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

[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.

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.

Pretty much spot on.

You can't hold people with mental disabilities to the same standard as the rest of society. It doesn't work that way.

 

[SpaceCop]

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 cant remember the law, in which case you still have a disability).

But the legal system doesn't waive charges because of disability, surely. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong here, but even a successful plead of insanity (or something less dramatic) won't just straight up let you off the hook, will it? In some cases you might be trading a life in prison for a life under constant state supervision and psychiatric treatment. Which, to my mind, would be a satisfactory legal resolution.

I wasn't suggesting we treat an amnesiac exactly as we would anyone else convicted of a crime--special account should be taken for their condition. But I also think throwing it all out on the grounds that they have somehow become a moral blank slate is socially irresponsible.

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).

According to the all-knowing 'pedia, it's suggested that "retrograde amnesia can occur without any anatomical damage to the brain, lacking an observable neurological basis--it can occur due to a traumatic situation that individuals wish to consciously or unconsciously avoid." Now, I don't know how accurate that info is; and the human brain and its workings are incredibly complex, and our understanding of it is still painfully limited. But I bet you could build a solid defence case around that.

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.

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.

Committing a crime is your choice too.

Getting drunk is your responsibility--as is committing a crime. Whether or not you recall it, you made a conscious decision, and it is that decision that you should be held accountable for, regardless of how distanced from it you are now. At least, that's what I'm arguin'.

This is one hell of a strawman argument, but are we saying that if we can't remember something we shouldn't have to take responsibility for it? I can't remember starting my binge drinking, so how can I be held accountable for it? I was a different person then.

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?

That situation should be resolved based on the actual events that took place, as determined by evidence, testimony, timing, motive, etcetera. Life is viewed subjectively, but events occur objectively. And really, teeth-kicking is revenge--I'm talking about "justice", if it's possible to pin down such a nebulous concept.

 

[Tsaba]

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

Nope

OT: they as a person might have changed, but, they as a person are still accountable for their actions even if they can't remember it.

 

[A random person]

As they don't remember what they did, they won't get the "don't do this again" message from being punished. If they retain criminal tendencies, though, perhaps they should be rehabilitated.

 

[Burningsok]

yes they should be punished regardless if they claim amnesia. If amnesia is a valid argument to not punish someone for a crime they committed, then criminals can easily exploit it to no end.

 

[Clarkarius]

Yes, although conventional imprisonment would probably not be the best approach, in the case of a convicted amnesiac it would probably be better for them to be under health surveillance say at an asylum and should he or she regain there memory a retrial/appeal can then possibly be considered.

 

[4li3n]

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.

But the thing is that the law shouldn't only take into account the family's feeling, because even if the person died because of an accident that the law says wasn't anyone's fault they'd still want someone punished... hell, they'd feel that way even if the fault was with the victim crossing the street on a red light, they did kill their relative and it's an eye for an eye...


Of course there should be something done about the situation, but treating it like another situation like youre suggesting is like treating manslaughter the same as premeditated mass murder... there are plenty of good reasons we don't.

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.

It's not anymore out of context then your ideas about the law...

I could have just said that we should make it a rule that if you steal anything you should be raped and buried alive...

Or not allowing black people to ride at the front of the bus.... because that's the ultimate example of a rule of society that needed breaking in order for it to change.

But the legal system doesn't waive charges because of disability, surely. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong here, but even a successful plead of insanity (or something less dramatic) won't just straight up let you off the hook, will it? In some cases you might be trading a life in prison for a life under constant state supervision and psychiatric treatment. Which, to my mind, would be a satisfactory legal resolution.

I wasn't suggesting we treat an amnesiac exactly as we would anyone else convicted of a crime--special account should be taken for their condition. But I also think throwing it all out on the grounds that they have somehow become a moral blank slate is socially irresponsible.

The thing is, most people are saying we should treat it like it didn't happen.

And of course the person with amnesia should be just allowed to not be watched and go around doing whatever, just like a insane guy that has proven to have violent episodes should be freed in a field to go around unsupervised.

According to the all-knowing 'pedia, it's suggested that "retrograde amnesia can occur without any anatomical damage to the brain, lacking an observable neurological basis--it can occur due to a traumatic situation that individuals wish to consciously or unconsciously avoid." Now, I don't know how accurate that info is; and the human brain and its workings are incredibly complex, and our understanding of it is still painfully limited. But I bet you could build a solid defence case around that.

PTSD is already taken into account by the law... and i mentioned it earlier.

Committing a crime is your choice too.

Getting drunk is your responsibility--as is committing a crime. Whether or not you recall it, you made a conscious decision, and it is that decision that you should be held accountable for, regardless of how distanced from it you are now. At least, that's what I'm arguin'.

This is one hell of a strawman argument, but are we saying that if we can't remember something we shouldn't have to take responsibility for it? I can't remember starting my binge drinking, so how can I be held accountable for it? I was a different person then.

That doesn't work because you're not remembering because of something you did... thus i was pretty much premeditated. While we're assuming the amnesia isn't intentional.

