Are you personally responsible?

[David Larsen]

(disclaimer) For the record. I haven't committed any crimes, so this isn't my confession! LOL.

Are you personally responsible? Let's say you committed a crime, you get caught, you confess to the police, you go to court. Are you personally responsible? Should you stand up to the judge and say "your honor, I am personally responsible for my actions and I wish to plead guilty" "I alone am personally responsible for my actions and am not going to blame my parents, the police, my boss, my spouse, chemical abuse substances, alcoholic products, or a specific political affiliation" "I am personally responsible and know that there are consequences for my actions and will accept the punishment you deem necessary".

How many times do you see in the news where this happens? Probably NEVER!

Someone may do something wrong and confess to the crime, but later change to a not-guilty plea, drag out the process, lie and deny the entire thing, and blame someone else.

How about the guy that wants to plead guilty to a particular offense, but the judge won't accept the plea. The judge then requires the due process movements to take place so that the suspect "knows what he is doing".

I would like to think that I would stand up and be personally responsible for my actions if I do something wrong. Have I always done that, I know I haven't? Is there a short circuit that keeps us from being personally responsible?

If I put my hand in a saw blade, should I blame the saw manufacturer because they didn't warn me that I could cut off my fingers? I tripped on a crack in a sidewalk in front of your place of business and fell down and broke my arm. I put my cellphone in the microwave to dry it out after it got wet and it exploded. Etc.

How many lawsuits would there be if we accepted personal responsibility and said "It was my fault and I accept personal responsibility"? How many court cases would fly through the system if we accepted personal responsibility?

The average time a person is in jail for the death sentence is 10 years by the time they go through all the processes and appeals. If you plead guilty and accept personal responsibility can you walk down the hall and get your lethal injection that afternoon so that we can free up a bed in the prison?

[David Weaver]

I think attornies discourage people from taking outright personal responsibility in something unless it is part of a plea deal and something is being gained.

From time to time, I see articles here where someone says they "messed up" and takes responsibility for their actions. There was a steroid dealer busted somewhere around here recently, and I guess this is the second time he was busted, but he took apologized for his actions and said he just messed up and he knew it.

But, in general, I think there must be someone directing people not to say any such thing in court (especially in lawsuits, taking personal responsibility as the plaintiff in a lawsuit would be pretty damaging unless you were only claiming a % as part of contributory negligence), and I also think a lot of people are so peeved that they're caught that they either are very invested in denying everything for sport at that point, or they are mad and want to make someone else feel the pain, so they start casting blame elsewhere.

I wonder if there's a chance that it could ever have an effect after sentencing. "Judge, you guys did a good job, I really was the guy who did it".


If you said you weren't under oath, maybe that would cause perjury problems.

It's like the line in shawshank redemption "everyone in here is innocent" :)

[Mark Kelly 92040]

David W. is correct in his assumption that attorneys are the reason that initial pleas are very often "not guilty" even though the person may have already confessed. When a prosecutor issues charging documents in a criminal case, they usually add every single charge they can think of based on the facts of the case. If the State's criminal system is one where this could result in consecutive sentences for each charge then it is not in the person's best interest to immediately "plead to the sheet." Most prosecutors are all about their conviction rate and will be willing to drop charges in exchange for a plea to other charges (which is why most of them charge every possible crime to begin with.) A plea to anything counts as a conviction, thus adding to the prosecutor's conviction rate stats. In my experience (28 years as a Deputy Sheriff/Detective), the vast majority of the cases filed are settled through plea bargain and never reach the trial phase.

Once the plea is taken (during which the person will be required to admit what they did) then usually there will be an investigation by probation as to how the person should be sentenced. During the probation investigation the person is interviewed and will have the opportunity to admit what they did and express remorse. Some do and many don't. The probation report will recommend a sentence to the judge, which they can follow (most do) or not.

