Harry v. Tom (was: LV never loved anyone)

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 110612

Katie wrote :
"To Del and all others who think V. cannot be held responsible for his
actions: how far would you carry this justification? Can all of us, no
matter how uncaring or cognizant of our actions, claim to be pure
products of our upbringing and not responsible for our behavior? Can
the "Riddle defense" be sufficient for any murderer who was
chronically abused or neglected as a child? When does the
abuse/neglect become insufficient to explain the crimes?"

Del replies :
It's not that simple IMO. I make a difference between moral and legal
responsibility.

I believe LV cannot be held *morally* responsible for his actions, if
he is indeed a sociopath, because he does not have a *conscience*.

However, I do believe he can be held *legally* responsible for his
actions, because he understands that society disapproves of them. He
knows he will be punished if he steals or kills, even if he can't
figure out what's bothering people about stealing or killing. So if he
indeed steals or kills and he's caught, then yes I believe he can be
held responsible. Even though to him it will look as unfair and
tyrannical as when I punished my baby yesterday for climbing on the
window-sill of the open window again after I told him not to : he
cannot figure out why I'm upset. If he obeys me today, it will not be
because he's learned that climbing on the window-sill is dangerous, it
will only be because he doesn't want to be punished again : he won't
have internalised my teaching that what he did was terribly dangerous.

Does that help clarifying my position ?

Del