[eugenekop]

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.

[Eran]

I generally advocate strict liability, meaning that a crime (i.e. an unwelcome invasion of another person's property) makes the criminal liable for the full damage associated with the crime.

Note that I am not making a distinction between an intentional crime, an act of gross negligence and an act of mere negligence.

In your first scenario, I am not sure I would go as far as being liable for the suicide. Presumably, you would be liable for the damages that made the owner broker. In other words, if you were caught in time, and made to pay, the owner wouldn't have gone broke. But the act of suicide wasn't a necessary, unavoidable or even likely and expect consequence of the robbery. It was an act of choice by the store owner.

In the second case, I think you are liable, as the consequence could easily have been foreseen.

In the third case, I think the terrorist is definitely guilty if he coerced the human shield. We have to be careful to distinguish between a human shield and collateral damage. If the terrorist happens to live in a crowded neighbourhood, and launched a missile from that neighbourhood, and the opponent used a 1 ton bomb which killed the terrorist's neighbours, I think whoever dropped the bomb is liable.

As for the fourth case, I think self-defence actions that result in the death of innocent people are first the responsibility of the person engaged in self-defence. They can also be the responsibility of the aggressor. In other words, we can have overlapping responsibilities. In a court, the victims could sue the defender, and it would be up to the defender to recover the damages from the original aggressor.

[eugenekop]

Thank you for your answers.
I noticed that you didn't attempt to set a clear rule in either of these cases. You offered a range of possible solutions rather than clear cut rules. I think we libertarians usually try to generalize and come up with a small set of principles rather than broad and intuitive answers. I'm wondering why you didn't attempt to do this here.

Naturally in a free society the law will be decided by the market, but the market can also decide very unlibertarian things, and we don't want that. That's why I think its important to come up with clear libertarian principles to legal issues.

[Eran]

You are right.

The issues you raise are not specifically libertarian issues. They arise in all legal systems. Resolving them should indeed be done based on clear cut rules, but identifying and specifying them is up to legal experts, of which I am not one.

Similar issues could be raised regarding precise limits for liability, validity of contract, rules of evidence, etc.

Absent legislators, such rules would be adopted by leading courts following common law process, and aided by advice from various experts, including experienced judges, scholars, etc.

Ultimately, a competitive court market will shift legal norms in a direction representing views within society.

[eugenekop]

You are not legal expert, but neither is anyone else who is currently considered a legal expert in our society. The so called legal experts are those who put people in jail for trading marijuana. I think we need to develop a libertarian common law, otherwise the current common law will be used, and its definitely not libertarian.

Anyway, 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.

[Phred]

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?

Liable? Certainly. That is not to say that a rational legal system need assign a punishment to you above and beyond the punishment for the original crime of robbery.

2.
Another example. If a planet an evidence (sic) to incriminate someone, and that someone was found guilty and hanged, am I liable for the hanging?

Certainly! Good grief, man... how could any rational person believe otherwise?

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?

Absolutely. Again, no rational person could believe otherwise.

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?

Nope. The liability for the deaths of the bystanders is clearly that of the one initiating the violence, not the one defending from it.



Phred

[SecretSquirrel]

Liability in a moral (not necessarily legal) sense is very easy to logically deduce

One is liable for an outcome if and only if he is the last actor with agency to willfully influence the act leading to it. If I set a rabid dog on a bound prisoner I am liable for the dog mauling him because the dog does not have agency as a beast. If I instead order someone to do it, it is him who is ultimately liable. Unless I physically coerced my subordinate, he could have chosen to refuse to carry out the order or even to attack me instead to prevent my depravity.

For your examples:

1) Clearly not liable. No one makes a guy kill himself except himself. You burglarised his property, you didnt even use violence on his person. Thats where your liability ends

2) The person liable for murdering (sorry, "executing") a condemned man is the piece of human shit flipping that switch -- the executioner -- and him alone. I fail to see how putting objects or data somewhere, even with intent to cause others to make the wrong conclusion, can have any relation of liability to coldblooded murder of a helpless prisoner.