As for the civil suit aspect, we have way to many lawyers who are all trying to make a living. In many cases there are insurance companies involved who will ultimately pay any judgements and often it it less expensive to settle a lawsuit than it is to fight it in court. If you think about all the attorneys' fees and fees for experts to investigate and testify, costs for some of these lawsuits are staggering. Much easier just to negotiate a settlement; I believe that the costs of the defense of a lawsuit don't usually effect the policy limit amounts so the insurance company could get hit for much more than the limit on the policy (I may be wrong on this part.)

Death penalty appeals are a matter of statutory requirement - and for a very good reason in my opinion. If the State has the authority to take someone's life, then there should be every opportunity given to make sure that the decision is correct. Cops and prosecutors are not perfect and often make mistakes. Most of the time these mistakes are unintentional but sometimes they aren't. There is a saying that it is better to let ten guilty people go free than it is to convict one innocent person and I think that is doubly true in a death penalty case. The required appeals process hopefully insures that there won't be an execution of an innocent person.

Mark

[Eric DeSilva]

I see people taking personal responsibility for things all the time and I certainly hope that I live my life to that ideal. Cases that get reported typically don't seem to feature that kind of accountability, but I'm not ready to write humanity off based on Court TV.

[David Larsen]

I am in agreement and understand the court processes, but it seems like it has gotten more complicated than it needs to.

It just gets under my skin a bit when someone trips on something or falls down and the first thing they do is get up and point the finger at someone because they didn't identify the hazard. Take personal responsibility and watch where you are going.

It just seems like people want to point the finger at someone else and blame them for their problems.

If you do something wrong, own up to it!

[Dennis Peacock]

Dump the fibbing attorney and just tell the truth to begin with. That's what's wrong with the world we're in today......all the lies, cheats, and let me see if I can get out of this somehow's......Just own it and be done with it. :)

[Brian Kent]

As I become experienced I also bear a personal responsibility to inform and guide others. If I learn of a danger in a woodworking machine but never say "Hey, watch out for this!", then I carry some of the responsibility for the next person's injury.

[Rich Engelhardt]

Pfffftttt!

I've been married for 31 years...

I blame everything on my wife and she blames everything on me.

We jointly share "responsiblity" ;) .

Seriously - it's almost a standing joke whenever I do something "stupid" as to how exactly I'm going to make it her fault - and vice versa...

[Rick Moyer]

Oh, man, David you really hit a nerve with me on this one! I usually shy away from posting on "off topic" threads because of the nature of them, but this is one that I couldn't resist.

I have been preaching (sorry,Brian;)) to no-one-in-particular for a long time about personal accountablilty. It is probably my biggest peave. Everyone blames someone or something else for their issues or problems. Too many people unable or unwilling to be responsible for their actions, and I would argue about 99% unwilling.

Getting off the soap box quickly as I've already broken my own rule about posting to potentially evokative threads. Thanks for letting me vent though!

[Bonnie Campbell]

Things seem to of boiled down to one thing, we've turned into a world of whiners. No insult intended towards 'non-whiners' ;)

[Seth Dolcourt]

Mark Kelly, your answer taught me a lot of things I didn't know before. Thank you for that! :)

For the OP's comment of personal responsibility associated with tool accidents, I'd offer the opinion that the tort system is instrumental in making changes to institutions that want no change.

The auto industry didn't want seat belts, air bags, anti lock brakes, etc, always citing that customers didn't want them, it would be too expensive, and what right does The Government have with forcing businesses to do something? Tort is why air bags are so common place in vehicles, and auto makers trip over themselves now in advertising to customers how many air bags are in the car, and how safe you'll be. Quite a change in attitude from before.

I have not had an accident with a tool, thankfully, and I would definitely accept that knowing to the core of my soul how to use a tool is my responsibility. However....I absolutely like the idea that tool companies can be compelled - as the auto industry was via tort - to themselves take responsibility for situations beyond the owner's manual, and provide adequate safety considerations commensurate with technology of the day. I think on this forum it would be easy to overlay Saw Stop TS accidents vs. non-Saw Stop TS accidents, and draw some very obvious conclusions.

