Recently there have been a few sleep-walking rapists. Since they are not conscious during the attack, they are found not guilty. They did not make the choice to rape, so they aren't guilty of the rape.
I find this perverse. If you do a crime, why should consciousness matter? If I intentionally kill a person or do so in my sleep, the result in the same.
I noticed this difference in approach in traffic law as well. A friend of the family in America ran over and killed a kid on a bike. It was determined that it was an accident, and the woman was not charged with a crime.
In Japan, accident or no accident, you're responsible. You go to jail.
Not really concerned with the laws so much as the concept of responsibility.
Individualism
John Scott:Recently there have been a few sleep-walking rapists.
Do you have a link to this story? Sounds unbelievable to me.
John Scott:I find this perverse. If you do a crime, why should consciousness matter?
Because then it is not a crime.
John Scott:If I intentionally kill a person or do so in my sleep, the result in the same.
So you don't recognize a difference between self-defense or planned homicide?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: John Scott:I find this perverse. If you do a crime, why should consciousness matter? Because then it is not a crime.
Insofar as we are discussing whether or not is should be a crime, this response kinda sorta begs the question.
Spideynw: John Scott:If I intentionally kill a person or do so in my sleep, the result in the same. So you don't recognize a difference between self-defense or planned homicide?
Of course I do. I don't recognize a difference between unjustifiable homicide and unjustifiable homicide.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085927/How-man-raped-cleared-sleepwalking.html
That's one case. There was another one in Michigan, I think. The guy in that attack used weapon, and sleep-attacked two different women.
John Scott:If you do a crime, why should consciousness matter?
It doesn't.
Who here is dumb enough to believe that he was really sleepwalking, anyway? I'd like to see multiple non-inter-referencing studies demonstrating reason to believe that such actions should be called "sleep".
Caley McKibbin: Who here is dumb enough to believe that he was really sleepwalking?
Who here is dumb enough to believe that he was really sleepwalking?
I have my doubts, but there seem to be quite a few cases popping up.Wikipedia lists two or three, and here's another one:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/34241
Sounds like bullshit, honestly.
I don't know much about sleepwalking, but it's more believable if you were sleepwalking in your own home or an environment that's common to you (like going to your fridge and eating), instead of raping someone in someone else's house.
Rape itself is a controversial issue, especially in the courts. I don't believe you can accidentally rape someone, and raping someone while unconcious just makes it seem that your unconcious self is trying to say something. How someone can be cleared of rape because they were sleepwalking makes no sense. Especially if their is a lot going on that should snap the person out of it.
This is just about the stupidist example of current-day law I've ever seen.
Do we have a victim? Yes. Do we have a person responsible? Yes. Conclusion: he should pay damages.
Either he is guilty of a crime of intention or he is guilty of a crime of neglect (I forget the technical term for that). He is responsible for his actions, NO MATTER WHAT. If he can't control his actions, then he's a psychopath. I guess if he had a secret crush on her, and his mind was in a dream-like-state, then that's unfortunate, but that doesn't change what he did.
If my car-tire blows up and I drive into someone's house, then I'm liable for damages. It's as simple as that.
It would only be justified to jail him if there is good reason to believe that he IS unable to control his actions (even if only when asleep) AND he doesn't take proper precautions to prevent himself from doing these things. In other words: if he is a threat to others.
Bert:How someone can be cleared of rape because they were sleepwalking makes no sense.
It does make sense. The jury are morons.
John Scott: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085927/How-man-raped-cleared-sleepwalking.html
Well it doesn't seem like any rape happened here. The woman ran downstairs and called the cops.
That is something I was wondering about, how hard is it to escape a sleeping rapist?
Perhaps most likely if a sleepwalking rape occurs it either wasn't sleepwalking or it wasn't rape.
EDIT: Oh wait, it says "sex had taken place" above the picture. I only started reading bellow the picture. Well scratch this post then.
Nielsio: This is just about the stupidist example of current-day law I've ever seen. Do we have a victim? Yes. Do we have a person responsible? Yes. Conclusion: he should pay damages. Either he is guilty of a crime of intention or he is guilty of a crime of neglect (I forget the technical term for that). He is responsible for his actions, NO MATTER WHAT. If he can't control his actions, then he's a psychopath. I guess if he had a secret crush on her, and his mind was in a dream-like-state, then that's unfortunate, but that doesn't change what he did. If my car-tire blows up and I drive into someone's house, then I'm liable for damages. It's as simple as that. It would only be justified to jail him if there is good reason to believe that he IS unable to control his actions (even if only when asleep) AND he doesn't take proper precautions to prevent himself from doing these things. In other words: if he is a threat to others.
Couldn't have said it better myself. IF this guy knows he has problems, and he did nothing to prevent it, it's neglect. He's responsible.
IMO I question whether or not this guy really wants to stop the behavior he's doing.
I call bullshit on "sleepwalking rape". That has to be the lamest defense I have ever heard of.
Spideynw: I call bullshit on "sleepwalking rape". That has to be the lamest defense I have ever heard of.
