"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]
>> > 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?

Any number of ways, read the article I linked below.

>> > > > 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.

Well, I'm happy we can at least agree on self-evident truths. An accomplice
is held accountable *as* such, not for "the actions of another person" as
you have so often and wrongly alleged.

> The problem, Dutch, has been defined.
>
> When and were is the notion of accomplices extant or the principle valid?

I don't know precisely, but I suspect it began very early in the development
of homo sapiens social groups.