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

[SpaceCop]

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.

And that's enough..? Enough for what, friendo?

Really, though, in a legal situation, how much distinction do we make between people who can't remember their crimes because of retrograde amnesia versus people who can't remember their crimes because they were super drunk at the time?

 

[snowpuppy]

anyone played KotOR puts you in this situation.

 

[Ogargd]

Well I presume you mean retrograde amnesia, which is usually temporary but let us suppose it is not. If they get's clinically diagnosed and a jury believes it then by our laws they should not get punished, simple as that.

That being said I still voted with the maybe, as it's a juries decision not mine.

 

[DSQ]

why would you even ask this, the answer is yes of course. There is no way of proving somone has amnesia so the police/judge/jury would just asume the defendent was lying and they still commited the crime!

 

[coolkirb]

Its a tough question, if they are sleep walking and comit a crime their not at fault, but if they knowingly did the crime and then forgot about after by accedent like a blow to the head its trickey t I would say yes they should be punished but maybe get early parole or something similer

 

[XDravond]

haha i think it answers itself amnesia -> forgetting stuff like ehmm the sentence ;-) but yes I do think they should be punished (at least if you look at the ahem "laws" and "punishments" where i live)

And how sure can you be of they actually forgot they did the crime (stolen money) even hilarious ones (like speed signs maybe..), but if you want to be "fair" you need person based punishments and thats not gonna happen (unless your rich you can now days mostly buy your way out)

 

[Trololo Punk]

Of course it would depend on the circumstances and if his amnesia was the direct cause for what he did.

 

[Aprilgold]

They really shouldn't, because then its like a powerful kid at school beating up the retard parapolegic, its too one sided to make any sense.
If they lost ALL their memory before the court date, then went to it, after seeing a doctor and their lawyer about it, their case would become lost, they'll lost their chance to find themselves or make a new life for them selves, lose all their money, lose their freedom and their life because one chick is standing there yelling that He killed someone, HE should lose everything. While he would be, Well I have amneisa, I think, I don't even remeber my name correctly, or where my house is or if I did commit this, talk to the doctor, he'll say so. Seriously, this judicial system is usually one sided enough without tossing in "He can't remember anything, so jump on him."

 

[coolkirb]

why would you even ask this, the answer is yes of course. There is no way of proving somone has amnesia so the police/judge/jury would just asume the defendent was lying and they still commited the crime!

yes you can prove it, their is a case here in canada of a man who suffered disease that caused trance like states ( abit different but similer) he drove 15 miles to his wifes parents house murdered them drove home went back to sleep. He was found not guilty because he had no menus reas (guilty mind) even though their was actus reas (the guilty action)

he was proved after several tests to suffer from the disease (cant remember the name) the story is different but their are similarities, ie both dont remember doing the crime

 

[AgDr_ODST]

yes they deserve to be punished for thier crimes...not having any memory of an act doesn't change the fact that its been committed. Imagine you've gotten married and after a time your wife gets pregnant and give births. And then the day after Junior is born you fall hit your head(just like the war criminal) and lose your memory. You may not remember marrying your wife or that Jenny/Johnny Junior is your child but that doesn't change that A) your Married or B) that your the babys father. Just like in that scenario the lack of memory wouldn't change the fact that a criminal has committed a crime and he still needs to 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...

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're still telling and showing them they did it, so I dont see the problem.

Because by that logic insanity shouldn't be a valid defense either, and yet it is and a lot of people try to game the system by using it too... that doesn't mean that we should just throw genuinely insane people in jail just to be sure... it just means you have to make the checking competent enough to catch those that are faking.


Frankly i think the brain damage that causes amnesia (or the PTSD etc.) is something the courts would take into account based on already existing laws anyway... and they'll treat the crime differently then for someone who doesn't have brain damage... and the sentencing will be different based on that...

 

[WaysideMaze]

If the mind that committed the crimes is lost, does punishing what is left really serve any purpose?

 

[emeraldrafael]

<spoiler=Snip Spoiler>

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're still telling and showing them they did it, so I dont see the problem.

Because by that logic insanity shouldn't be a valid defense either, and yet it is and a lot of people try to game the system by using it too... that doesn't mean that we should just throw genuinely insane people in jail just to be sure... it just means you have to make the checking competent enough to catch those that are faking.


Frankly i think the brain damage that causes amnesia (or the PTSD etc.) is something the courts would take into account based on already existing laws anyway... and they'll treat the crime differently then for someone who doesn't have brain damage... and the sentencing will be different based on that...

Oh I think its wrong insane people get off easier just cause they're insane. You broke the law, you suffer for it. I'll hold that stance no matter what, whether you be insane, mentally handicapped, or ill. Theres no reason to give a special exception, otherwise you'll just have to keep going and going until we get to the pointw here no one can be punished just cause of their eye colour.