I agree.
The Irrelevance of Responsibility - Roderick Long
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Err question, according to the article...
Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, a defendant is guilty of rape if an attack is intentional.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085927/How-man-raped-cleared-sleepwalking.html#ixzz0hXENvYWR
When is a sexual attack not-intentional? Besides sleepwalking =p.
filc: Err question, according to the article... Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, a defendant is guilty of rape if an attack is intentional. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085927/How-man-raped-cleared-sleepwalking.html#ixzz0hXENvYWR When is a sexual attack not-intentional? Besides sleepwalking =p.
I've read some ridiculous rulings Judges have made on rape cases. I don't remember exactly, but one Judge made it so the defendant couldn't say "rape" in the trial. They'll also try to make it seem like the woman was provoking the attacker by what she was doing or wearing, or that she was drinking. Rape cases can make my head explode sometimes.
Sage: The Irrelevance of Responsibility - Roderick Long
Precisely what I was looking for. Thanks.
I hope I'm not taking things off topic but I've heard of this before, but used as a defense for murder:
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/24162--man-acquitted-of-sleepwalking-murder-running-for-school-trustee-in-durham
To answer John's question, are you asking how the non-aggression axiom applies here (you mentioned that you're not necessarily asking about the law)?
To me, it seems crazy that people do this (rape, kill etc. while they sleep) and is suspect as an alibi. But if it really is true, are they guilty of something under libertarian law?
To take a crack at this, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume that they are telling the truth, they were in fact unaware of their actions while they took place (unconscious). Let's also assume that they are not aware of this as a preexisting problem (in the case of the murder, he only did this once so there's no long standing pattern of sleep violence he needs to compensate for).
I'd say he's still guilty of aggression against a person.
Without citing any sources (I know Block covered something similar, but I think it was about drunkenness), here is how I rationalize this:
Let's make the scenario a little more complicated. Imagine a property owner using their property to start a food manufacturing business. Say that they cut corners and end up releasing food of questionable quality. The quality is so low that the food ends up killing people (assume bacteria was the end culprit or something like that). The owner is still liable for their actions even though they did not intend to harm or know that their actions would lead to harm (planning to sell crappy food is much different from planning to kill with your food).
Under a libertarian "system" the sleep killer and the crappy food maker would both be guilty of causing the death.
How to deal with that guilt is another question but I think in both cases the person is guilty of causing someone's death. And just like with theft, we don't care why they stole just that they did steal, here the two "death causers" should be responsible just as a murderer would be responsible.
Lol, I asked me people, it turns out everyone already knows all about this thing. It has its name and all, even a documentary on the "plight of sexsomniancs" that apparently everyone has seen already. And then there is this.
Now this is eerie.. I remember reading about an utterly weird disorder like this on Wikipedia yesterday, and wondering if there'd be some kind of debate on Mises about it.
John Scott:In Japan, accident or no accident, you're responsible.
Japan got so many things right for a big country. I pin it down to the presence of organizes crime and a lessened sense of religiosity.
Sage:The Irrelevance of Responsibility - Roderick Long
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.
John Scott: Recently there have been a few sleep-walking rapists. Since they are not conscious during the attack, they are found not guilty. They did not make the choice to rape, so they aren't guilty of the rape. I find this perverse. If you do a crime, why should consciousness matter? If I intentionally kill a person or do so in my sleep, the result in the same. I noticed this difference in approach in traffic law as well. A friend of the family in America ran over and killed a kid on a bike. It was determined that it was an accident, and the woman was not charged with a crime. In Japan, accident or no accident, you're responsible. You go to jail. Not really concerned with the laws so much as the concept of responsibility.
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.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Faustus: 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.
You're saying we can't put someone in jail who is being remotely controlled to murder?
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 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
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
Great reply.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strict_liability_%28criminal%29&oldid=339118517
I've heard a personal story of a person sleep driving!
Faustus: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?
Nobody should be put in jail. That is a different matter.
Thanks for the link trigli
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
OP:
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.
Cortex: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?
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.
Cortex:Prison is just one of the possible form of consequences of responsibility for a crime. It has nothing to do with the criminal responsibility.
There is no "criminal responsibility" in libertarianism.
Cortex:Unless by obsolete you acutally mean used all over the world.
By obsolete I mean outmoded.
Nielsio: You're saying we can't put someone in jail who is being remotely controlled to murder?
As defence sure. But not as punishment.
Cortex:What is "propensity to agression"?
The baby is out to get you.
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).
Caley McKibbin: By obsolete I mean outmoded.
By what exactly?
Caley McKibbin: Cortex:What is "propensity to agression"? The baby is out to get you.
Cortex: Caley McKibbin: Cortex:What is "propensity to agression"? The baby is out to get you. In other words, the baby lacks intent.
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.
Cortex: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).
Actually, that is backward. Motive is relevant; it pertains to the question of whether there is a threat of repeat.
Only causal responsibility matters, as the Long paper above says.
Cortex: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.
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.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
[email protected] | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap