> > Szasz believes in personal responsibility and holds a person

> > responsible for their acts which have reasons.
>
> Yes, when the person is competent. From the article, Bruce sounds pretty
> coherent, so we can assume he's competent.
>
> But what about someone who isn't? Say someone with Down or Alzheimer?
>
> Then my next question is going to be: how do we determine competence?

When a person can respond consistently to questions about what is going on
around him and what he wants then he is competent, when he can't do this he
isn't competent. Note that I said consistently: his answers to the questions
might be weird, he might want to commit criminal acts but if he answers in a
consistent way then that means he can hold expectations and preferences.

There might be situations in which a person does something which is apparently
criminal due to lack of knowledge. For example, if Jack tells Jim that he owns
Peter's watch and asks Jim to get it form him, Peter might see Jim taking the
watch and think that he has stolen it. Not having a particular piece of
knowledge should not be confused with lack of competence. Jim didn't intend to
steal the watch but he did intend to take it.

Alan


Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com