In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Ron" > wrote
> > > > "Dutch" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> "Ron" > wrote
> > > >>
> > > >> > The question was who taught you that you or I was responsible for
> the
> > > >> > outcomes of other people's actions.
> > > >>
> > > >> It's called complicity. In legal jargon it's "accessory".
> > > >
> > > > And again, you avoided the question.
> > > >
> > > > Who taught the pharoahs that they were responsible for the outcomes of
> > > > other people's actions?
> > >
> > > Assuming that you're talking about actions in which you have aideding or
> > > abeted, since it's common sense, their fathers and mothers probably.
> >
> > As I stated previously, it is consistent with the thinking of a child to
> > think that one is responsible for the outcome of other people's actions.
> > It is what many of us are taught as children. As adults, however, we
> > recognize the accountability and responsibility of the individual for
> > their own actions.
>
> Aiding and/or abetting are NOT actions? Why are we responsible for our own
> actions in other cases but not then?

How do I perform the act of aiding if you are going to insist that it is
an action?

> > > > Who taught the indigenous populations of Africa
> > > > or Australia that they were responsible for the outcomes of other
> > > > people's actions?
> > >
> > > See above
> > >
> > > Read http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tcmplicty.html
> >
> > This is further evidence of the problem of such thinking.
>
> Define the problem.
>
> > An accomplice
> > to murder is not the murderer. An accomplice to theft is not the thief.
>
> An accomplice is an accomplice, to use your tautological form.

Yup. An accomplice is an accomplice. We agree.

The problem, Dutch, has been defined.

When and were is the notion of accomplices extant or the principle valid?