# Responsibility



## Princess Ivy (Mar 16, 2005)

So, this is a quetion about human nature, really. inspired by the death penalty question, and certain compulsive viewing (law and order, and special victems unit)
When are we responsible for our action? And when does our responsibility become deminished. I've heard the paedophiles argument, that they are a minority and that in time they will be recognised as a valid sexual group (omg that makes me sick to even say it). They accept responsibility for their actions, but don't believe that they are wrong. 
Then there are some killers, like bundy, who knew the difference between right and wrong, but refused to apply those standards to himself. 
There are some people who really do not grasp the concept of social rightness, and again, some who are genuinely not responsible for their actions, not understanding the difference between right and wrong. look at gacie. 
but is that an excuse? i've always believed that i am responsible for my actions. if i act like a *******, i will be a *******. but this argument seems very confused nowadays. and as i get older, and gain more experience (i'm not pompus enough to say wisdom), i realise more and more the shades of grey involved with life.


----------



## Circus Cranium (Mar 16, 2005)

(So, this is a quetion about human nature, really. inspired by the death penalty question, and certain compulsive viewing (law and order, and special victems unit))


Just to take this thread a hard left turn for a second; you made me think of something. I don't watch much TV, but does anyone else think it's odd that nearly all the top televison shows are about murder and violent crime? It makes me think of THX1138, where the people were drugged to have no emotions, but the holo-television showed people beating eachother, over and over, as if to satisfy some inherent need.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Mar 16, 2005)

for me, i know i watch for research (things like law and order are very well researched and pose interesting arguments and cases), as a writer. and also as a person, to try to wheedle some sort of sense out of the insanity that is humanity.


----------



## Ashen Shugar (Mar 16, 2005)

Even of a person can be deemed to be incapable of understanding right or wrong, if their actions constitute a threat to themselves or their fellow man, they need to be placed in an environment of control to prevent this behaviour, regardless of their comprehension.
So whether it be jail or a mental facility, their removal from society is the only feasible result. I know people will say with medication they can be reintegrated but honestly, would you like to live next door to a person with mental health issues who has injured / killed in the past, and hope he took his medication today, that he hasn't developed a tolerance for the drugs or that physical illness has reduced the effectiveness of the chemicals - I wouldn't, and I certainly wouldn't let my kids anywhere near this kind of person.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Mar 16, 2005)

ah, but when is someone no longer responsible for their actions?
the peadophiles quoting that they are minority which is discriminated against  don't believe they are doing wrong. so when do we stop being responsible?


----------



## Ashen Shugar (Mar 16, 2005)

Because they do not believe their behaviour is wrong does not mean they are not responsible for their actions. They are aware it is illegal to indulge this behaviour. They may disagree with the law, but if they choose to break it, they are responsible for their actions. As for discrimination, to a degree they are correct. They did not choose to be attracted to children, and here is society telling them if they indulge their desires they will be prosecuted. None the less, they are aware of the situation and have a choice to make, and must accept the responsibility for their actions. If they do not like the law, petition to have it changed through the correct channels. I don't like their chances though.


----------



## Circus Cranium (Mar 16, 2005)

Dictating right is wrong is always slippery, because there are so many different versions of it. But with that particular example, I think it's more obvious because there's another party involved--the child. I think psychology can back up the claim that a child cannot 'consent' to sexual activity; and there are piles of evidence to show the psychological damage suffered later in life when such actions occur.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 16, 2005)

We're all responsible for our actions, and society makes it plain that certain actions will be punished by society. 

So it's our choice.

There seems to a be a legal undercurrent in the USA that people do not have to be repsonsible for their actions, but instead blame their behaviours and failings on parents, upbringing, etc - which is really just another way of avoiding taking responsibility.

2c.


----------



## Circus Cranium (Mar 16, 2005)

Could you give an example of that, a court case in the USA to back it up?


----------



## Ashen Shugar (Mar 16, 2005)

I agree totally. The law is supposed to represent and protect the majority. Morality changes with time and culture however. Hope I don't live to see this one change though.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Mar 16, 2005)

how about these stella awards. not as earth shaking as childmolestation, but they clearly show cases in the us where people did stupid things, and blamed the outcomes on the manufactuerers. all of these cases were won by the people who sued. 



