Can I use the idiom "Hold accountable" without putting someone's name as is required before the word accountable, like instead of this: hold someone accountable (for something), it would be like this: hold accountable (for something).

I need it to be in that form because I defined who is that someone as a pronoun:

They have to hold accountable for their actions.

If that is not acceptable then is to be charged considered a good replacement? (But without the with)

They have to be charged for their actions.

The meaning I intend, is: There is a group of people who are responsible for doing a conspiracy against someone named X. X discovered their conspiracy, so she says that they have to ____ for their actions/conspiracy.


1 Answer 1


Your first version is almost okay, but a slight change needs to be made:

They have to be held accountable for their actions.

The second version may not have the same meaning. Being held accountable doesn't necessarily mean being charged with a crime; in fact, it often doesn't.

Accountability can be moral as well as criminal.

Children who have done something wrong are generally held accountable by being given a curfew or some kind of punishment. They don't have charges brought against them.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .