If say personality 2 commits a crime, should personality 1 be held accountable?
138688
I actually asked a similar question of a friend in law school. My question was about another psychological disorder called a dissociative fugue. In either case, in the US legal system, a person with a legitimate psychological disorder cannot be held accountable for a crime committed by another personality. However, in the legal system, a person with multiple personalities can be placed in a mental institution. David/Sam should probably be seeking medical attention, especially if one of his/her personalities is violent.
438898
Umm.. responsiblity is a duty, accountability is being held responsible or liable for something
655922
NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! \n\nNo one is responsible for your action but you. \n\nIf you were duped into believing someone else was great and you emulated them and it leads to trouble or if you find out that this person you thought was great is in fact a liar and not worth your time, then anything that you have done foolish or wrong to win their approval or emulate them is your won responsibly. Blaming them is NOT the right way to go. It is unhealthy and immature. You should look at yourself and figure out why you needed them in the first place and then overcome your own personal issues. Then you will be at the road to proper attitude. \n\nI hope this helps.
696701
Of course you have someone in mind when you ask that question.  So I would go to the City or Town Hall where that person lives and ask for any information on that person.  Crimes commited in that town will be public record and will state the offender's name.
191737
Depends on the severity of crime and their mental stability. If they were truly insane then yes some sympathy but sometimes I think no.
95893
motive, intent and execution of crime.
921840
Any crime that has someone losing out or suffering when they shouldn't should be reporting. It's not just a legal thing, it's conscience as well. I guess if it was a relative or best friend you obviously wouldn't report them.\nI would take a stab at it being every-ones duty to report crimes and illegal activities that they may witness...\n\nMake the police earn their pay ;o)\n\nJems x
55456
Every first year law student should be able to tell you that most crimes have two components: (1) the actus reus (latin for guilty act) and (2) mens rea (latin for guilty mind).\n\nIn most jurisctions, the insanity defense requires that the defendant be "under such defect of reason from disease of the mind" as to not realize what they were doing or why it was a crime.  Sometims this is referred to as the "right/wrong" test.\n\nIn many crimes, out society makes a distinction based on the intent.  For example, premeditated murder is punished more severly that other types of murder.  Our society has made a judgment that people with mental defects who commit wrongful acts should not be punished as severely as those who intentionally do wrong things, if punished at all.\n\nYou also need to consider some of purposes of our justice system.  If you see punishment as the primary purpose of our justice sytem, a person who cannot understand the wrongful nature of their acts will not understand the punishment.  If you believe rehabilitation is the primary purpose, prison will not rehability someone with a mental illness.  Thus, we have alternate methods of dealing with crimes commit by the mentally impaired.
348144
Yes...they committed a crime, and should not get away with it just because you share the same blood line. The other family members should understand that what the person did was damaging to you .... and by not prosecuting you are only enabling him to do it again.
480761
It helps you establish a pattern of behavior, an 'M.O.' for the suspect.  For example, if they had been stealing cars, wouldn't it be easier to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was guilty, since he had done it before.  Is it just coincidental that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time 2 times?
788207
To constitute a criminal act two things are required:\n\n1. Guilty intention \n2. Guilty act \n\nThere is a defense of "accident" in Criminal Law. So if you have done an act accidentally without any guilty intention then you can't be held guilty but nevertheless if the degree of that act is very high then you may be arrested. What you have mentioned is not so serious an act.
1020740
guilty till proven otherwise. ?
1182371
The law says that you have to report if the person is being abused, is abusing someone, or is abusing themselves. At least that's what I have to follow...
150886
Certainly - there is no other choice.\n\nI would not stoop to their level and reciprocate with a similar act or with violence, but I would not condone such behavior or let the offender think that such behavior is consequence-free. \n\nI would contact the police and if it were an arrestable offence, I would pursue legal action to the fullest extent.
727642
It's justified in cases where a person represents a severe threat to society if he or she ever got out.  That includes the mentally ill if you'd refer to a psycho killer as mentally ill.
619248
1 count of assualt with intent per offender. first degree misemaender
991992
NOPE..\nmorever it depends on your thinking.. people sometimes commit heinous crimes and inside their mind justify the act and never blame there self or conciousness.\nand there are some people who have made a small mistake spend their entire life worrying and fretting..\n\ni don't think that i have committed any serious mistake which has greatly hurt some one.. \namends can be made for all mistakes except rape and murder which are irreversible..