> *5th Place tie:*
> Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $780,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little toddler was Ms. Robertson's son.
> 
> *5th Place tie:*
> ...


http://utterlyboring.com/archives/2004/01/08/the_stella_awards.php

they very clearly show that these people refused to take responsibility for their own stupidity.


----------



## Circus Cranium (Mar 16, 2005)

Yeah, those are ridiculous. The only thing Bush has said that I agree with is he wants to try and do away with 'frivolous lawsuits'. 

I was thinking more in terms of the over used insanity plea though, as far as responsiblity goes.


----------



## Circus Cranium (Mar 16, 2005)

Princess Ivy, where can we see some of your Crime Fiction?


----------



## Neon (Mar 16, 2005)

Ack, I just caught this thread and responded to things very similar under the "death penalty" thread.  I too think the "insanity plea" and "lawsuits from your own stupidity" are much overused and simply represent how human beings refuse to acknowledge fault with actions they cause.  

And I can barely finish reading through those frivilous lawsuits because I get so annoyed with people.


----------



## ommigosh (Mar 16, 2005)

It seems that those cases are actually bogus examples.  They have been doing the rounds for a while and are apparently not true.
see http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html


----------



## Princess Ivy (Mar 17, 2005)

ommigosh said:
			
		

> It seems that those cases are actually bogus examples. They have been doing the rounds for a while and are apparently not true.
> see http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html


The awards may be bogus, but believe me the law suits are not. I worked in the insurance industry, and these cases were handed out for us to look at iro Liability insurance and insane discisions. Even although these cases were american, when looking at insurance law, we take every ruling in the US and UK into account.


			
				Circus Cranium said:
			
		

> I was thinking more in terms of the over used insanity plea though, as far as responsiblity goes.


So I figured, but I was to lazy to go looking for them, when i know where these details are in plain sight and very funny while clearly illustrating my point 


			
				Circus Cranium said:
			
		

> Princess Ivy, where can we see some of your Crime Fiction?


At the moment, I'm 15000 words into my first crime novel, and only my lecturer and I are gonna see it before it goes to the editor 
One of my short stories, The Fox and The Crone is curently in the critiques section of the forum for general bashing about


----------



## Ashen Shugar (Mar 17, 2005)

With regards to the insanity plea, I know it is abused by criminals, but at the end of the day so long as they are removed from society, I don't much care where they do their time. In Australia, we don't really try and "treat" the mentally ill so much as simply medicate them. If a crim wants to spend his time a drugged-up One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest style character I don't object. Just as long as he's removed from society.


----------



## Space Monkey (Mar 17, 2005)

Ashen Shugar said:
			
		

> In Australia, we don't really try and "treat" the mentally ill so much as simply medicate them. If a crim wants to spend his time a drugged-up One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest style character I don't object. Just as long as he's removed from society.


I presume (hope) you're just talking about the criminal element of the mentally ill?


----------



## Ashen Shugar (Mar 17, 2005)

Not from my experience. I have been to numerous such places (not as a patient yet...), and have only ever seen highly medicated patients. How anyone could be "treated" while in such a state is impossible. Drugs are the only answer as far as the institutions are concerned.


----------



## ommigosh (Mar 17, 2005)

Princess Ivy said:
			
		

> The awards may be bogus, but believe me the law suits are not. I worked in the insurance industry, and these cases were handed out for us to look at iro Liability insurance and insane discisions. Even although these cases were american, when looking at insurance law, we take every ruling in the US and UK into account.



Hang on a minute (and sorry for drifting the topic a bit but this worries me somewhat).
I really don't know if these are fake insurance claim stories or not.  Granted, the Stella Awards site certainly says they don't originate from there and they are not genuine stella awards.  It goes on to say that the stories themselves are long debunked fabrications and that ridiculously, some newspapers still report them as fact.  It says even Snopes has failed to find any evidence for them being real.

But if they really are false stories and UK insurance companies are taking them seriously..........