3) The terrorist is guilty of aggravated kidnap, and probably a whole host of offenses. The soldier is guilty of manslaughter for killing the human shield recklessly. We must hold ourselves above evil and its methods if we are to fight it, sorry. If the range was too great or the conditions made it impossible to see for sure whats going on, it may seem a bit murky to judge, but remember what every firearms instructor teaches on the first day: When you point a gun, make damn sure that you know what you are aiming at and that you are willing to kill it.

4) If you fire an explosive in an area with people and they die because of that, you are liable for that, unless your neighborhood explicitly waives that liability in the housing association contract . In this case there are two jointly liable parties

[Arkady2009]

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?

No you are not. It is not your problem if the store owner goes broke, and it is his actions that caused his own death.

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?

You mean 'if I plant evidence to incriminate someone'? Yes, you will be liable as it was your actions that focused attentions on the 'victim'.

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?

Yes. Mistakes happen, hostages are shot all the time. It would be the fault of the terrorist for putting the opponent in such a situation that they shot a human shield by mistake.

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?

Both would be responsible. Firing the first rocket puts the life of the resident at risk, and he/she has the right to fight back. However, if the resident knows that his rocket could cause the deaths of other lives, then he is responsible for the deaths he causes.

[Eran]

While I am not yet in a position to offer a single, comprehensive theory of legal liability in borderline cases, I can point out a clear difference between by theory and that of SS.

He states:

One is liable for an outcome if and only if he is the last actor with agency to willfully influence the act leading to it.

While I would claim:
One is liable for an outcome that was both reasonably foreseen and intended by one's wilful action.

Additionally, one is liable (under strict liability) for a result of one's actions (or omissions) to the degree to which one did, or could have prevented, harmful violation of another's property rights through control of one's own property.

This last one is a bit shaky, and I would welcome comments on how to tighten the definition. It needs to distinguish between (1) a tree falls from your property and destroys your neighbour's house (guilty) and (2) you could call the police to alert them of a burglar breaking into your neighbour's home, but chose not to (not guilty).

An important point to both SS and eugenekop (the former explicitly, the latter implicitly) assume that there is, or ought to be, a single party responsible for each criminal act. In fact, there are often multiple criminal parties, with potentially complex relation between them.

Thus, A can cause B to violate C's property rights in such a way that C has a direct claim on B, and B has a subsidiary claim on A. This is the case when A hires B to kill C, or when A threatens B and uses C as a human shield, and B harms C as an integral part of defending himself.

Allowing for those more complex liability structures means we don't have to choose between culpable parties, but can more often include multiple relevant parties, each of which is, to some extent responsible.

[SecretSquirrel]

Eran. A person as capable of fine logical discrimination as you should realize that there is a difference between ethical responsibility (as the thread title asks about) and legal/contractual liability.

It is almost impossible for there to be more than one party ethically responsible for an act. Even in a pure seeming example of that, like a firing squad, it is actually several separate though simultaneous cases of deliberate assault with deadly force/murder. I have sat here thinking hard about this and I am finding it difficult to conceive of a scenario where multiple individual actors are ethically responsible for the same act. The only reason I won't rule it out is mere aversion to jumping to conclusions

Meanwhile, legal or contractual frameworks can easily allow for multiple joint or several liability for the purposes of punishment or recovery.

[Eran]

I have sat here thinking hard about this and I am finding it difficult to conceive of a scenario where multiple individual actors are ethically responsible for the same act.

We are not talking about shared responsibility for the same act. Acts are individual. However, it is very commonplace for a given outcome to be the result of multiple separate acts.

Both ethical and legal responsibility flow from an act designed and successful in bringing about a criminal result (i.e. a violation of property rights). Each acting person is personally responsible for his own individual act to the extent and degree to which the act was deliberately designed, and materially contributed towards such right violation.