 

[4li3n]

And that's enough..? Enough for what, friendo?

Really, though, in a legal situation, how much distinction do we make between people who can't remember their crimes because of retrograde amnesia versus people who can't remember their crimes because they were super drunk at the time?

Enough for it to actually come up as a situation to discuss and make laws for...


And as said before, being drunk is your choice, if someone drugged you and you did something because of it it's certainly taken into account... and even being drunk leads to lesser charges then whe you premeditate a murder.

Imagine you've gotten married and after a time your wife gets pregnant and give births. And then the day after Junior is born you fall hit your head(just like the war criminal) and lose your memory. You may not remember marrying your wife or that Jenny/Johnny Junior is your child but that doesn't change that A) your Married or B) that your the babys father. Just like in that scenario the lack of memory wouldn't change the fact that a criminal has committed a crime and he still needs to be punished.

That's more like being in jail and losing your memory while there... pretty sure you'd get medical help and it would matter for stuff like parole etc., while the married guy can just get a divorce, and he's only forced to pay for the kid because society says you need to help the mother, without her he could just give the kid up for adoption.

A more closer scenario is you promising a girl you're gonna marry her... no one will actually say that you're forced to do it even if you don't remember her at all... while you obviously have to resolve the situation somehow.

 

[WaysideMaze]

Oh I think its wrong insane people get off easier just cause they're insane. You broke the law, you suffer for it. I'll hold that stance no matter what, whether you be insane, mentally handicapped, or ill. Theres no reason to give a special exception, otherwise you'll just have to keep going and going until we get to the pointw here no one can be punished just cause of their eye colour.

Just wow...

People who have mental problems should not be treated the same way as people with fully functioning mental faculties. They may not even understand the law, or even what they did wrong.

Does that offer any comfort to those that may have been hurt? Hell no, but taking revenge on someone who is mentally disabled by sticking them in a regular prison isn't helping anyone. They need help, and they damn sure are not going to get that in a regular prison.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Oh I think its wrong insane people get off easier just cause they're insane. You broke the law, you suffer for it. I'll hold that stance no matter what, whether you be insane, mentally handicapped, or ill. Theres no reason to give a special exception, otherwise you'll just have to keep going and going until we get to the pointw here no one can be punished just cause of their eye colour.

Just wow...

People who have mental problems should not be treated the same way as people with fully functioning mental faculties. They may not even understand the law, or even what they did wrong.

Does that offer any comfort to those that may have been hurt? Hell no, but taking revenge on someone who is mentally disabled by sticking them in a regular prison isn't helping anyone. They need help, and they damn sure are not going to get that in a regular prison.

We are a society with rules, and whether or not they are always followed, they SHOULD be, and everyone should be treated for when they braek the law. No exceptions.

 

[4li3n]

Oh I think its wrong insane people get off easier just cause they're insane. You broke the law, you suffer for it. I'll hold that stance no matter what, whether you be insane, mentally handicapped, or ill. Theres no reason to give a special exception, otherwise you'll just have to keep going and going until we get to the pointw here no one can be punished just cause of their eye colour.

And that's why i went with stoning... because it's obvious you should have no say in any of this because your opinion is overly simplistic and you understand little of the real world.

We are a society with rules, and whether or not they are always followed, they SHOULD be, and everyone should be treated for when they braek the law. No exceptions.

Quick, someone pass a law saying that we should rape and murder someone every thursday (or sacrifice them to a god, if we're being more reaslistic)... it's a rule of society, it must be followed.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Oh I think its wrong insane people get off easier just cause they're insane. You broke the law, you suffer for it. I'll hold that stance no matter what, whether you be insane, mentally handicapped, or ill. Theres no reason to give a special exception, otherwise you'll just have to keep going and going until we get to the pointw here no one can be punished just cause of their eye colour.

And that's why i went with stoning... because it's obvious you should have no say in any of this because your opinion is overly simplistic and you understand little of the real world.

whats there to understand? Its an opinion, I'm not being asked to judge. Besides, its clearly stated. They broke the law, they should be punished. I see no reason for you to get off easy because you dont remember it. I'm sure if someone had their family member murdered and the person said I dont remember, that wouldnt be enough, and there should be punishment for it.

EDIT:

We are a society with rules, and whether or not they are always followed, they SHOULD be, and everyone should be treated for when they braek the law. No exceptions.

Quick, someone pass a law saying that we should rape and murder someone every thursday (or sacrifice them to a god, if we're being more reaslistic)... it's a rule of society, it must be followed.

If thats the rule, then it will be followed. Just dont be surprised if the kill squad shows up at your door. Also, way to take it out of context, since that law is not about punishment when committing a crime.