Poll: Criminal with amnesia, should they still be punished?
- Thread starter Seraj
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, if you look at the bigger picture, justice is revenge. A person has broken a law which is defined and carried out by the society, thus the person violates society (as well as potential individuals), and then society punishes said person for his crimes. Jury duty is select individuals from the region after all. Do you follow my train of thought?kayisking said:
OT: Yes, he should be punished. He still did the crime, and he still had the responsibility before he committed it. In the event of a memory loss after the crime, he is still guilty, there is no denying that, and I find that to be morally justifiable.
I can't in good conscious say yes to that. They may be in the same body, but if we're talking just totally mind-wiped with no recollection whatsoever of their past life or personality (or at least not for a long time), that person had might as well be a new person. It'd be like punishing someone for something someone else did.
It's different if they're just drugged up and happened to forget what they did, as A), they're still the same person, and B), it's their fault for drugging themselves.
So total amnesia, yes, drug use or short-term memory loss no.
It's different if they're just drugged up and happened to forget what they did, as A), they're still the same person, and B), it's their fault for drugging themselves.
So total amnesia, yes, drug use or short-term memory loss no.
Still don't believe me, just look at the way we treat ex-felons. Just look at their title, they're not reformed criminals or even citizens, they're ex-felons. Doesn't matter that they've served their sentence in prison. We as a society want to see them suffer. That's why they can't vote, can't get jobs they're qualified for, and won't be known as anything other than an ex-felon. If they were a doctor or an accountant or a teacher before they went in, there's no way in hell they'd be allowed to continue on with that career. But why? I mean the judge gave them a sentence and they served it. So why do we continue to punish them? Because our justice system is based around an eye for an eye. It's not fair, it's not always right, but it's just.kayisking said:
I really don't want to pull this card, but I'm a Criminal Justice major and have been studying American Criminal Law for two years now. I went into this degree thinking the same things, but after reading my text books and listening to instructors' lectures it really changes the way Law is portrayed in popular media.
If I rape your churches and burn your women and can't recall doing it doesn't mean I'm not accountable.
This is a thought provoking topic... thank you for bringing it up.
I guess it has a lot to do with how you define someone. Is it their physical body that defines them? Or perhaps their mind? Their memories? Their actions? Different people define self in different ways... personally I haven't come to a clear definition, nor have I decided what I think is most important.
Another question is how severe is this amnesia? Did the criminal only lose a few memories? Will he regain memory in time? Is his personality the same? Did he have a complete brain wipe (not saying this is possible, but this is a theoretical situation after all)?
A third question is why do we punish people for their crimes? Is it to attempt rehabilitate them? To protect others? Or the thing many people bring up is "justice", which is a concept I have debated a lot. It's our own way of trying to add fairness to an unfair world, but it's a concept which has gotten out of hand; people use the word "justice" without really understanding its meaning, and often use it to justify (tehe) things that wouldn't be seen as morally right under any other circumstances.
But I'm getting off topic. What I'm saying is the answer to this question depends on 3 key things:
1. How do you define one's self?
2. What is the state of his amnesia?
3. What do we hope to gain by punishing the criminal?
#2 depends entirely on the situation, and the answers to #1 and #3 will differ based on the person.
For me, the answers to #1 and #3 are things I'm still trying to fully understand in my own life, so I can't really answer your interesting question. Woo for a big post with no answer!
I guess it has a lot to do with how you define someone. Is it their physical body that defines them? Or perhaps their mind? Their memories? Their actions? Different people define self in different ways... personally I haven't come to a clear definition, nor have I decided what I think is most important.
Another question is how severe is this amnesia? Did the criminal only lose a few memories? Will he regain memory in time? Is his personality the same? Did he have a complete brain wipe (not saying this is possible, but this is a theoretical situation after all)?
A third question is why do we punish people for their crimes? Is it to attempt rehabilitate them? To protect others? Or the thing many people bring up is "justice", which is a concept I have debated a lot. It's our own way of trying to add fairness to an unfair world, but it's a concept which has gotten out of hand; people use the word "justice" without really understanding its meaning, and often use it to justify (tehe) things that wouldn't be seen as morally right under any other circumstances.
