Yes, if he/she would kill someone, they would still be charged with that killing.
It can be argued that a drug addict is not fully morally responsible for their actions when they are under the influence of drugs, as their decision-making capabilities may be impaired. However, seeking help and taking steps towards recovery can help regain control and accountability over their actions.
Osama bin Laden was responsible for numerous terrorist attacks, including the 9/11 attacks in the United States in 2001. He was also linked to other acts of terrorism around the world carried out by the terrorist group al-Qaeda, which he founded.
Homeowner insurance typically does not cover intentional criminal acts committed by the homeowner or someone on the property. If the homeowner or a guest commits a crime, they would be personally responsible for any damages or legal consequences.
Juvenile delinquency prevention focuses on addressing risk factors and providing interventions to prevent youths from engaging in delinquent behaviors. Juvenile delinquency control, on the other hand, involves enforcing consequences and interventions after the delinquent behavior has occurred to manage and reduce future delinquent acts. Prevention aims to stop delinquency before it starts, while control addresses delinquency that has already taken place.
No, homeowner insurance typically does not cover intentional criminal acts such as criminal mischief by the policyholder. The insurance policy is meant to provide coverage for accidental or unexpected events, not deliberate acts of vandalism or wrongdoing.
An example of a white collar crime is embezzlement, where someone misappropriates funds entrusted to them for personal gain. This commonly occurs in a corporate setting where an employee or executive diverts company funds for their own use without authorization.
Yes, he chose to take drugs with the full knowledge of what they do to a person and for that he is responsible for anything he does while intoxicated
"Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?"
The Euthyphro dilemma. "Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?"
who cites these principles: 1. A person is held morally responsible for any evil effect whichflows from the action directly willed.
It would not be responsible for the criminal acts of others unless it was somehow at fault.It would not be responsible for the criminal acts of others unless it was somehow at fault.It would not be responsible for the criminal acts of others unless it was somehow at fault.It would not be responsible for the criminal acts of others unless it was somehow at fault.
the township acts
This is a statement and not a question . Please rewrite.
CANNOT be answered with a yes or no. Too broad a question. Define "DEVIANT ACTS." "Deviant" to who? Morally deviant? Criminally deviant? Religiously deviant? etc . . . (????)
No. The townshend acts were not responsible for the Boston massacre. the Boston massacre was just a deadly riot. then the townsend acts was just like the king housing the redcoats without paying. they relly had no interjection between them.
Nucleus
It is an integral protein that acts as a channel.
People that believe you can control illegal acts by controlling things.