----------



## Ashen Shugar (Mar 18, 2005)

One effect these stories definitely have is to encourage people to make such absurd claims genuinely believing they will be financially rewarded. I live in a small town, the primary school has about 120 kids from kindy to year 6. A very obese woman fell over in the school grounds, and is trying to sue because there was a slight slope in the ground. Mmmm. Nothing to do with the fact she is overweight and as such over balanced. Hope she not only loses, but has to pay costs for the schools legal bill. It's lunacy.


----------



## Circus Cranium (Mar 18, 2005)

I still think taking the tobacco companies to court because cigarettes made you sick is dumb, but that's probably a whole other can of worms. And an obese woman a couple of years ago tried to sue MacDonalds for making her fat.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Mar 18, 2005)

i've heard whispers that quite a few people are planning (they may already have started) to launch a class action suite against MacDonalds for causing health problems.

And believe me, in the insurance industy, public liability claims can be absurdly ridiculous. However, suing tobacco companies is a different thing altoghther. I wouldn't, because I knew the risks before I started smoking. But what of the mother of a friend of mine. She died seven years ago of emphasima caused by smoking. It should be noted that at the time she began smoking, in the fifties, nothing of the harmful sideeffects was known. In fact, she started smoking on the advice of her doctors as an aid in weight loss. At that time, the tobacco companies already had the warnings, knew what they were selling. The legislation an campaigns to make consumers aware of those effects weren't to start for many years. She was adicted, and by the time she managed to stop, it was to late. I feel that she would have had a genuine case against those companies, had she been well enough to take that action.

And if not the tobacco companies, what of drugs manufacturers? The terrible thylidimide (yes i know i can't spell) case. The women who took that to stop morning sickness had no idea what it would do to them. That case is also not long settled. Another friend of my family had to fight that one until he was in his fourties! The companies responsible for this sort of outrage should take responsibility for their actions, just as individuals should.


----------



## Neon (Mar 18, 2005)

I've always laughed at products such as tobacco and alcohol which deliberately tell you not to use their product, but people really don't care.  Perhaps they're simply taking advantage of the reverse psychology adage (i'll tell you not to do it, so you'll do it anyway).


----------



## Michael (Mar 21, 2005)

Ashen Shugar said:
			
		

> Even of a person can be deemed to be incapable of understanding right or wrong, if their actions constitute a threat to themselves or their fellow man, they need to be placed in an environment of control to prevent this behaviour, regardless of their comprehension.
> So whether it be jail or a mental facility, their removal from society is the only feasible result. I know people will say with medication they can be reintegrated but honestly, would you like to live next door to a person with mental health issues who has injured / killed in the past, and hope he took his medication today, that he hasn't developed a tolerance for the drugs or that physical illness has reduced the effectiveness of the chemicals - I wouldn't, and I certainly wouldn't let my kids anywhere near this kind of person.


 
Sensible, of course, but please do remember those with mental health concerns who have _not_ committed violent crimes and give them some benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Michael (Mar 21, 2005)

Ashen Shugar said:
			
		

> Because they do not believe their behaviour is wrong does not mean they are not responsible for their actions. They are aware it is illegal to indulge this behaviour. They may disagree with the law, but if they choose to break it, they are responsible for their actions. As for discrimination, to a degree they are correct. They did not choose to be attracted to children, and here is society telling them if they indulge their desires they will be prosecuted. None the less, they are aware of the situation and have a choice to make, and must accept the responsibility for their actions. If they do not like the law, petition to have it changed through the correct channels. I don't like their chances though.


 
I really don't care if they "chose" the lifestyle or not--if an adult is "attracted" to _my_ child, he/she had better _not_ touch him--period.  I've heard they also like to argue that it doesn't harm the children.  Take it from me--that's a load and a half.  When the child is small enough, there is often _definite_ physical injury. It isn't society's fault the child grows up with emotional problems, either--its the molester's fault.  Why?  Because very often it is a person the child trusts and loves, and the child doesn't know what's happening, why its happening, or what to think.  As far as I'm concerned, the actions of such an adult--who should know better--is a _betrayal_ of that trust and love.

