Not being responsible for your behavior can be very easy in this country. See, our forefathers realized the profound economic disadvantage that being responsible for your actions carries, so they invented the LLC and corporation. Corporations are legally people and are responsible for their employees' actions, which is much more convenient than the employees themselves or the company's owner being responsible. And since a corporation only really exists as a financial entity, what this means is that if you own a corporation, the worst thing that can happen in terms of liability is the corporation runs out of money and your bank account stays safe. Your company gets sued for what you did, and your company is the only thing at stake. Transferring responsibility to a company is ridiculous, by the way. It's like having your gun be responsible for all the people you shot and then when people come to punish you, they just break your gun. Responsibility, it could be said, is the prerogative of the poor.
I completely understand, and corporate personhood is both insane and terrible for the vast majority of people. But I think anyone with an education on the issue is unanimously against it, or they are a paid shill. (Koch Brothers, et al) How would you define 'responsibility?'
I would consider someone responsible for something if they are subject to its consequences. And if every educated person was against corporate personhood, we wouldn't have it in the first place. There are arguments to be made in its favor -- not that I agree with them, but the issue is not so simple or one sided as you suggest