Poll: Criminal with amnesia, should they still be punished?

[Mrsoupcup]

Depends on how much they remember... If they remember nothing than the person they were before is arguably dead, kinda like Kotor.

Though that would be the only scenario were I wouldn't punish them. Like if Bin-Laden had lost all memory of were he was for 3 weeks I would still have Seal Team 6 kill him.

 

[Skratt]

Not fit to stand trial comes to mind. However it would have to depend on the circumstances. Also prison is a no. Maybe some other facility, but not prison. Prison only makes more criminals.

 

[FirmartheTrilby]

Derp, yes. Crime is crime and people should pay for it, no matter if they got amnesia or not.

 

[Gigano]

If the criminal was lucid at the time of the crime, then yes, it'll have to answer for its crimes as an adult individual of legal age and full mental maturity, even if it has no memory of them. Lack of memory does not entail a complete shift in personality, hence it is still a criminal which must be punished.

Hypnosis and sleepwalking is where the funny questions begin to arise in regard to intent.

 

[Jedoro]

Not remembering an action doesn't mean you didn't do it, so I'd still want them punished.

 

[Frostbyte666]

For me it would depend on the seriousness (is that a word?) of the crime and the likelihood of memories resurfacing. For a start they would need to be in an institution of some sort to check over their mental health no matter the type of crime so there will be security measures in place. For petty crimes maybe they should be given a lenient sentence however they would be tagged for a set period incase they relapsed or anything. For serious crimes, murder and the like. Id have to say they should be locked up for 1 thing ro punish them, so that their mental health can be continually monitored and also in some ways to protect them from any lynch mobs if they are let off and to give peace of mind to the victims that the criminal is being punished.

 

[artanis_neravar]

Only if the amnesia is permanent should he be pardoned. As soon as he gets his memory back its jailtime. And as for the victims and their family, as long as they never see or hear from him again they can shove their revenge where it belongs. Punishing someone for something he didn't do is retarded. (I'm claiming here that when you have amnesia like that, you become a different person.)

But you are not a different person you are the same person with a lack of memories. Just because you don't remember your crime doesn't mean you didn't do it, and if you did it you have to face the consequences.

 

[4li3n]

Hey, everyone in this thread, you're all going to jail. I mean sure, you don't remember what you did, but what does that matter. (i love how many ppl just blurt out a response without actually considering what it would actually be like not to remember that you did anything, which would basically be just like if someone would arrest you right now for genocide).

Also, you're required to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demolished_Man



And the law would certainly take into account your condition, just like they would that of a guy that went crazy afterwards... or even of a guy who was faking it the whole time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Gigante#Feigning_legal_insanity

But you are not a different person you are the same person with a lack of memories.

It's funny how you seem to think your memories don't affect your personality...

 

[The Code]

I think it would be wrong to punish someone with severe amnesia for a crime they committed before the condition arose. Think about it. How can one be reprimanded and rehabilitated for committing an act that they have no recollection of whatsoever, and therefore show no remorse or learning from the experience? If you were in his shoes, how would you feel? "Why are you doing this to me? I don't even remember doing any of this!" let's say there's video footage of said criminal act, and was shown to the afflicted defendant. "That's what I did? That can't be right, that's a horrible thing to do! Why would anyone do that?"

Again, think about it. A person's perspective, judgement, and moral standing is built upon prior experience. If said prior experiences are stripped away, what do you think will happen to the rest of that person's mind? In such a situation, the person would more than likely fall back on subconscious, primal reactions to various situations. The person would view deliberately causing pain and anguish to another as abhorrent behavior and react in a genuinely negative fashion towards it. If a person's brain goes Blank Slate on them, wiping all memory and experience of the crime, it completely negates the effectiveness (and possibly the credibility) of the 'justice' system.

 

[UmJammerSully]

The question that needs to be answered: What does locking up a criminal with severe amnesia accomplish?

 

[thephich]

I don't know where your posting from, but I'm just going to do the whole Canadian Law thing here.

