for the hanging?
 
3.
Another example. Let's say a terrorist used a human shield and shot an opponent. That opponent in return killed the human shield by mistake. Should the terrorist be liable for the death of the human shield?
 
4.
A bit unrelated example.
If a person fires a rocket into a house, and the resident of the house, to defend himself, fires an AA missile at it, exploding the rocket in midair and killing several people who happen to live at the vicinity, should the resident be liable for their death?
 
Thanks.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Fri, Feb 10 2012 8:28 AM

These are all decent questions, yet I do not believe that discussing them with you would have that much impact, as we come from quite different viewpoints (you do not think hiring assassins is unethical).

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 850
Points 27,940
Eugene replied on Fri, Feb 10 2012 8:38 AM

It is not only not ethical but horrible and immoral, but should not be illegal in my opinion. Regardless I'll appreciate your answers.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 630
Points 9,425

1) no, guilty of robbery only.

2) no not directly, the person would be guilty of the crime of planting evidence whether the person was sitting in a cell or hanged it would be the same crime. But upon sentencing the judge would obviously consider the outcome of the falsely imprisoned person and change the sentence accordingly.

3) the terrorist would be liable for the death, but it would not be the same as murder.

4) no, but it would depend on the context. If it was an automated defense system then no. But if it was manual and the person was aware of the risk then they should have some liability but if the person acted impulsively and to save the life of others and in doing so other people were killed, then he is not liable.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Fri, Feb 10 2012 10:10 AM

When I say ethical I mean legal ethicss (or natural law, whatever)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 850
Points 27,940
Eugene replied on Fri, Feb 10 2012 12:09 PM

My answers:

1. Not liable

2. Not liable. You hold no responsibility over how things will be interpreted. At most you'll be liable for trespassing.

3. Not liable. You can't be held responsible for recklesness of the killer of the human shield. You will be liable for kidnapping though.

4. Liable. You made a rational choice to sacrifise the lives of others in order to save yours.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Fri, Feb 10 2012 6:12 PM

Wheylous:

These are all decent questions, yet I do not believe that discussing them with you would have that much impact, as we come from quite different viewpoints (you do not think hiring assassins is unethical).

 

this.

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (7 items) | RSS