But I'm getting off topic. What I'm saying is the answer to this question depends on 3 key things:
1. How do you define one's self?
2. What is the state of his amnesia?
3. What do we hope to gain by punishing the criminal?
#2 depends entirely on the situation, and the answers to #1 and #3 will differ based on the person.
For me, the answers to #1 and #3 are things I'm still trying to fully understand in my own life, so I can't really answer your interesting question. Woo for a big post with no answer!
If the memory loss means they're effectively a different person, there's certainly a case for arguing it wasn't them who committed the crimes, and so I would probably say no, they shouldn't be punished.
There was a case like this not long ago, although I think it was something like a man had actually killed someone whilst sleep walking (with the "intention" of doing so), and it was ruled that he was not at fault.
There was a case like this not long ago, although I think it was something like a man had actually killed someone whilst sleep walking (with the "intention" of doing so), and it was ruled that he was not at fault.
Well obviously they should. Whether you remember it or not amnesia does not make you a different person (save for some similar, but not the same mental conditions- in their severest form). If you did something you will be punished.
Besides, the Mens Rea remains present at the TIME OF THE CRIME.
The Mens Rea (guilty mind) at the time of the prosecution is utterly irrelevant, so yes, criminals will always be tried even if they have no idea what they did.
Besides, the Mens Rea remains present at the TIME OF THE CRIME.
The Mens Rea (guilty mind) at the time of the prosecution is utterly irrelevant, so yes, criminals will always be tried even if they have no idea what they did.
Wouldn't really make sense to be honest, prison is meant to be a way of punishing people for doing bad things and (hopefully) make them less likely to commit the crime again; sticking a guy in prison for something he doesn't even remember sort of defeats the point of it.
On the other hand though, it's also something meant to make the victims feel like justice has been served and that would mean that they should be punished anyway to make the victim feel better.
Very tough subject, good work OP.
EDIT: I didn't read the OP, I pretty much repeated what he said.
On the other hand though, it's also something meant to make the victims feel like justice has been served and that would mean that they should be punished anyway to make the victim feel better.
Very tough subject, good work OP.
EDIT: I didn't read the OP, I pretty much repeated what he said.
It's "you do the crime, you do the time", not "you remember the crime, you do the time".
Also, isn't justice about people getting punished when they deserve it? As in being fair.
Justice would still be fair in this situation, though. The defendant not remembering his crimes doesn't make it any less fair to punish him.LoathsomePete said:
Also, isn't justice about people getting punished when they deserve it? As in being fair.
No, to me that's more like punishing a person who's mentally retarded. Shouldn't be done. If they're a threat to themselves or others, they can be put in a mental institutionSeraj said:
It depends on their overall mental state and the crime itself. Amnesia could point towards some sort of fit of rage which the criminal just blanks out from, in which case they are still a risk to society even though they don't remember what they did wrong.
If it can be proved that they are responsible, they have to pay for their crimes. Although with amnesia some sort of psychiatry should probably go along with it.
If it can be proved that they are responsible, they have to pay for their crimes. Although with amnesia some sort of psychiatry should probably go along with it.
Obviously all criminals lie badly.
So it's probably not true they have amnesia.
And even if they have it *now* the memories usually will come back.
They should thus be punished.
So it's probably not true they have amnesia.
And even if they have it *now* the memories usually will come back.
They should thus be punished.
If there is medical evidence showing that they have memory loss, let them intgrate into society through volunteering or helping others. This will help them to relearn morals and human rights. Once they learn who they were they will hopefully feel remorse and correct there ways. If this doesn't work throw them in prison. Thats if memory loss can affect peoples personalities to such a degree, not quite sure.
Edit: This is for full on memory loss not memory loss for a few days, weeks or months.
Edit: This is for full on memory loss not memory loss for a few days, weeks or months.
Yes, they should be punished. No mental condition puts someone above the law. People are punished for their actions, not memories of them.