When looking to convict a criminal, they need to parts; Guilty Action & Guilty mind. So If a person is missing one of the two, the crime is incomplete.

So I'd say I wouldn't hold them liable for their previous actions, or, they could use their amnesia as a defense. But I'm sorta torn on the issue.

 

[Seraj]

lets say Bin Laden

you should have picked some one else,people dont like him and want him to die,even if he didn't do any thing bad to them.Im sad that he died,I don't like when people die.Also he should be sent to jail for a year or two,and then start a new life,if he becomes bad again,give him the full punishment!Also,I see why you picked him.He is VERY popular know a days....

you answered your own question I chose Bin laden because people have hate towards him, therefore will have to think things through a little.

-snip-

So you wouldn't want Bin Laden with Amnesia punished for causing the deaths of thousands, but you would want a run of the mill murderer punished? Forgive me but that is incredibly stupid; I think you could really go two ways on this, disregarding their memory loss and punishing them, or not doing so because they can't remember. You're not consistent with this, saying you wouldn't want Bin Laden punished but you would want a regular murderer punished.
I think this makes you sound like you sympathize with Bin Laden.

Edit your post, unless you like getting into arguments with large groups of people for saying something many would regard as offensive, hell, I'm not even American and I'm offended at the disregard you seen to have for the 2000 plus killed in 9/11 and the hundreds killed in other terrorist attacks who you seem to have disregarded by not punishing their effective killer, (with memory loss), but showing mercy to someone who only killed a very small number of people if not one person, (with memory loss).

As for you, I'm talking about the same person in both cases. I hate to say this, but read my OP more closely. The whole thing is one example,plus "getting into arguments with large groups of people" it seems you are the only one to misinterpret my post. so no, I will not edit it,

I'm not sympathizing with Bin Laden, since a) he did not have amnesia b) he's dead c)if you read the replies, there is no such thing as a full memory wipe, Bin Laden wasn't a computer.

 

[4li3n]

What's even funnier is that back in the old days giving people "brain surgery" (aka lobotomies) was considered a way to rehabilitate them in fiction, just ask Doc Savage.

 

[Thundero13]

Personally I think we could find some sort of middleground as it is wrong to punish someone with no recollection of what s/he did but at the same time they still have the personality of a criminal, I would suggest having them under some sort of 'watch', where police check in on her/him every now and again and look into them first if any crimes turn up around their area, etc. something like that.

 

[Seraj]

The question that needs to be answered: What does locking up a criminal with severe amnesia accomplish?

Oh if only it was that simple

Well, the victims family will feel that justice is served.

For example, if someone close to you was killed and that person lost all his memory, would you let them go free of charge? or would you want someone to suffer as your loved one did?

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

If hes entire life has been erased, no. He still commited the crimes, and he ios still alive to pay for them.

If hes personality is erased, than he's dead. The person you would be punishing isn't him. You can't punish someone for something someone alse did.

 

[brunothepig]

This is an interesting one... Well done OP.
I don't think they should be punished, because what's the point? However, they should be institutionalised or something. For just a couple of years, periodically evaluate them to see if having no memory changed their personality or if they're just going to revert to being criminals anyway, and prove beyond reasonable doubt they're not faking. Plus, by the end you can be confident it isn't short term or something.

The way I see it, the law shouldn't be there to punish stupid people, it should be there to protect other people from stupid people. So we jail those who break the law, we set up smaller punishments to discourage things that aren't big enough to jail a person for etc. So in that respect, the amnesiac has to prove they are no longer a risk to others, however if they are innocent, in their mind at least, they no longer deserve something as harsh as prison. Therefore, institution.

 

[CaptainKoala]

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.

The justice system is about more than punishing the person responsible for his actions, but it's also about bringing closure to the victim and their families. So even if he is effectively a different person, he, depending on the crime, ruined someone Else's life and affected their families forever. And someone needs to take the heat for that.