However, I find the notion rather dubious that it is not a choice.  As far as I know, the so-called "gay gene" has not yet been discovered, and I seriously do not believe there is a "pedophile gene."  Of course, I do not have any qualms about homosexuality--because its between consenting *adults*.  Sorry, can't help myself with this one.  Please allow to stress one more time: *adults*--not children.

I'm not going to define "adult" just now unless someone asks, because I have two definitions.


----------



## Michael (Mar 21, 2005)

I said:
			
		

> We're all responsible for our actions, and society makes it plain that certain actions will be punished by society.
> 
> So it's our choice.
> 
> ...


 
Unfotunately, Brian, I think you're right (oh, sorry, this is my third post--I'll wait before posting here again).  Even if there's a biochemical imbalance involved, as long as a person remains conscious of his/her choices, that person is responsible.  Psychosis, on the other hand, may make the issue of responsibility more difficult.  In that case, someone else must accept responsibility for the person with the illness.

An aside: Someone once told me that AA teaches people not to accept responsibility for their actions.  That could not be further from the truth, however.  The AA way is to accept responsibility and even consequences when necessary _and_ to make a radical change in life.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Mar 21, 2005)

Michael said:
			
		

> An aside: Someone once told me that AA teaches people not to accept responsibility for their actions. That could not be further from the truth, however. The AA way is to accept responsibility and even consequences when necessary _and_ to make a radical change in life.


Although I am not an alcoholic I have read their blue book, and have always felt that it is that manual to life that people always go on about not having. That book really did change my life and ways of dealing with and viewing the world. 
So Amen to that.


----------



## Ashen Shugar (Mar 22, 2005)

Hey Michael - 
I agree 100% that a child is a VICTIM of paedaphilia, and I don't think I need to express my anti-civil libertarian views again as I have successfully alienated others on these issues, but to view it from their perpective, you cannot help who you are attracted to. I could not be sexually attracted to a man, child or animal if I wanted to. I simply am not attracted to these groups. I have no control over it, it simply is and I could not change it. I presume it is the same for them. Unfortunantly for them, they will have to live and die sexually frustrated people if they want to be law abiding, "good" people, or indulge only in fantasy. So long as there is no victim, I don't care what they think about.

On the mental health issue, I stand by my statement that if someone is a danger to themselves or others, they need to be placed in a controlled environment. If they are not in this category, I am not referring to them. Do you disagree with this?


----------



## Space Monkey (Mar 22, 2005)

I disagree with the idea that drugs are the only way - however, you did say that was as far as the institutions are concerned.
Sometimes, a little support is all it takes to stop someone from being a danger to anyone including themselves.  In many cases, support in their own homes is adequate.  Institutions often take away basic human rights, which is why someone should only be institutionalized as a very last resort.
There's a world of difference between supporting someone and controlling them, and I'm against controlled environments unless every other avenue has been tried and failed.


----------



## Michael (Mar 22, 2005)

Space Monkey said:
			
		

> I disagree with the idea that drugs are the only way - however, you did say that was as far as the institutions are concerned.
> Sometimes, a little support is all it takes to stop someone from being a danger to anyone including themselves. In many cases, support in their own homes is adequate. Institutions often take away basic human rights, which is why someone should only be institutionalized as a very last resort.
> There's a world of difference between supporting someone and controlling them, and I'm against controlled environments unless every other avenue has been tried and failed.


 
Wow.  I could not have said it better, Space Monkey.


----------



## Michael (Mar 22, 2005)

Circus Cranium said:
			
		

> I still think taking the tobacco companies to court because cigarettes made you sick is dumb, but that's probably a whole other can of worms. And an obese woman a couple of years ago tried to sue MacDonalds for making her fat.


 
Actually, I have to agree with you, and I'm a smoker.  By the time I started smoking, many of the adverse long-term side effects were already widespread knowledge.  I knew at least that cigarettes were addictive and caused cancers and cardiovascular disease.  I made my choice and I have to live with it (or, unfortunately, die with it).  On the other hand, although I'm not sure about the ethics of suing tobacco companies, I still think _something_ should be done about them.  One step for me, of course, would be to quit.

