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

[Seraj]

I was discussing this with a friend earlier and I thought it'd be an interesting question to ask you guys, since so many games start off with the protagonist suffering a severe case of Amnesia


Say a wanted war criminal was caught (say Bin Laden [yes, I know he's dead] or Gadaffi) and during the capture operation he got a very bad knock to the head and doesn't even remember who he was. He's tested (to make sure he isn't just bluffing) and it turns out he isn't lying.

Is it then still morally correct to punish him?

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, as it would be like punishing a new born baby.

But on the other hand, one could argue that in the case of murder, the victims family want some sort of justice. As long as that person is out on the streets, people would still treat him as a murderer and he would cause far too much grief to the community. This rejection from the community would cause him to return to his earlier state.

I would like to hear your views and please don't just answer the poll and leave, give some justification for your reasoning.

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

 

[NellNell]

It seems like they shouldn't be punished if they didn't have any memory. But I put depends on what they did. Either way they would most likely be tried because the family would want justice even if the criminal didn't know he did it.

 

[SwimmingRock]

You punish people for their actions, not their memories of said actions. Otherwise "I have no idea how I killed that person" or "I was too drunk to really remember" would be a legitimate legal defence.

As somebody who lost a lot of memories after a car crash shattered my skull, I think claiming anything you did before wasn't your fault is a cheap copout. If others are to be believed, I was still largely the same person afterwards in regards to personality and behaviour. You don't become "like... a new born baby". That's only in movies. Furthermore, post-traumatic amnesia (as in, hit on the head) is frequently transient, so they shouldn't simply be left back into the world simply because they don't remember why they want to kill people this week.

 

[Seraj]

You punish people for their actions, not their memories of said actions. Otherwise "I have no idea how I killed that person" or "I was too drunk to really remember" would be a legitimate legal defence.

As somebody who lost a lot of memories after a car crash shattered my skull, I think claiming anything you did before wasn't your fault is a cheap copout. If others are to be believed, I was still largely the same person afterwards in regards to personality and behaviour. You don't become "like... a new born baby". That's only in movies. Furthermore, post-traumatic amnesia (as in, hit on the head) is frequently transient, so they shouldn't simply be left back into the world simply because they don't remember why they want to kill people this week.

Aye, too drunk is your own fault though for drinking too much, losing memory when someone else caused it, meh...

And I know its just in the movies but that why I'm saying "if it just so happened that"

Also, Good to hear you survived that car crash, sounds like it could have been fatal

 

[SquidVicious]

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.

 

[kayisking]

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.

 

[bdcjacko]

Yes, they should be punished. Ignorance of the law is no defense.

 

[kloiberin_time]

Punishment is not just about rehabilitation, it is about justice for those that were wronged by the criminal. It is a hard question, but my answer is Yes, they should still be punished. Convicting and punishing an innocent man is horrible and should never happen, but being innocent and not remembering something are two different beasts.

As a counter-argument I would use the knowledge that they do not remember as a large factor in parole. If they serve a set amount of time, don't recall or do recall and honestly repent what they have done then they are no longer a threat and should be set free. If they cause problems then they are still a threat. What made them become the monsters they are might not be locked in their memories but in the dark corners of their minds, their reflexes and their DNA.

Osama and other war criminals are not the same thing. Those we try and hang at the Hague.

 

[Shadow Druid]

The Law is the Law if a person has broken a law and there is significant proof then they have to be punished for that, no matter what the conditions that is how we end up with Serious criminals getting away with it on "Compassionate grounds".

 

[Davey Woo]

Yes, they were aware of what they were doing at the time, just because they forget afterwards doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

 

[Seraj]

Punishment is not just about rehabilitation, it is about justice for those that were wronged by the criminal. It is a hard question, but my answer is Yes, they should still be punished. Convicting and punishing an innocent man is horrible and should never happen, but being innocent and not remembering something are two different beasts.

As a counter-argument I would use the knowledge that they do not remember as a large factor in parole. If they serve a set amount of time, don't recall or do recall and honestly repent what they have done then they are no longer a threat and should be set free. If they cause problems then they are still a threat. What made them become the monsters they are might not be locked in their memories but in the dark corners of their minds, their reflexes and their DNA.

Osama and other war criminals are not the same thing. Those we try and hang at the Hague.