I am pretty sure you have read before, but still let me bring again the example of the midget in the tank. Imagine a person who buys a tank purporting to be fully automatic and remote controlled. The person uses the remote control to navigate the tank and fire a shell that kills his enemy. Clearly he is a murderer.

Now suddenly it is discovered that, unbeknownst to the murderer, the tank was a fraud. There was really a midget inside the tank, seeing the navigation instructions, looking through a screen, but driving the tank himself.

Did the murderer suddenly become innocent, merely because there was another agent between himself and the ultimate killing?

[eugenekop]

Clearly he is not a murderer. He attempted murder, but he didn't actually hurt anyone. The midget did, and only he is culpable.

[Eran]

How is the presence of the midget, of whom the murderer wasn't even aware, at all morally relevant?

And would you find him guilty of attempted murder then?

[eugenekop]

What is the moral difference between reckless driving and actually hitting someone? The reckless driver could have hit someone, he didn't just by accident. But in the eyes of the law there is huge difference, and rightfully so.

Well, I don't think I would have found him *guilty* of attempted murder, but the victim could definitely kill him in self defense even long after the accident itself. He is clearly a threat.

[SecretSquirrel]

The tank guy had an intent to kill at the moment of issuing the "order" via the phony remote control, and a reasonable belief that his actions would and did kill the target (before finding out the truth about the midget). This establishes 3 of the 4 necessary elements for a crime, namely intent, action, and concurrence of intent+action. However the fourth element -- causation -- is missing. The test for causation is whether or not the harm would have occured in the absence of the defendant's actions. Clearly in this case, the defendant's actions had no actual bearing on what the weapon did, because it was piloted by another individual who had actual control unbeknownst to him.

So legally, he cannot be found guilty. He may still be found legally guilty of conspiracy or attempt but not of murder.

ETHICS would agree in this case in my opinion. He is guilty of unethical thoughts and intent, but his actions did not constitute a murder. This is how I see it.... if you want certainty, the final verdict would have to be reached by a Higher Authority.

The midget himself is guilty for the actual crime of murder. He knowingly and willfully killed a guy and wasnt coerced into it. Ethically, and legally guilty.

NOTE: my legal knowledge, to the extent that I have any, is limited to common-law systems of jurisprudence. I neither know much nor give much of a shit about civil code systems.

[Lexington]

Nope. The liability for the deaths of the bystanders is clearly that of the one initiating the violence, not the one defending from it.

So, in other words, if I'm forced to act in self defense, I can kill an unlimited number of people to defend myself, if it just happens to be collateral?

[Phred]

So, in other words, if I'm forced to act in self defense, I can kill an unlimited number of people to defend myself, if it just happens to be collateral?

You of course have the responsibility to use whichever weapon you have handy which is likely to cause less collateral damage than others. If you can take out the aggressor with a sniper rifle it is irresponsible to instead use a rocket launcher. But if a rocket launcher is all you have, and it is kill or be killed, so be it. It is the one shooting at you who is morally responsible for any deaths. This is so uncontroversial an issue that it's painful to watch the insane "logical" contortions some of the participants in this thread (the OP included) are tying themselves into.

No wonder so many idiots are in charge of countries - look at the beliefs of those who vote for them!



Phred

[Lexington]

You of course have the responsibility to use the weapon you have handy which will likely cause less collateral damage than others. If you can take out the aggressor with a sniper rifle it is irresponsible to instead use a rocket launcher. But if a rocket launcher is all you have, and it is kill or be killed, so be it. It is the one shooting at you who is morally responsible for any deaths.

That's half of my point. But how about this:

There's a gunman on a train with the rifle trained on you. He will kill you in the next instant if you don't derail the train and send it careening into the canyon below and kill the say 120 passengers on board.

I imagine I could come up with some more immaculate scenario where it's your life vs an entire city or something, but...I'm not comfortable saying that I have the right to kill 120 people just to save my own life.

