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

[4li3n]

or if you are a girl, raping my father or something

I'm not sure you should believe your father when he says that some younger female totally raped him against his will...

 

[4li3n]

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.

People have had whole pats of their brain destroyed and that changes their very personality, not only destroyed some of their memories...

So that little assertion of yours about the memories still being there isn't very supported by the evidence.

 

[Pholark]

I would suggest certainly so. Though the person in question may have no recollection of what they did, if the evidence in incriminating, the person is still guilty, regardless of their own personal recollection of themselves or the events in question. Not to mention, they might not remember the crimes or themselves personally, but others certainly will. If the justice system released prisoners based on their ability to recall their own crimes, criminals would be injuring themselves for the avoidance of prosecution. Just because they don't remember it happening doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[dancinginfernal]

Hooray for psychological middle ground saving me the trouble of explaining myself!

It would definitely depend on the person and the crime; there would also need to be undeniable proof of his/her case of amnesia.

 

[artanis_neravar]

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!

I never said that twins don't exist, I'm just saying that getting amnesia doesn't cvhange the fact that you are still the same person

 

[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.

Justice and revenge are completely different things.

I know, but that's not what you said.

"The justice system is about more than punishing... it's also about bringing closure to the victim and their families."

The latter is, in essence, vengeance.

 

[artanis_neravar]

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.

People have had whole pats of their brain destroyed and that changes their very personality, not only destroyed some of their memories...

So that little assertion of yours about the memories still being there isn't very supported by the evidence.

having whole parts of your brain destroyed would result in you being being brain damaged. Having parts of your brain scared and damaged may change your personality but those memories and your original personality are still there whether you remember them or not

 

[Killertje]

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.

You say the memories are there whether you remember them or not, but as I see it (psychology major) amnesia is damage to the brain in the area where memories are stored or retrieved. There are cases of amnesia where the patient regains most of their memories, but that usually happens in a few days/weeks. In the case we were discussing I am assuming it is permanent. These memories will never come back and the patient will forever be different because their life experiences are gone and have to be replaced by new ones. This means their personality will also be rebuilt although technically they could turn into their old personality again or even something worse. The chances of that are only slightly higher than that of a random baby though, so it would be unfair to punish them.

I would expect them to be tested to see the extent of the amnesia and if it turns out they do regain most of their memories they should still be punished for their old crimes. However in this example if someone loses their memory permanently it's like they died. That should be enough closure for the victims family.

 

[Paul Toth]

maybe no execution but long period of jail prison etc

 

[SpaceCop]

Sorry, yes. I'm all for the justice system being about rehabilitation first and punishment second. But remember, according to the establishment, being ignorant of laws is not an excuse for breaking them. I can't imagine being ignorant of specific crimes committed would be any better.

It would set a very dangerous precedent. How often would we see memory loss appear as a defence? How much time and taxpayer money do we spend sorting the amnesiacs from the fakers--and how do we actually determine, with legal weight, that someone actually has amnesia to the extent that we will forget their past actions? And where do we draw the line; if someone was drunk or high enough to claim no memory of events, we'd still convict them if the evidence was there, wouldn't we?

Also, isn't actual permanent retrograde amnesia pretty darn rare outside of works of fiction?

 

[-Ulven-]

If the evidence are enough, he should be punished.

Here's another one for ya though... if someone with schizofrenia threatens with suicide, is it a hostage situation?

 

[4li3n]

I would suggest certainly so. Though the person in question may have no recollection of what they did, if the evidence in incriminating, the person is still guilty, regardless of their own personal recollection of themselves or the events in question. Not to mention, they might not remember the crimes or themselves personally, but others certainly will. If the justice system released prisoners based on their ability to recall their own crimes, criminals would be injuring themselves for the avoidance of prosecution. Just because they don't remember it happening doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Then why do crazy people don't get thrown in jail, even if no one showed they where crazy at the time of the first crime and they still clearly are part of the same criminal group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Gigante#Feigning_legal_insanity - and that guy was faking it even.