Innovations in auto safety do not prevent accidents, they can only mitigate the outcome, but they are an extra layer of safety that is available to the user. Same thing in the tool room - a TS equipped with detection technology is an extra layer of protection, but is not a replacement for the operator's sense of what is going on.

[Mike Henderson]

The civil law system exists to decide disagreements between parties. Most of my experience is with business, but in most cases, when one business has a problem with another business, they look to the courts to help settle the disagreement. Most of the time, the two businesses both believe they are in the right. Now, in most cases, the disagreement never goes to trial because neither company really wants to put their fate in the hands of jurors - and the matter under disagreement is often complex and technical. But the "threat" of a civil trial will usually get the two sides to come to some agreement. Without the courts, there would be no incentive to settle, and no way to settle the disagreement if the two sides couldn't compromise.

In criminal cases, the prosecutor usually throws everything except the kitchen sink into the charge so the defendant really has no option except to plead "not guilty". But just like in civil cases, most cases are settled via a bargain - a compromise. People who really believe they are innocent will go to trial, as well as those facing an extreme sentence - they have nothing to lose.

As for an individual standing up and saying "I did it - I'm responsible", you have to realize that once you enter into the criminal justice system, you are in a "game". If you plead guilty, you lose. If you plead "not guilty" you have some bargaining power to affect your punishment. Even if you want to take responsibility, you have a responsibility to yourself to do your best in the "game" and minimize your punishment.

It might not sound like a great system but it works.

Mike

[Brian Kent]

I appreciate the info that is coming from this thread. When we are just hanging out and complaining about life, we can easily name the times when a court gave a ridiculous decision. Our system of laws also has some benefits now and then.

[Jim Koepke]

Somebody should have taken responsibility, but nobody wanted to. It could have been anybody to step up… And on and on.

Actually, we likely do not hear much about guilty pleas or nolo contendere pleas because there isn't a lot of news value in such.

Another part is the DA does tend to throw the whole book and an intelligent person will not admit to more than they have done.

jtk

[Myk Rian]

I'm not responsible for anything I do.
Last time Aliens from space visited, I forgot to wear my aluminum foil head cap.
They did strange things to my brain.

[Kevin W Johnson]

I'm not responsible for anything I do.
Last time Aliens from space visited, I forgot to wear my aluminum foil head cap.
They did strange things to my brain.

They got you too? :cool:

[ray hampton]

I'm not responsible for anything I do.
Last time Aliens from space visited, I forgot to wear my aluminum foil head cap.
They did strange things to my brain.

Are you saying that they do not visit any one except you ?, this had to be the case or you would not know when the Aliens visit

[Glenn Clabo]

I'm not responsible for anything I do.
Last time Aliens from space visited, I forgot to wear my aluminum foil head cap.
They did strange things to my brain.

Ahhh...that explains so much. :D

[glenn bradley]

[QUOTE=David Larsen;1783140Are you personally responsible?[/QUOTE]

If people were it would end a lot of foolish lawsuits, lower insurance costs, lower product costs and send a lot of lawyers kids to lesser schools. Other than that I think someone who commits a crime, causes an accident or uses somethng dangerous with no thought to even reading the manual, let alone getting some training and who then hurts themselves should be able to blame:

- the world at large
- the tool, car, can opener, ehatever
- the person who provided the tool, car, can opener, whatever
- the reatiler who sold the tool, car, can opener, whatever
- the company that made the tool, car, can opener, whatever
- the State, Local and Federal government for being so wildly careless as to expect someone to be able to get along without being suckled and molly-coddled through every breath they draw through every hour of their day
- everyone's parents, neighbors, friends and enemies
- Alfred R. Newman
- Abbie Hoffman
- My third grade teacher

but, never, never, ever themselves.

[Greg Peterson]

Any similarity between the legal system and the justice system are purely coincidental.

