Do you think that it is right to imprison someone who has no memory of their crime?

[sonic6241]

Ok, kinda weird question that i was pondering today.

If a person who commits a terrible crime (i.e. murder, genocide, arson, etc.) and they somehow lose their memory, (like real amnesia not faking it for the court) do you think it is right to charge them with punishment for their crimes?

 

[The Pinray]

Do the crime, do the time. Yes.

UNLESS they were not in control of themselves at the time of the crime. Then that's some grey area.

 

[Mr.Pandah]

Well...why did he get amnesia? I mean, you never know if they'll snap back into whatever caused them to do it in the first place. It might be a tad iffy, but I still say put them away.

 

[CODE-D]

Lol, you said genocide.
Someone forgetting they caused genocide is hilarious to me.

 

[Stalk3rchief]

If their crime was serious, then yes. They might happen to spend their jail time in a medical/psychiatric ward, but yes. You losing your memory doesn't mean those people weren't raped and/or murdered, and that kind of rime deserves retribution, no exceptions.

 

[Monkey_Warfare]

If they forgot it definately, that means they have reverted to the state they were in before commiting the crime so are person who commited it not the person who resulted from commiting it. This means they are predisposed to commit the same crime again as well as having commited it so are a danger to society and a criminal as have learned nothing. Man that is convoluted.

I would love to see someone in the Hague argue not guilty because of amnesia though, it would crack me up.

 

[CthulhuMessiah]

Yes, otherwise anyone can say "LOL DONT REMEMBER" and get off the hook.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

I would say yes, as, even if they don't remember it, they still committed the crime and are the same person inside, therefore they have the mental capacity to do it again and are a danger to the public.
Say someone got incredibly drunk, and went out and beat up a pile of people, then when the police found them next morning they had blacked out and didn't remember hurting all those people. Are they still responsible? Of course.

 

[Fanfic_warper]

Hmmmmm hard to say....You'd have to prove that they actually DID lose their memory, maybe with a CAT scan, but otherwise, if it was a REALLY bad crime, then regardless, yes.

 

[aprildog18]

Yes, they should still be imprisoned. Also, you never know if the person will ever get this memory back.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

Ok, kinda weird question that i was pondering today.

If a person who commits a terrible crime (i.e. murder, genocide, arson, etc.) and they somehow lose their memory, (like real amnesia not faking it for the court) do you think it is right to charge them with punishment for their crimes?

Is it right to not charge someone who's binge drinking with manslaughter/D.U.I. if they run a kid over while drunk off their ass in a truck?

Yeah. Case and point it doesn't matter if they remember or not, if the crime is heinous, than they should take responsibility for it.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

While the purported "purpose" of imprisonment is rehabilitation, hence "corrections"; more often than not it is to keep dangerous types off of the streets.

Someone who has demonstrated a capacity for things such as murder should probably be kept off of the streets. Especially if they themselves do not remember what triggered it (that's generally a deeper level of "do not trust with babies and sharp objects").

 

[spartan231490]

Yes. Regardless of whether they remember it or not, they are the same person who did it. That means they may do it again. And besides, law is more about scaring people into following the rules than it is about justice.

 

[gwiddison]

There are three main reasons to imprison someone. To protect the public by taking criminals off the street, to keep others from committing crimes by attaching punishment, and to rehabilitate the criminal. For the first, if a person is capable of committing a crime, they're more likely to commit another, whether they remember the crime or not. The type of person who does such a thing needs to be locked up. For the second point, memory is irrelevant. Criminals need to be punished to deter other criminals. If you know a person is guilty, they need to be imprisoned.

For the third reason, it's somewhat more complex. Prisons, at least in the US, aren't very good at rehabilitation anyway, so it's less of a major issue. Still, while it may be harder to rehabilitate someone who can't really see why they're in prison, whatever caused them to commit the crime is still part of them, and it needs to be dealt with. In every case, unless they were actually insane at the time of the offense, they're going to prison.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Lol, you said genocide.
Someone forgetting they caused genocide is hilarious to me.

I would imagine a Mr.Bean kind of scenario, wherein the bumbling maniac stubs his/her toe, reels backwards and accidentally sits on the big red button which launches several nuclear warheads at unsuspecting third-world areas that couldn't possibly defend themselves.

Something like that anyway. Still, if you don't remember that doesn't stop you from having murdered that clown with the severed left arm of that Vietnamese prostitute. You'll need to be punished all the same. If, however, a malevolent AI began to control you through your pacemaker or, blue-tooth headset then I guess it isn't your fault that you cut the breaks on that elementary school bus. Still, good luck getting anyone to believe you.