It would set a very dangerous precedent. How often would we see memory loss appear as a defence? How much time and taxpayer money do we spend sorting the amnesiacs from the fakers--and how do we actually determine, with legal weight, that someone actually has amnesia to the extent that we will forget their past actions? And where do we draw the line; if someone was drunk or high enough to claim no memory of events, we'd still convict them if the evidence was there, wouldn't we?

Also, isn't actual permanent retrograde amnesia pretty darn rare outside of works of fiction?

About the same way they determine legal insanity i would assume... and that only works as a defense in very few cases.

And it doesn't matter how rare permanent retrograde amnesia is, it could happen, and that's enough.

 

[Killertje]

I would suggest certainly so. Though the person in question may have no recollection of what they did, if the evidence in incriminating, the person is still guilty, regardless of their own personal recollection of themselves or the events in question. Not to mention, they might not remember the crimes or themselves personally, but others certainly will. If the justice system released prisoners based on their ability to recall their own crimes, criminals would be injuring themselves for the avoidance of prosecution. Just because they don't remember it happening doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Lol if criminals caused brain damage like that I would definitely give them a free pass for their crimes. They basically sacrifice their memories and thus their personality (which sucked and was a drain to our society) for a fresh start, or more likely they would accidentally kill themselves. Much cheaper than prison for the tax payers.

 

[4li3n]

Lol if criminals caused brain damage like that I would definitely give them a free pass for their crimes. They basically sacrifice their memories and thus their personality (which sucked and was a drain to our society) for a fresh start, or more likely they would accidentally kill themselves. Much cheaper than prison for the tax payers.

Lobotomies for the "criminally insane" where even a thing once upon a time... until enough people realized they where mostly just making the criminals retarded.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Yes, punish them. Be sure to tell them what they did, and show them the evidence that they did it, and then punish them to the full extent.

No excuses, no exceptions.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

They still committed a crime, so yes, they should be punished.

 

[4li3n]

Yes, punish them. Be sure to tell them what they did, and show them the evidence that they did it, and then punish them to the full extent.

No excuses, no exceptions.

And dont forget to stone them either...

 

[Prosis]

This is a hard one to call...

My main concern is the court case. That is, that pleading amnesia would become commonplace in order to dodge crime.

There would definitely have to be a requirement for hospital-recognized head trauma, like a concussion at the very least.


But seeing as I don't believe amnesia actually occurs all that often (just my understanding, I have no numbers or anything to back it up), I think it would be better to still persecute despite their memory loss.

And what if they regained their memories? A person is innocent until he remembers he did the crime?

Unless there are actual court cases where this came up (amnesia due to mental disorder such as multiple personality doesn't count), I don't see why there needs to be a general law about it. It should be case by case

 

[emeraldrafael]

Yes, punish them. Be sure to tell them what they did, and show them the evidence that they did it, and then punish them to the full extent.

No excuses, no exceptions.

And dont forget to stone them either...

Wow, that was fast.

But why not? They broke the law. I dont care if they dont remember it, that just gives the excused for the next guy to try and forget, or to say he forgot, or to go see a hypnotherapist to get around it or something. Besides, you'res till telling and showing them they did it, so I dont see the problem.

... Also stoning would be a punishment, but only in areas its permissable, so its not forgotten.

 

[Killertje]

Sorry, yes. I'm all for the justice system being about rehabilitation first and punishment second. But remember, according to the establishment, being ignorant of laws is not an excuse for breaking them. I can't imagine being ignorant of specific crimes committed would be any better.

It would set a very dangerous precedent. How often would we see memory loss appear as a defence? How much time and taxpayer money do we spend sorting the amnesiacs from the fakers--and how do we actually determine, with legal weight, that someone actually has amnesia to the extent that we will forget their past actions? And where do we draw the line; if someone was drunk or high enough to claim no memory of events, we'd still convict them if the evidence was there, wouldn't we?

Also, isn't actual permanent retrograde amnesia pretty darn rare outside of works of fiction?

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 can't remember the law, in which case you still have a disability).

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).
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.

As for rarity, yes it has to be very specific brain damage which doesn't happen very often.