SuperChurl said:
Killertje said:
You are required to know the law, you are not required to not have amnesia.
The difference is that amnesia is a disability and not knowing the law is lazyness (unless you are a retard and cant remember the law, in which case you still have a disability).
But the legal system doesn't waive charges because of disability, surely. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong here, but even a successful plead of insanity (or something less dramatic) won't just straight up let you off the hook, will it? In some cases you might be trading a life in prison for a life under constant state supervision and psychiatric treatment. Which, to my mind, would be a satisfactory legal resolution.
I wasn't suggesting we treat an amnesiac exactly as we would anyone else convicted of a crime--special account should be taken for their condition. But I also think throwing it all out on the grounds that they have somehow become a moral blank slate is socially irresponsible.
I'm all for watching someone with amnesia and regular medical/psychiatrical checkups, in fact I would assume that is standard procedure. If they ever return to their original behaviour, or any other unlawful behaviour they should be institutionalized to protect the community. I don't think amnesia should be compared to insanity though. Insane people are unpredictable and cannot be trusted to follow the law. As long as the person with amnesia follows the law and doesn't do anything a normal person wouldn't do I would conclude they (and the community) are better off than before the amnesia.
Again this is a theoretical case where someone loses all of their memories about past events. Everything that led up to their crime is gone including the crime itself. It would be like punishing a baby for doing something his/her parent(s) did because its in their DNA.
SuperChurl said:
Killertje said:
If people claim specific memory loss you can just convict them for their crimes, criminals do it all the time. "It wasn't me." Is pretty much the same as "I don't remember doing it, however I do know my own name and what day it is."
I don't think it's hard to prove amnesia since there is always brain damage involved, or at least heavy head trauma (for temporary amnesia).
According to the all-knowing 'pedia, it's suggested that "retrograde amnesia can occur without any anatomical damage to the brain, lacking an observable neurological basis--it can occur due to a traumatic situation that individuals wish to consciously or unconsciously avoid." Now, I don't know how accurate that info is; and the human brain and its workings are incredibly complex, and our understanding of it is still painfully limited. But I bet you could build a solid defence case around that.
If it happens due to a traumatic experience the memory can come back with therapy, it won't be gone forever. Also, assuming the crime this person committed is serious, like cold blooded murder for personal gain, I think it would be highly unlikely someone like that would experience any trauma in a way that would cause their brain to burrow the experience. After all they committed the crime willingly. Amnesia like that only happens when a tragic accident happens or if you are the victim/witness of a horrible crime and you are so emotionally devastated by it your brain just blocks the memory of it.
SuperChurl said:
Killertje said:
Getting drunk or high is your responsibility so if you do anything while drunk/high its your own damn fault, unless you were drugged unknowingly or against your will.
4li3n said:
And as said before, being drunk is your choice, if someone drugged you and you did something because of it it's certainly taken into account... and even being drunk leads to lesser charges then whe you premeditate a murder.
Committing a crime is your choice too.
Getting drunk
is your responsibility--as is committing a crime. Whether or not you recall it, you made a conscious decision, and it is that decision that you should be held accountable for, regardless of how distanced from it you are now. At least, that's what I'm arguin'.
This is one hell of a strawman argument, but are we saying that if we can't remember something we shouldn't have to take responsibility for it? I can't remember starting my binge drinking, so how can I be held accountable for it? I was a different person then.
I am arguing that the person who made that decision is effectively dead. What we have now is the same body with, as far as memories about events go, an empty brain. Punishing this "new" person for anything the previous owner of the body did is unfair.
As for the binge drinking, either you are an alcoholic and have a disability, or you decided to start drinking and all the consequences related to that are also on you, after all it is your own damn fault you started drinking. Amnesia, even if done on purpose to yourself, makes you another person who cannot be held accountable for whatever the previous personality did.
SuperChurl said:
Killertje said:
What if I came over and kicked your teeth in for raping my mother (or if you are a girl, raping my father or something
). You know nothing about it (I hope), and yet I say you did it and I have proof. Would you accept it, even though you don't remember ever doing anything remotely like it?
That situation should be resolved based on the actual events that took place, as determined by evidence, testimony, timing, motive, etcetera. Life is viewed subjectively, but events occur objectively. And really, teeth-kicking is revenge--I'm talking about "justice", if it's possible to pin down such a nebulous concept.
To be honest the teeth kicking was just my way of exaggerating the feeling you should have of suddenly being punished for something you don't remember, and never will, which is pretty much what some people here are arguing to do to amnesiacs. I agree that the teeth kicker should be punished as well in this case, because he (I) took matters into his own hands.
I would seriously never ever accept blame for something I don't remember doing. And if I have amnesia and see myself doing something horrible I would not believe it was actually me until I know exactly what motivated me to do something like that. Any punishment before I have my memories back would just piss me off and make me hate the justice system for their unfair treatment of me.
I do agree what I described is more like revenge than anything else, so obviously it is a bad example. Then again I'd rather have my teeth kicked in than spend years in jail.
Thanks for the constructive discussion so far, I'm really enjoying this.
