I think the real answers... it doesn't matter.

Obviously, the Cornell International Law Journal is asking this question in the context of the legal system. The idea is to try to clarify the circumstances in which someone is to be considered unaccountable for their actions.

Within the legal system, there are lots of attempts - often successful - to get a defendant declared unaccountable... abused as a child, under the influence of mind-altering drugs, and there's a general assumption that we should only be held accountable for those actions we "really" control.

But to me, that seems nonsense. We create laws to delineate acceptable vs unacceptable behavior. For me, it should go without saying that with rights come responsibilities. In western democracies, we're granted a wide range of fundamental rights - and those must come with some responsibilities. The individual should be responsible for their own actions - even if those actions aren't under their direct control.

We have a rule - no murder. But sometimes, we decide that, say, an abused spouse shouldn't be held to that standard - they were "driven" to the murder. I personally don't think that's an adequate excuse. The whole point of the law is to say, "don't do that" - to the extent that you, as a free person, have the responsibility to figure out how to not do that.

You don't get to punch somebody in the mouth just because he spit on your car. You don't get to shoot other drivers - regardless of how much "road rage" you feel.

It's part of being a free adult. It's your subconscious - you get to figure out how to keep it under control.

Anyway, that's my two cents. :)

Star This to Save in Your Profile