Arrrgh!  I want to.  It may seem easy for some people, as it did for my step-father, but it just isn't the same for everyone.  I actually _did_ stop once for about a year and a half.  Picking up the first cigarette was where I went wrong.  Since then, every time I've tried to quit has ended in utter failure.

So, anyway, I must accept the consequences of my choices and maybe should not seek monetary restitution, but tobacco corporations should also in some way be held accountable for knowingly profiting by killing their customers.  They knew before everyone else; they had secretly increased the nicotine content for many years to make it more addictive; and they add substances for "flavor" and "preservatives" that were known poisons to begin with.  Maybe I won't sue since I knew all of this when I started, but I also will not deny that tobaco companies make their fortune by murdering their customers--legally.


----------



## Michael (Mar 22, 2005)

Ashen Shugar said:
			
		

> Hey Michael -
> I agree 100% that a child is a VICTIM of paedaphilia, and I don't think I need to express my anti-civil libertarian views again as I have successfully alienated others on these issues, but to view it from their perpective, you cannot help who you are attracted to. I could not be sexually attracted to a man, child or animal if I wanted to. I simply am not attracted to these groups. I have no control over it, it simply is and I could not change it. I presume it is the same for them. Unfortunantly for them, they will have to live and die sexually frustrated people if they want to be law abiding, "good" people, or indulge only in fantasy. So long as there is no victim, I don't care what they think about.
> 
> On the mental health issue, I stand by my statement that if someone is a danger to themselves or others, they need to be placed in a controlled environment. If they are not in this category, I am not referring to them. Do you disagree with this?


 
Nah, not at all. It's actually perfectly reasonable, all of it. It seems you understood me, and thanks.

Since I happen to have friends who are gay, however, I do tend to at least accept the validity of their belief that they were born gay. To tell the truth, I don't have enough information to draw any reasonable consclusions about it. I used to think I did but I've changed my mind. Before, it was based on what I thought was a biological viewpoint, as I referred to the sex chromosomes, x and y, since the male chromosone appears to me as a mutation that occurred in animals before humankind evolved. Therefore, I thought that maybe everyone was born bisexual, as the male is the mutation of the original sex--female. It may have been a fair hypothesis, but there are too many other variables to consider. So now I think its quite possible that there _is_ a gay gene, I just have some doubts.


----------



## Ashen Shugar (Mar 23, 2005)

Trying to justify everything from a scietific view will only give you a headache as we simply don't know enough. My hypothesis runs along spiritual lines so this is probably not the forum for it. From the personal perspective though, why would you choose to be gay etc when your life would probably have less stress to be hetero? I don't think their is any choice in attraction.


----------



## Ashen Shugar (Mar 23, 2005)

Space Monkey said:
			
		

> I disagree with the idea that drugs are the only way - however, you did say that was as far as the institutions are concerned.
> Sometimes, a little support is all it takes to stop someone from being a danger to anyone including themselves. In many cases, support in their own homes is adequate. Institutions often take away basic human rights, which is why someone should only be institutionalized as a very last resort.
> There's a world of difference between supporting someone and controlling them, and I'm against controlled environments unless every other avenue has been tried and failed.


 
I am not a supporter of drugs - in my opinion they tend to mask the symptoms, not address the issue, and are used in many situations where they are not necessary. I do acknowledge the need for drugs in certain situations however. I am definitely opposed to the way institutions abuse medication, and from what I've seen, the patients become walking zombies which dehumanises them. Some people need to be controlled thus for the protection of society. The majority should never see the inside of one of these places.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Mar 23, 2005)

Space Monkey said:
			
		

> I disagree with the idea that drugs are the only way - however, you did say that was as far as the institutions are concerned.
> Sometimes, a little support is all it takes to stop someone from being a danger to anyone including themselves. In many cases, support in their own homes is adequate.


