Herring, Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (8 edn, 2018). p. 851.

The distinction between principals and accomplices, as we discovered, is embedded in the structure of rational agency. As rational beings we cannot live without it. It enters our thought as soon as we begin to think about responsibility. I am responsible for my actions, and you are responsible for yours. My actions are mine to justify or excuse, and your actions are yours to justify or excuse. And yet my actions include my actions of contributing to your actions. So there is a sense in which my responsibility for my actions can extend out to your actions. I can be accused of failing to attend to reasons that are yours to conform to[,] even though I cannot be accused of failing to conform to them myself. I fail to attend to them, in the relevant sense, by contributing to your non-conformity with them.

I don't ken the emboldened quote. Please ELI5? Can someone apply it to a simple example to assist my kenning?

I added a comma to make that long sentence more readable, to split the concessive clause.

enter image description here

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.