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

[Ascarus]

Is it then still morally correct to punish him?

are you serious?

this opens the door for the "i was so drunk / high i can't remember what happened" defense. so that girl can cry sexual assault all she wants. i don't remember it, so i can't be held responsible for it.

now that is justice!

 

[artanis_neravar]

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...

I never said memories didn't effect your personality, I said that you are still the same person. DNA and finger prints will all still match you, you are not a brand new person on the genetic level, so you are still guilty of your crime, it doesn't matter if you remember it or not.

 

[artanis_neravar]

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.

That's different, when you are asleep you don't have the conscious thought that would prevent normal people from committing a crime. If you just forgot the crime you still consciously committed it and are guilty of doing it.

 

[Seraj]

I can't believe you're actually arguing about the hypothetical nature of this thread, THAT YOU MADE?
Also, you're the one who need to read your own initial post properly, it's not a good look, reword it.

The whole thread is theoretical, I kinda worked out that full out memory clean do not exist after the first page of posts.

The only reason I posted, is because I wanted to start a debate and I wanted to know peoples opinions on the subject, mine is still firm unless convinced otherwise.

So unless you're going to take a stance and share your opinion, please, don't post any further

The previous posters had no problem with understanding my OP so it will stay the same.


Also, try taking a friendlier approach when all you want to tell me to do is "Reword your thread, I think you're portraying the wrong idea" Rather than telling me I'm a bin Laden sympathizer and saying "edit your post unless..."

back on topic though:

Is it then still morally correct to punish him?

are you serious?

this opens the door for the "i was so drunk / high i can't remember what happened" defense. so that girl can cry sexual assault all she wants. i don't remember it, so i can't be held responsible for it.

not that is justice!

I did say earlier, we're talking about a memory wipe, not self inflicted short term memory loss.

OF COURSE that is punishable, you're the one to binge drink in the first place!

[if you disagree, lay off the alcohol/drugs XD]

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

It is hardly justified to say "Oh, well, you don't remember" and let them go.

Besides, it is NOT like a child because a child isn't guilty of those things. At all.

So, yes, they need still be punished.

And if I may quote my avatar:
"Unless you can convince them that you have been wronged and grievously so, you will hang"

EDIT: Further, I doubt anyone on this thread would truly allow/want to allow someone who killed their family to walk on the sole reason that they cannot remember. Guilt isn't based on memories, it is based on actions

 

[artanis_neravar]

I can't believe you're actually arguing about the hypothetical nature of this thread, THAT YOU MADE?
Also, you're the one who need to read your own initial post properly, it's not a good look, reword it.

The whole thread is theoretical, I kinda worked out that full out memory clean do not exist after the first page of posts.

The only reason I posted, is because I wanted to start a debate and I wanted to know peoples opinions on the subject, mine is still firm unless convinced otherwise.

So unless you're going to take a stance and share your opinion, please, don't post any further

The previous posters had no problem with understanding my OP so it will stay the same.


Also, try taking a friendlier approach when all you want to tell me to do is "Reword your thread, I think you're portraying the wrong idea" Rather than telling me I'm a bin Laden sympathizer and saying "edit your post unless..."

back on topic though:

Is it then still morally correct to punish him?

are you serious?

this opens the door for the "i was so drunk / high i can't remember what happened" defense. so that girl can cry sexual assault all she wants. i don't remember it, so i can't be held responsible for it.

not that is justice!

I did say earlier, we're talking about a memory wipe, not self inflicted short term memory loss.

OF COURSE that is punishable, you're the one to binge drink in the first place!

[if you disagree, lay off the alcohol/drugs XD]

What if someone spikes your drinks? You aren't the one choosing to drink and it's possible that you won't notice are you still responsible?

 

[GaryH]

This is actually an interesting thought experiment, and the answer entirely depends on whether you view this sort of punishment as a means to re-educate and rehabilitate a criminal or as a sort of payment to society (i.e. revenge).

 

[Seraj]

It is hardly justified to say "Oh, well, you don't remember" and let them go

Besides, it is NOT like a child because a child isn't guilty of those things. At all.

So, yes, they need still be punished.

"I personally think no, if he has -no- memory at all of who he was and the crimes he committed, it would be wrong to punish him"

Just quoting myself there. I did point out the "no" with little dashes and all


You're right though, if my brother was killed and then got his memory wiped one way or another, I'd still want justice done, but that would be because I would be bitter.

I'm sure over time I'd get over it, like the guy who mentioned Amnesia: Dark Descent earlier, if I woke up one day not knowing who I was or where, and I was arrested for manslaughter, I'd be scared, confused and remorse. I've killed someone after all, it would be a little disorienting.

