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

[LuckyClover95]

I think they should be punished, but a very minor punishment - if they've lost memory, and don't remember a lot of their life, then they probably don't remember why they are a bad person and are an at least all right or slightly bad person as apposed to the evil they were before, and in this case, they would understand WHY they were being punished and accept it, but it wouldn't be a terrible punishment. I voted no.

 

[AgentNein]

Good thread! It's hard for me to say.

Here's a question, let's say hypothetically I'm homicidal genius and my name is Bob, and I commit a horrible crime, and then using a machine I've just invented, I switch memories with someone else (let's call him Sam) who's completely innocent. So now I've got the memories of an innocent Sam, and Sam's got the memories of the guilty Bob (for the purpose of this question it's irreversible, and it's a definite that we're not just two actors pulling one over on everybody).

Do we punish both of us? Just the one? And which one? The one who committed these crimes and switched these memories, or the one who has the memories of committing these crimes and switching these memories?

 

[artanis_neravar]

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?

Knowing what you did is wrong doesn't excuse you from doing the act itself. Amnesia always has the chance to reverse and give the person back their memories. If there is enough damage for it to be permanent then the person will probably be hospitalized for the rest of their life. It would be like someone committing a crime then finding God, they now acknowledge that what they did is wrong, and they will never do it again, but they still committed a crime.

 

[Panda Mania]

Ooo, just watched a Criminal Minds episode on this! In that case, the man's memory did come trickling back, until he remembered everything (can't tell how long it took, since everything takes place in TV-show-time). Luckily, he's honest about his recovery, and conviction proceeds without further problems (he had killed 3 or so women). But while he was still confused, the issue of punishing a amnesiac was discussed.

Apparently, in Western philosophy, the concept of being a product of your past is dominant; without one, without the memory of one, you're practically a whole 'nother person. Whether that is a universal truth is definitely up for grabs....I personally think there should be some sort of middle ground, where the criminal is still being detained and monitored as a result of his unlawful actions, but where conviction and a sentence is postponed. The amnesia, hopefully, will not be permanent. If it is...well, perhaps a strict parole, rather than bleak imprisonment, would be more on the fair side of things. As for the victim's families...they'll certainly fight that kind of decision in court, but if the criminal truly can't remember, he shouldn't be punished...until he can recall.

 

[icame]

Just because they can't remember it doesn't mean they didn't do it. They still deserve any punishment they would get for their crimes.

 

[IceStar100]

Yes they should memory or not they did something wrong. Plus there victim deserve justice or revenge depending on who you ask. Just becuase they don't know they did it does not take away the fact they did it.

 

[HentMas]

Yes, he did those things, he needs to be in trial for what he did, but the punishment haves to be much less to what he actually would deserve if he was aware of what he did, although one would argue that this kind of hypothesis would end up with the culprit in the mental lounge rather than the actual prison because its a mental problem, he would be "claiming insanity" (from a legal standpoint) and if proven right his place is in a medical ward

EDIT: Also, would your views change if it was severe brain damage?

no, he is still responsible, but as stated before, the judge would be the one to put him in a mental ward

once he gets "better" you are free to release hell on his ass.

 

[artanis_neravar]

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.

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...

I do agree with both of you but that being said, once I don't remember the crime becomes a viable defense criminals can always try to pull this, and with the average quality of jurors (at least in America) there is a good chance that it would work

 

[StriderShinryu]

I'm not sure what the case is outside of Canada, but here one of the main pillars in sentencing is supposed to be deterrence. Basically, sending a message that what was done is not tolerated and if you do the same thing you too will be punished. It's not always about beating down the specific individual involved in the case, or locking them away for life, it's about letting everyone else know that they can't do the same thing and get away with it. And, quite honestly, it's a principle I agree with.