As for personal responsibility, I like to think I pass the test consistently. Every day each of us are faced with challenges to our integrity. Owning up to our short comings is in part what makes us a better person. If someone else decides to act or react in a manner contrary to how I would in a given situation, they alone have to live with the consequences.

After a certain age, you can not learn integrity. You either have it or you don't.

[ray hampton]

If you witness certain crimes and fail to report it , the law holds you guilty to a certain degree

[Matt Meiser]

Do you realty think someone will respond with a serious no?

[David Larsen]

Mark Kelly, your answer taught me a lot of things I didn't know before. Thank you for that! :)

For the OP's comment of personal responsibility associated with tool accidents, I'd offer the opinion that the tort system is instrumental in making changes to institutions that want no change.

The auto industry didn't want seat belts, air bags, anti lock brakes, etc, always citing that customers didn't want them, it would be too expensive, and what right does The Government have with forcing businesses to do something? Tort is why air bags are so common place in vehicles, and auto makers trip over themselves now in advertising to customers how many air bags are in the car, and how safe you'll be. Quite a change in attitude from before.

I have not had an accident with a tool, thankfully, and I would definitely accept that knowing to the core of my soul how to use a tool is my responsibility. However....I absolutely like the idea that tool companies can be compelled - as the auto industry was via tort - to themselves take responsibility for situations beyond the owner's manual, and provide adequate safety considerations commensurate with technology of the day. I think on this forum it would be easy to overlay Saw Stop TS accidents vs. non-Saw Stop TS accidents, and draw some very obvious conclusions.

Innovations in auto safety do not prevent accidents, they can only mitigate the outcome, but they are an extra layer of safety that is available to the user. Same thing in the tool room - a TS equipped with detection technology is an extra layer of protection, but is not a replacement for the operator's sense of what is going on.

I am not against finding a safer mouse trap. I am saying more on the lines of if you have all the guards available and in place, but you still put your hand or fingers somewhere that cause harm, can you admit your fault or do you try to blame someone else. After all, you put your hand there. The manufacturer didn't make you do it.

[Mike Henderson]

I am not against finding a safer mouse trap. I am saying more on the lines of if you have all the guards available and in place, but you still put your hand or fingers somewhere that cause harm, can you admit your fault or do you try to blame someone else. After all, you put your hand there. The manufacturer didn't make you do it.
The situation is rarely that simple. When someone is injured using a tool that has safety devices, the question arises, "Was there a failure of the safety system?" If so, then perhaps the safety system was not properly designed, tested, or built. And if so, there would be a basis for legal action.

It's highly unlikely that someone will intentionally put their hand into a spinning blade.

A manufacturer would prefer to not put any safety devices on a tool because then there's no safety system to fail. And under that situation, the user is assumed to understand, and accept, the inherent risk of using the tool. It's a perverse incentive to tool manufacturers. Seems that there should be something in the law that encourages manufacturers to add safety devices.

Mike

[Kevin W Johnson]

If you witness certain crimes and fail to report it , the law holds you guilty to a certain degree

I can't say that i totally agree with this. One should want to do the right thing, however, one shouldn't be forced to get involved if they wish not too, and shouldn't have to fear legal ramifications if they choose not too.

I'm referring mainly to situations where one own health and safety are/would be at risk because they got involved.

[Mike Henderson]

I can't say that i totally agree with this. One should want to do the right thing, however, one shouldn't be forced to get involved if they wish not too, and shouldn't have to fear legal ramifications if they choose not too.

I'm referring mainly to situations where one own health and safety are/would be at risk because they got involved.
More than likely, he was referring to laws that require doctors and health professionals (including mental health professionals) to report suspected spousal and child abuse. I certainly support those requirements.

Mike

[Kevin W Johnson]

More than likely, he was referring to laws that require doctors and health professionals (including mental health professionals) to report suspected spousal and child abuse. I certainly support those requirements.

Mike

I agree with what you cite, however, i don't think that is what he was referring too. Notice he said "witness". Healthcare professionals may see the aftermath, but unless the assault or abuse happens in the hospital, they certainly won't be "witness" to the incident.