Good argument, but surely putting a guy with a clean slate for a memory in prison with criminals is more than just a bad idea?

 

[Raiha]

yes. just because they don't remember what they did does not mean they are no longer accountable for it. they still committed the crime and must be punished for it.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I would say yes, although he/ she should face what his/her criminal actions (show him/ her the newspaper or reports) was before the ammesia. They would be remourse and he or she may accept the punishment well depend what he/ she did.

 

[funguy2121]

I was discussing this with a friend earlier and I thought it'd be an interesting question to ask you guys, since so many games start off with the protagonist suffering a severe case of Amnesia


Say a wanted war criminal was caught (say Bin Laden [yes, I know he's dead] or Gadaffi) and during the capture operation he got a very bad knock to the head and doesn't even remember who he was. He's tested (to make sure he isn't just bluffing) and it turns out he isn't lying.

Is it then still morally correct to punish him?

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, as it would be like punishing a new born baby.

But on the other hand, one could argue that in the case of murder, the victims family want some sort of justice. As long as that person is out on the streets, people would still treat him as a murderer and he would cause far too much grief to the community. This rejection from the community would cause him to return to his earlier state.

I would like to hear your views and please don't just answer the poll and leave, give some justification for your reasoning.

Now there's the Escapist I know and love! A genuinely thought-provoking thread and not another Why do girls ***** so much? or Why all the hate for ___?) thread. Thank you, sir, you made my Friday (que Rebecca Black).

Very often amnesia, especially the kind that results from a concussion, isn't permanent. So it would be a danger to the community (and in the case of the examples you provided, the World), to let someone off. In addition, this would create another precedent of bullshit excuses such as the temporary insanity defense and the I-was-tripping-balls defense.

Also, while I thoroughly enjoyed the Bourne movies and look forward to the sequel, I don't believe in the basic premise (though I'm no neurologist). Though I do believe that a personality is more defined by the situations a person faces and the decisions they make in response, I think the brain wires itself a certain way after a time (this we do know from neurology, as an alcoholic's brain changes after much abuse so that the endorphin receptors widen), and that, even if a career criminal or war criminal were to have his/her memory wiped, they would still maintain a lot of those thought processes, especially if they were in a position of power similar to that of bin Ladin or Gadaffi and were reacquainted with their subordinates within the same infrastructure and told "this is who you are."

 

[SquidVicious]

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.

Welcome to the American Justice model, otherwise known as "Just Desserts" which says that if you do something against the law you'll be punished in 3 ways:

1) Take your money
2) Take your freedom
3) Take your life

Sounds like revenge to me.

 

[Bags159]

You punish people for their actions, not their memories of said actions. Otherwise "I have no idea how I killed that person" or "I was too drunk to really remember" would be a legitimate legal defence.

As somebody who lost a lot of memories after a car crash shattered my skull, I think claiming anything you did before wasn't your fault is a cheap copout. If others are to be believed, I was still largely the same person afterwards in regards to personality and behaviour. You don't become "like... a new born baby". That's only in movies. Furthermore, post-traumatic amnesia (as in, hit on the head) is frequently transient, so they shouldn't simply be left back into the world simply because they don't remember why they want to kill people this week.

Yeah, I came in to point this out. Who cares if you don't remember what you did, you did it.

 

[lacktheknack]

As a major fan of Oliver Sacks, I'm about 98% sure that there's no such thing as a "Tabula Rasa Memory Wipe" outside of Alzheimers (and that's actually slow regression, the memory wipe doesn't really happen until about a decade later). With that in mind, yes, yes they should still be punished. Just because you don't remember doing something doesn't mean that it didn't happen, and you ARE the same person you were before losing your memory.

 

[kayisking]

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.

Welcome to the American Justice model, otherwise known as "Just Desserts" which says that if you do something against the law you'll be punished in 3 ways:

1) Take your money
2) Take your freedom
3) Take your life

Sounds like revenge to me.

How is giving you a fine for speeding revenge?

 

[Jegsimmons]

in the case of a dictator...dont risk it.
in the case of the common man committing a crime and haveing a complete mind wipe and developing a complete different personality.....well maby some time in some institution, but probably not prison, and probably not for very long. after all if you woke up with no memory what so ever and some police men come and put you away for something you don't remeber or understand....that shits a little scary.

but they cannot be faking it. and thats the rub.