Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join Similar Worlds today »

Are criminals always responsible for the crimes they commit?

If no, why not? If so, what is the line between guilty and not guilty?
ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M
I think I'd define a "criminal" as someone who knowingly broke the law, for whatever reason. Someone breaking a law they didn't know existed or by total accident I couldn't consider guilty in a moral sense.

But there's also the whole concept of the immoral law -- would you considered a person a criminal if they "illegally" helped save Jews, Gypsies, or whoever, from the totally legal but also immoral and inhumane laws of the Nazis?

In the end, I suppose it is all relative.
curiosi · 56-60, F
Stealing bread to feed your family is still considered a crime. Some of us can't blame them.
Asificair · M
not sure what you mean, not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, simply means there's insufficient evidence to convict. Its guilty or not guilty, its not guilty or innocent!
BlueClapTrap · 36-40, M
It depends on the definition of crime; I don't believe victimless crimes to be crimes, and yet, people are still arrested for these crimes on a daily basis.
Kingfish28 · 26-30, M
Yes, motive is a different issue.
MadisonBilly · 51-55, M
No, Denis Compton is.

Post Comment
27249 people following
Personal Stories, Advice, and Support
New Post
Associated Groups Category Members