His referrence would be witnessing a robbery, murder, assault, etc. Not just seeing and reporting the suspicion of assault or abuse.

[Chuck Wintle]

I am in agreement and understand the court processes, but it seems like it has gotten more complicated than it needs to.

It just gets under my skin a bit when someone trips on something or falls down and the first thing they do is get up and point the finger at someone because they didn't identify the hazard. Take personal responsibility and watch where you are going.

It just seems like people want to point the finger at someone else and blame them for their problems.

If you do something wrong, own up to it!

I have to agree with that...when it is in ones power to avoid personal injury to oneself or to another then that is being responsible...but to take stand and point the finger...that is not right.

[Greg Peterson]

Minnesota and Vermont have a Good Samaritan law that requires persons at the scene of an emergency to provide reasonable assistance (calling 911). Failure to assist is a misdemeanor. New York law provides immunity to citizens that provide assistance at the scene of an emergency. Several states are considering a duty-to-assist clause to their good Samaritan statute.

There will always exist a segment of society that will exploit the cracks in a given system. Of the perpetual victims I've known, their financial status ranges from poor to affluent. Personal responsibility is a moving target. How do you define it? When is a situation someone else's fault and what is a reasonable remedy?

[ray hampton]

I agree with what you cite, however, i don't think that is what he was referring too. Notice he said "witness". Healthcare professionals may see the aftermath, but unless the assault or abuse happens in the hospital, they certainly won't be "witness" to the incident.

His referrence would be witnessing a robbery, murder, assault, etc. Not just seeing and reporting the suspicion of assault or abuse.

what I was referring to is any crime from spitting on the sidewalk to kidnapping or murder that take place outside of the private home, the big city see a number of assault and battery one hundred people will be in the crowd but NO ONE WILL SEE A THING, they are as guilty as the person whom did the assault

[Eric DeSilva]

Are you sure? "Good Samaritan" laws typically shield from civil liability people who are not obligated to help, but attempt assistance or rescue. That is very different than an affirmative duty to act--usually called duty to rescue. While there are states that have a duty to report a crime in progress, I haven't heard of any going beyond that. And, for anything thinking this is a "new" phenomenon, look up Kitty Genovese.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

...Failure to assist is a misdemeanor...

I can think of a few people that I do NOT want to be forced to help me because they WILL make it worse if I really am in bad shape.


Let me point out that when something happens, it may be difficult to determine what really did happen if you were in the middle of it. I once took responsibility for something that I had not caused because I thought that it was my fault. Turns out I was horribly mistaken (sure was glad that external observers stepped in), but, by then, there was a law suite against me and the person that actually caused the problem. I asked my lawyer why we were giving them $100K if we had witnesses that said that I was in no way responsible.... Answer. Because you never know what a jury will do and in a civil case you do not need to have caused a problem to be forced to pay money (especially after having said "I think I caused that"). I just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and it all went down around me.

Kind of like when I walked into a secure location and alarms went off. Thought it was me. Nope, toxic release in another building that leaked into the building I was in.

I know, all of this is very different than say whacking someone on the head and taking responsibility. I mean, there, it was an intentional thing and it was clear you did it.

[Greg Peterson]

Are you sure? "Good Samaritan" laws typically shield from civil liability people who are not obligated to help, but attempt assistance or rescue. That is very different than an affirmative duty to act--usually called duty to rescue. While there are states that have a duty to report a crime in progress, I haven't heard of any going beyond that. And, for anything thinking this is a "new" phenomenon, look up Kitty Genovese.

Apparently New York's law is written so as to provide immunity to those who provide assistance. Europe's Good Samaritan law requires bystanders to lend reasonable assistance.

Minnesota and Vermont require reasonable assistance, failure to do so is simply a misdemeanor. Like most laws on the books, I have doubts about the enforcement of such a law.

Andrew - The legal system is a strange thing and has little to do with justice.