I'm sorry, but until you have lived with a person suffering a mental illness/personality disorder, you have no idea the amount of 'control' that they exert on their surroundings. There is no way for a normal person to support them without proper help, councelling, and yes, in some cases, medication. The person more likely than not will end up resenting the 'normalness' of the rest of the home, and often takes it out on the nearest responsible adult. and in absense of an adult, on the nearest child.


			
				Space Monkey said:
			
		

> Institutions often take away basic human rights, which is why someone should only be institutionalized as a very last resort.
> There's a world of difference between supporting someone and controlling them, and I'm against controlled environments unless every other avenue has been tried and failed.


all sane environments involve a certain amount of control. A normal home exibits a large amount of control and organisation. Please, I'm not on to institutionalise anyone whos different, but there are of cases where it is nessessary. And the rights of the people who have to support the mentaly ill person have to count as well. Yes the person needs help and support, but if they are not prepared to admit it (as so many of them aren't), then the family have no option but to move away, for their own safety and sanity


----------



## Space Monkey (Mar 23, 2005)

Princess Ivy said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but until you have lived with a person suffering a mental illness/personality disorder, you have no idea the amount of 'control' that they exert on their surroundings.


 Please, don't make assumptions that I haven't or don't.


> There is no way for a normal person to support them without proper help, councelling, and yes, in some cases, medication.


 I never mentioned an untrained support worker. I never mentioned a family member either, and I appreciate the unavoidable need in certain cases for medication. I've already stated that, however I stand firmly by my opinion that is should be the last resort.


> All sane environments involve a certain amount of control. A normal home exibits a large amount of control and organisation. Please, I'm not on to institutionalise anyone whos different, but there are of cases where it is nessessary. And the rights of the people who have to support the mentaly ill person have to count as well. Yes the person needs help and support, but if they are not prepared to admit it (as so many of them aren't), then the family have no option but to move away, for their own safety and sanity


 As I said before, there's a world of difference between support and control. Organisation isn't the same either; by control I mean filling people full of drugs to alter their behaviour when other means would work without. 
If a family can't cope, then there are many steps and measures they can take before resorting to creating a doped up, institutionalized zombie. The UK government will fund residential placements and support workers, and such places are out there without a lock on a door or a drug in sight.

Some people require more patience than others, and far too often people have no patience and will shout 'they need drugs' before even making a real effort at teaching positive behaviours without the need for anything but time and effort. I've seen this coming from paid support workers, and scarily, these are the ones who fill out progress reports negatively that get passed onto the psychologists who determine from second-hand experience who needs drugs and who doesn't.

Again, I realise that some do, but there are far too many who are drugged up and could have a better quality of life without. We're talking about people here who have done nothing wrong being treated like they're a burden.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Mar 23, 2005)

Hmm, I think that I am a bit to close to this particular line of the discussion at the moment. 

I withdraw (without conceding )


----------



## Michael (Mar 24, 2005)

Ashen Shugar said:
			
		

> Trying to justify everything from a scietific view will only give you a headache as we simply don't know enough. My hypothesis runs along spiritual lines so this is probably not the forum for it. From the personal perspective though, why would you choose to be gay etc when your life would probably have less stress to be hetero? I don't think their is any choice in attraction.


 
As far as the scientific view, my point exactly--I just don't have enough information.  I also have a spiritual viewpoint but I will follow your example.


----------



## Ashen Shugar (Mar 25, 2005)

I would be interested in your spiritual hypothesis  - is there a more appropriate forum?


----------



## Leto (Mar 25, 2005)

Comparative religions ? i think the link is in either I Brian, either Alexa sig.


----------



## Michael (Mar 25, 2005)

Ashen Shugar said:
			
		

> I would be interested in your spiritual hypothesis - is there a more appropriate forum?


 
I think there are threads here in Chronicles where it is permissable to engage in spiritual topics. I'll look around.  Otherwise, Leto, you are correct. It has been been a long time since I even tried to post something at Comparative Religions.


----------



## Ashen Shugar (Mar 27, 2005)

If you find a place to post, let me know & we'll throw some theories around.


----------



## Michael (Mar 29, 2005)

Cool.  I'll let you know and direct you from here, if I can, or if someone more on the ball does not beat me to it.


----------