You have to put yourself in both positions, the criminal and the victims family before truly understanding the dilemma

 

[Seraj]

This is actually an interesting thought experiment, and the answer entirely depends on whether you view this sort of punishment as a means to re-educate and rehabilitate a criminal or as a sort of payment to society (i.e. revenge).

Finally, someone understands what I'm trying to get at here

What if someone spikes your drinks? You aren't the one choosing to drink and it's possible that you won't notice are you still responsible?

That's a totally different case, and if that was the case, err, isn't spiking drinks illegal anyway? so the spiker would take the responsibility for whatever ensued. That's what I think anyway...

But I'm no judge

eep, sorry for the double post, I though someone posted in between my posts :s

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

It is hardly justified to say "Oh, well, you don't remember" and let them go

Besides, it is NOT like a child because a child isn't guilty of those things. At all.

So, yes, they need still be punished.

"I personally think no, if he has -no- memory at all of who he was and the crimes he committed, it would be wrong to punish him"

Just quoting myself there. I did point out the "no" with little dashes and all


You're right though, if my brother was killed and then got his memory wiped one way or another, I'd still want justice done, but that would be because I would be bitter.

I'm sure over time I'd get over it, like the guy who mentioned Amnesia: Dark Descent earlier, if I woke up one day not knowing who I was or where, and I was arrested for manslaughter, I'd be scared, confused and remorse. I've killed someone after all, it would be a little disorienting.

You have to put yourself in both positions, the criminal and the victims family before truly understanding the dilemma

I am. But that still does NOT change the fact that you are guilty of a crime. If the law would allow someone to walk away after commiting horrid crimes, for the sole reason that they suffer amnesia, then "the law is an ass".

Then again, I am the kind of person who wants the guilty punished, so make of that what you will.

 

[Seraj]

I am. But that still does NOT change the fact that you are guilty of a crime. If the law would allow someone to walk away after commiting horrid crimes, for the sole reason that they suffer amnesia, then "the law is an ass".

Then again, I am the kind of person who wants the guilty punished, so make of that what you will.

I accept that, but it's really a question of are you still the same person after a memory wipe?


EDIT: I'm off to bed now, thanks for all your views and whatnot, you guys have given me good arguments.

It appears the question isn't as simple as I thought it was. Time to sleep on it

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I am. But that still does NOT change the fact that you are guilty of a crime. If the law would allow someone to walk away after commiting horrid crimes, for the sole reason that they suffer amnesia, then "the law is an ass".

Then again, I am the kind of person who wants the guilty punished, so make of that what you will.

I accept that, but it's really a question of are you still the same person after a memory wipe?

It what ways? And how is this relivent?

Your DNA is the same. And amnesia doesn't really work in the way that most people think. It doesn't make you forget who you are, at best it can make you forget events. At BEST.

So, yes, you are the same person. And you still commited said acts. And you need to pay for your crimes. No price is too high for justice, when it is so richly deserved.

 

[artanis_neravar]

This is actually an interesting thought experiment, and the answer entirely depends on whether you view this sort of punishment as a means to re-educate and rehabilitate a criminal or as a sort of payment to society (i.e. revenge).

Finally, someone understands what I'm trying to get at here

What if someone spikes your drinks? You aren't the one choosing to drink and it's possible that you won't notice are you still responsible?

That's a totally different case, and if that was the case, err, isn't spiking drinks illegal anyway? so the spiker would take the responsibility for whatever ensued. That's what I think anyway...

But I'm no judge

eep, sorry for the double post, I though someone posted in between my posts :s

You are right it's not the same, so how about this:
A guy rapes a girl, the girl gets amnesia, doesn't remember anything and is a completely new person. Should the guy still be convicted of rape since the person he raped doesn't exist anymore?

Oh and the guy who raped her isn't the one who gave here amnesia

 

[Biosophilogical]

Um... yes. Regardless of whether the defendant knows it or not doesn't negate that a crime has been committed. If a person blacked out because of drug or alcohol abuse and murders someone, they're still going to be convicted. Maybe only on an involuntary manslaughter charge, but you can't ignore the evidence that says person A killed person B.

A lot of people don't seem to understand this, but justice isn't fair, it's just.

I don't agree, justice is fair. If justice isn't fair, then it's not justice but revenge.

Faith in humanity, rising.