[Lexington]

Ooh, wait, how about this:

You were taking a walk in the woods, fell down a cliff, break your back, and end up lying on the road at the bottom. You can't move your legs and get out of the road. You have a gun or rocket launcher or something and there's a car coming at you and the only way to save yourself is to blow up the people in the car. There are say 5 people in the car. Does it matter if the driver intends to kill you or not?

i.e., if the driver intends to kill you, it's like the OP's story, and the other 4 in the car are collateral damage

If the driver is oblivious and just can't see you, then you'd be killing 5 innocent people.

Does the driver's mere intent make it moral to kill all 5 of them? Or can you blow them all up in both situations?

[Eran]

The test for causation is whether or not the harm would have occured in the absence of the defendant's actions.

Indeed.

Logically applying the test, we can clearly see that the harm would certainly have not happened in the absence of the defendant's actions. So the defendant's action caused the harm.

So we have intent, action, concurrence and causation.

That a third party could have prevented the harm through pursuing a different set of actions is neither here nor there.

Btw, how would you analyse the following scenarios:
1. A terrorist is sending a letter-bomb that kills its intended victim. The mail carrier delivers the letter, but is unaware of its content
2. A doctor changes the chart on a patient to indicate he ought to be administered a substance he knows, but the administering nurse doesn't know, will kill him. The nurse administers the substance and the patient dies
3. Similar, but now the doctor winks at the nurse, and she understands the patient will indeed die.

It seems difficult to blame the mail-man in the first scenario, and thus exonerate the terrorist. The second scenario is designed to be morally equivalent to the first. In the final scenario, the wink makes the nurse complicit. Does it then exonerate the doctor?


edit:
Here is a proposed principle to use for analysing "collateral damage":
These are principles based on my understanding of objective justice. Objective justice should be the principle guiding the use of legitimate force in society, though need not match 100% with, and in fact will always be a small subset of, the ethical principles guiding individuals within society. Those ethical principles are subjective and individual.

To solve seemingly difficult questions involving life and death, imagine that we can morally substitute monetary award for people's lives. Say each life is worth $5,000,000. Now replace the scenario with one involving mere monetary damage. Note that I am not suggesting it is morally permissible to kill an innocent person if you then pay their estate $5,000,000. Rather, I am suggesting using monetary substitutes to allow for impassionate consideration.

Let's go back for a moment to the cabin in the woods. To save your life, you must break into the cabin. Are you required to compensate the owner? Obviously you owe no compensation if the owner was responsible for your being lost in the first place through a violation of your rights. However, if the owner is innocent, you do owe him compensation. If you are lost due to the action of a third party, you can subsequently sue them to recover the damage you had to pay the owner. But the owner can still sue you.

The same principle applies in those life-and-death situations previously contemplated. Whenever you harm an innocent person, for any reason, you owe them (or their estate) compensation. The rule is very simple - whatever the circumstances that brought you to cause the harm, regardless of how little choice you had in the matter, or how horrible the alternative, it still remains true, by virtue of identifying the harmed person as innocent, that it would be unjust for them to suffer harm. You caused the harm through your action, and so it is up to you to make them whole.

Now, if your action was compelled by a crime committed by a third person (the criminal), you can certainly sue them for the damages you owe the party you harmed. If the harm was required to save a greater number of lives, a just system would provide you with enough resources (perhaps through the insurance policies of the people you saved) to compensate the victim's family.

Again, I am not suggesting that money can substitute for people's lives. But in extreme situations, that's the best tool we have to sort through such dilemmas.

In the last example, the determining factor will ultimately be your personal ethics. You may or may not know something about the people in the car. You may know something about your own life. How old are you? How healthy? Do you have dependants? Etc. You make your own moral call. It isn't dissimilar from the call you make as to whether to risk your life to save an innocent person drowning or trapped in a burning building.

But when the dust settles, and the issue comes to court, I would suggest that the court uses the analysis as above.