In order to be legally and morally responsible for your behavior, you must have intentionally performed your action whilst knowing the difference between right and wrong.
For this very reason, there are distinct consequences for the many people and circumstances. It differentiates between murder and manslaughter. Judges have to make judgments about whether children are old enough smart enough to understand the consequences of their actions.
Libertarians agree that some actions are freely chosen while others are causally determined. This makes complete sense to me. We chose to carry out an action — we have free will, but in specific circumstances, our actions are determined by other factors such as upbringing.
But it brings to question, when we don’t have free will are we morally responsible? Should one bear the consequences of manslaughter if it was a complete accident; if said person was walking home to his bed after a long long long day at work with no intention to harm another?
I often conclude that determinists agree that we shouldn’t bear the consequences of our unintentional actions, particularly, genetic determinists. After all, we have no control over our genes. There are cases where it has been successful; e.g. using the MAO-A gene or the “warrior gene” in defense of committing aggressive crimes, or stating that you’re kleptomaniac in defense of stealing.
As for me, that doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make sense to justify harm caused to others even if it wasn’t on purpose. I agree that when we have unintentional actions, we are responsible under certain descriptions, not others. However, you are responsible for the slip of your finger the slip of your consciousness that pushed you to push someone off a bridge.