OT: Depends upon the nature of the amnesia. I mean, I'm pretty sure most of amnesia is temporary, so the best you should do is wait for him to remember. However, if the memory loss was permanent (as in, brain damage), then how can you justifiably sentence him? I mean, is he still the same person after the event (like, is it still the person who performed the murders, except now they don't remember them, or are they a changed man, finally being free from the homicidal influences of their upbringing?).

The answer to the question depends upon the circumstance, like, even if they get their memory back, will their time of not being a murderous hateful bastard make them realise the stupidity and horror of the person they were? So even if they get their memories back, will they still be the same person? So you shouldn't prosecute if the lack of memories affect their personality, because then they aren't the same person, and once they get their memories back, do they revert to who they were, or do they remain the amnesiac=personality except they now carry the memories of a horrible person inside them?

So the real point is, you shouldn't prosecute them if they aren't the person who committed the crime (in the case of alcohol, drinking is a voluntary choice, you chose to let go of your control, so you are responsible for the outcome, whereas if someone drugs you with something mind-altering, then you shouldn't be held responsible because it was drug-you, not you-you that did it, and you had absolutely no say in the drug-you)

 

[crudus]

Yes. Your memory does not make you the person you are or determine what actions you have done.

 

[Seraj]

You are right it's not the same, so how about this:
A guy rapes a girl, the girl gets amnesia, doesn't remember anything and is a completely new person. Should the guy still be convicted of rape since the person he raped doesn't exist anymore?

Oh and the guy who raped her isn't the one who gave here amnesia

Caught my eye as I was about to sleep

Well, that in my eyes is simple, the criminal still did a crime, even if the victim is as good as dead.

Although in this case, the criminal would probably get away with it, since the victims forgot about it and wont report it...

 

[Biosophilogical]

This is actually an interesting thought experiment, and the answer entirely depends on whether you view this sort of punishment as a means to re-educate and rehabilitate a criminal or as a sort of payment to society (i.e. revenge).

Finally, someone understands what I'm trying to get at here

What if someone spikes your drinks? You aren't the one choosing to drink and it's possible that you won't notice are you still responsible?

That's a totally different case, and if that was the case, err, isn't spiking drinks illegal anyway? so the spiker would take the responsibility for whatever ensued. That's what I think anyway...

But I'm no judge

eep, sorry for the double post, I though someone posted in between my posts :s

You are right it's not the same, so how about this:
A guy rapes a girl, the girl gets amnesia, doesn't remember anything and is a completely new person. Should the guy still be convicted of rape since the person he raped doesn't exist anymore?

Oh and the guy who raped her isn't the one who gave here amnesia

May I answer this?

If justice should be about rehabilitation and what-not, then raping someone is a criminal act, regardless of if there is a victim, because the purpose isn't revenge, but to protect the rest of society from further incidences.

 

[Seraj]

]May I answer this?

If justice should be about rehabilitation and what-not, then raping someone is a criminal act, regardless of if there is a victim, because the purpose isn't revenge, but to protect the rest of society from further incidences.

Muahaha, ninja'd but we share the same answer

 

[CrystalShadow]

Seeing as ignorance of the law is no excuse i would say ignorance of actions isn't either

You know, funny how this quote is in and of itself ignorance of the law.

This varies by jurisdiction. (As do a lot of things, such as the 'innocent until proven guilty' concept, which in some areas of Europe is most definitely 'Guilty until proven innocent').

Be that as it may, there are places where Not knowing what the law says is a perfectly valid defense.

One of them is Queensland, Australia. - And the police know the law says this, and as a result try and trick you into saying you know what the law says.

The legal system also tries do obscure the documents that explain this. - Or show, very briefly, a segment of the 'queensland criminal code', which states 'ignorance of the law may not be used as a defense', but fail to point out that this segment only applies to legal professionals. (Eg. Police, Lawyers, Judges... Politicians...)

Meanwhile, another segment explicitly states that the general public is allowed to use it as a defense, and also, that anyone in a professional situation that tries to mislead you about the terms of the 'criminal code' is guilty of a crime with a mandatory 7 year sentence.

For that matter, the frequent reference to it being the 'Queensland criminal code' is misleading, because it suggests it has something to do with the behaviour of criminals.
When in fact, the very document that says contains a statement to the effect that 'ignorance of the law is not a defence' is part of the (giving it it's full title': Queensland criminal justice professionals code of conduct.

Eg. They are using an extract from a document serving as a code of conduct for the legal profession to fool the public into thinking things that aren't true.

So... Your statement is demonstrably false in at least one place in the world, and quite possibly false in a lot of others as well.
(Though it could equally be true in some places.)

But the fact that it's false anywhere in the world, yet still seems like 'common knowledge' even in the places where it is false, says a lot.