"The Ultimate Test: could the person restrain themselves from committing their offence in front of a police officer? If yes, responsible. If no, probably not responsible. Serial killers, child sexual abusers and addicts tend not to offend in front of police officers, thus one must conclude that they are entirely capable of regulating their behaviour." Just because someone is entirely capable of regulating their behaviour so that it isn't detrimental to their freedom, does not mean that they are in control of themselves to the level you seem to imply. Knowing intellectually that something is wrong, or criminal, doesn't mean that you are able to prevent yourself from doing it, particularly in the case of addicts. I've know a few alcoholics over the years, and I think that if alcohol was made illegal, they would still indulge, just not in front of a police officer. It also brings up the problem with what is morally wrong, and what is legal or illegal. They are plenty of practices that are undertaken by big businesses through-out the world that people find morally objectionable, but are perfectly legal. On the flip side, there are things that people do, for example drugs, that are illegal, but are, in themselves, not immoral. I'm no liberal, but I do feel that having one extreme or the other is no way to work a society, as we are all individuals. As a personal example, I don't take drugs. I am working towards a degree where I will be working in a medical facility. I choose not to take drugs because I have the potential to seriously hurt someone if I screw up. As long as the harm done by drugs is to the person who takes them, I do not find that immoral, even though it is illegal.