Every case is going to have it's mitigating circumstances. (Almost) every criminal is going to have their own reasons for doing what they did. Some of these reasons may actually hold water and should alter the way the case is treated. The fact is, however, that in the case of a murder, for example, someone still died. There is still a family that lost a loved one and will never be able to see or speak to them ever again. There is a piece of their lives that was forever stolen and never retrievable. Regardless of whether the criminal meant to do what they did, or whether they remember it or not as in the case of the OP, the fact is the result is the same. They not only deserve some punishment, as decided in a court of law, but others who may be in a position to do the same thing need to know that, even if they have no actual moral compunction with what they do, they are going to face consequences if they go forward.

 

[Alphakirby]

It honestly depends,I think he/she should be punished if they have a chance of recovering memories of their crimes. If it's a total mind wipe,we should first do a morality test to see if the person is able to be set free without making the same mistakes. Just because somebody doesn't remember their murder charges doesn't mean he won't murder again.

 

[cavemano727]

Seeing as I believe punishment is meant to protect civilians, yes. A lot of actions are based on one's personality. Seeing as your memory can be damaged without a personality change (because they are different parts of the brain) , they might do it again. So in order to protect future people, it's a better idea to lock them up.

 

[JediMB]

I do not believe in vengeance as justice. This much I'll say.

Now, if a person has lost his memories to the extent that he has lost his identity, then he surely needs controlled non-punitive rehabilitation so that he can function properly. This would take years before he would be ready to go back into the world, and serve a better purpose than traditional imprisonment.

 

[Woodsey]

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.

If the person is effectively gone then they're gone. Revenge should not factor into it.

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.

That's why I said to the extent of being a different person. Whether that's a purely hypothetical instance or not, I don't know.

 

[NuclearPenguin]

He gets amnesia, forgets all crime hes ever done & forgets any plans of it.
He is still that same person that made those plans in the first place.

He gets amnesia, forgets essentially everything except basic skills (Speaking, writing, so on).
Satisfy the general public and punish him.

Also, you can't prove Amnesia.

 

[Killertje]

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.

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?

You are your memories and experiences, the rest is just a body. Sure you have talents and dispositions built into your brain because of the way it is structured, but thats only a small part of the decision making process. If you have no memories of something, punishing you for it is just like punishing a random person off the street. They have as much to do with what happened as someone else (like you) who knows absolutely nothing about it.

 

[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.

If the person is effectively gone then they're gone. Revenge should not factor into it.

Justice and revenge are completely different things.

 

[Killertje]

He gets amnesia, forgets all crime hes ever done & forgets any plans of it.
He is still that same person that made those plans in the first place.

He gets amnesia, forgets essentially everything except basic skills (Speaking, writing, so on).
Satisfy the general public and punish him.

Also, you can't prove Amnesia.

Hi, I'm part of the general public and I would like you to stop torturing people in my name please.

Also, amnesia is brain damage, so a simple fmri scan should prove it.

 

[4li3n]

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.

Oh, so you where just saying that there's no such thing as people with the same DNA... TWINS, THEY DO NOT EXIST!

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

That doesn't work because when you kill someone that person also doesn't exist anymore...


And it's a total different situation, the criminal in this case is still perfectly aware of what he did and will have no issue doing it again if he get away with it...

 

[Nickompoop]

So we're talking "completely mind wiped"? Their memory has been affected in such a way that they might as well be an entirely different person? ...eeehhh...well, it wouldn't be long before they realized who they are or were, thanks to the media and what not and as you stated, people would still treat them wrongfully...okay, I got it. He can't remember who he is so assign him a new identity. Just make up a few lies, give them a hair cut, and re-instate them...somewhere.

I endorse your idea, good sir.

 

[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.

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?

You are your memories and experiences, the rest is just a body. Sure you have talents and dispositions built into your brain because of the way it is structured, but thats only a small part of the decision making process. If you have no memories of something, punishing you for it is just like punishing a random person off the street. They have as much to do with what happened as someone else (like you) who knows absolutely nothing about it.

If you have real proof then yes. Real proof would have to be enough that I could be convicted in court, so video evidence, DNA etc.
But it doesn't matter if you remember doing it, the memories are there, and will always be there whether you remember them or not. If you commit a crime then you are guilty of it regardless of whether you remember.

It is important to note that I would take the beating, I would fight back, but I would accept a guilty verdict if you had the proof and I had amnesia.