In reponse to N:
Hello N., this all amounts to the problem of free will, i.e. how responsible one is for the decisions he/she makes. In academia, this is still discussed very controversely. In the most extreme version, D.M.Wegner rejected the idea of a human free will altogether. He argued that our decisions are all governed by biochemical processes, leading to neuronal activities, which the physical body (muscles, vocal organs etc) have to follow. When we believe in our own free will, we might be misled by introspection illusion. But one can also find certain arguments against this reasoning. There are human conditions (mental disorder such as Tourette syndrome or addictions such as alcoholism or eating disorders) where people really feel driven by a sort of evil force to do something they don’t want to do (unvoluntary). And at the same time, they are fully aware of themself acting against their own will.
One can probably find arguments pro and against the general capability of people to make free decisions, in particular in a situation when one follows instincts rather than reasoning.
But if I understand properly your question, it has more to do with “Responsibility”. And this means if one is allowed to sanction or punish a person for his/her evil activity. This is a moral question, and it definitely can vary in different times or social contexts. But one can also be indirectly be punished, for instance by refusing him/her certain jobs or career paths. For instance being an alcohol addict is not a crime, and in fact deserves psychatric assistance, it is very likely that he/she is refused to become a teacher. And if one easily looses self-control in an argument, you might blame the genes or hormones for this. But he/she might have bad chances to make a career in politics (I would not call D.Trumps max 4 years in office a career, I think it is rather a dead-end road). So there are most likely medical, psychological (childhood), or social reasons, which one has to accept as explanation for Trumps irresponsible activities. But these should not lead us to see him as a poor victim of his social background, his alcohol addicted grand-father, his poor grades in school, his physical ugliness, and give him a bonus as politician.
Best regards, Micha
In reponse to N: