please respond to Stephen with 170 words I do not believe thoughts leading to criminal behavior sho ...

---

please respond to Stephen with 170 words I do not believe thoughts leading to criminal behavior should be punishable by law. As there is no proven way to accurately read a person’s mind, attempting to prove that a criminal's preemptive thought process was the determining factor to the criminal behavior is obsolete. As it mentions in the text, virtually all people who are law-abiding citizens or not will occasionally wish harm to befall another person but would never take this thought process any further. Many concepts of the law are based on confirming the intention of the individual who is responsible for a criminal behavior, but using one’s thoughts could not be used as proof to indefinitely determine their intent. Individuals are capable of having criminal thoughts and not acting on them so I do not believe these thoughts could be proven to be an aspect to the crime and punishable in any way. A voluntary act could be considered any movement or physical interaction that occurs when the actor is cognizant and intentionally performs the action. An example of this would be when someone is aggravated at another driver on the road and decides to drive them off the road, causing an accident. An involuntary act would be when a person is experiencing a movement or action that they are not controlling themselves, such as spasms when asleep or a person experiencing a seizure and moves involuntarily. The main aspect of voluntariness is that the act occured without the infliction of some circumstance that would prohibit the actors decision-making capabilities and there was an intention for the movement or action to occur. The concept of hypnotism is a difficult subject to debate in terms of the legality of it because to many it would be deemed a hoax and there is no truth to a person stating they were hypnotized. Some may consider certain complex situations such as stockholm syndrome or trauma response a form of hypnotization that would alter a persons decision-making skills, deeming them incapable of acting voluntarily. In my opinion, the claim that hypnotization would alter an individual's capabilities enough to deem them incapacitated does not make sense because a person in this state is still conscious and understands the situation at hand. Because each person's choices have the power to affect an entire community, I believe that it is each individual’s responsibility to contribute what they can to the betterment of society. As a law-abiding citizen, each person is assisting this goal by avoiding criminal actions. When another person is committing a criminal offense and incurring social harm, it is every person's duty to assist those who are in danger of being a victim of this offense as well as do anything possible to stop any additional harm and prevent this act from happening in the future. If each person in a society assists the larger goal there is a higher chance of common wellbeing.