And of course what need to be determined is if the guy is still a danger to society... just like when you do something bad while drunk and you obviously have a drinking problem getting treatment for it comes into play too...

 

[emeraldrafael]

<spoiler=Spoiler Snip>

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.

But the thing is that the law shouldn't only take into account the family's feeling, because even if the person died because of an accident that the law says wasn't anyone's fault they'd still want someone punished... hell, they'd feel that way even if the fault was with the victim crossing the street on a red light, they did kill their relative and it's an eye for an eye...


Of course there should be something done about the situation, but treating it like another situation like youre suggesting is like treating manslaughter the same as premeditated mass murder... there are plenty of good reasons we don't.

If you're crossing the street (at the appropriate crosswalk) during a red light on your side, then its entirely the fault of the driver, because they just ran a red light, and did not yield to the pedestrian, to big laws of driving in PA. If you jaywalked,t hen I dont feel bad for you becoming road kill, thats the law, you refused to follow it, and as long as the persont hat ran you down attempted to stop, then I dont place blame on them.

and I'm not saying every crime needs the same punishment. but every Criminal should be punished fairly and on the same level as any other criminal, to the fullest extent that the law describes.


<spoiler=Spoiler Snip 2>

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.

It's not anymore out of context then your ideas about the law...

I could have just said that we should make it a rule that if you steal anything you should be raped and buried alive...

Or not allowing black people to ride at the front of the bus.... because that's the ultimate example of a rule of society that needed breaking in order for it to change.

What, I'm following the law, and I dont beleive in breaks for people. There's no excuse or reason to treat you special if you committed a crime. I dont get special treatment just cause I'm labeled "disturbed... but functional" in a psychiatric report.

you were allowed to sit in the front seat, you were just expected to give it up in case of a white person wanting it. And tehy were punished, but the law changed. When the law changes on cases like this, then my view... well, it wont, but my opinion of it will to follow what the law says.

really, you should learn your history.

 

[Caligulove]

Yes, they're still accountable for what they did. Plus, who knows? Maybe they'll actually be able to safely rehabilitate themselves back into society for whatever it is that they did much easier and more effectively than other convicts. But can't escape punishment. Though, more realistically, prison just creates more effective and more citizens engaging in anti-social behavior, or even repeat offenders. Justice/Penal system is really fucked up and doesnt really help anyone for the better

 

[4li3n]

If you're crossing the street (at the appropriate crosswalk) during a red light on your side, then its entirely the fault of the driver, because they just ran a red light, and did not yield to the pedestrian, to big laws of driving in PA. If you jaywalked,t hen I dont feel bad for you becoming road kill, thats the law, you refused to follow it, and as long as the persont hat ran you down attempted to stop, then I dont place blame on them.

and I'm not saying every crime needs the same punishment. but every Criminal should be punished fairly and on the same level as any other criminal, to the fullest extent that the law describes.

So i guess the feelings of the family don't count... so you bringing them up wasn't needed... 10x for agreeing.

What, I'm following the law, and I dont beleive in breaks for people. There's no excuse or reason to treat you special if you committed a crime. I dont get special treatment just cause I'm labeled "disturbed... but functional" in a psychiatric report.

you were allowed to sit in the front seat, you were just expected to give it up in case of a white person wanting it. And tehy were punished, but the law changed. When the law changes on cases like this, then my view... well, it wont, but my opinion of it will to follow what the law says.

really, you should learn your history.

So as long as the law changes and it says it's ok then they should get off, even if they did it before the change?

But doesn't the law also say some people get breaks? Like the insane...

And didn't you just say that the insane getting off easier is wrong?

See, that's why your ideas aren't good in the real world, they contradict each other easily...


PS: The law about the bus, you should learn history, because there where seats reserved for white people at the front, and it was law... the most famous case being about the driver asking someone to move from a seat in the non-reserved part is another matter.

 

[Tax_Document]

However, if the person committing the crime has no 'Mens Reas', which is a guilty mind, he must be charged with a lesser sentence, such as manslaughter or accidental murder, in which the case is closed.

So no, he would not face a harsh sentence or one at all.

 

[emeraldrafael]

What, I'm following the law, and I dont beleive in breaks for people. There's no excuse or reason to treat you special if you committed a crime. I dont get special treatment just cause I'm labeled "disturbed... but functional" in a psychiatric report.

you were allowed to sit in the front seat, you were just expected to give it up in case of a white person wanting it. And tehy were punished, but the law changed. When the law changes on cases like this, then my view... well, it wont, but my opinion of it will to follow what the law says.

really, you should learn your history.

So as long as the law changes and it says it's ok then they should get off, even if they did it before the change?

But doesn't the law also say some people get breaks? Like the insane...

And didn't you just say that the insane getting off easier is wrong?

See, that's why your ideas aren't good in the real world, they contradict each other easily...


PS: The law about the bus, you should learn history, because there where seats reserved for white people at the front, and it was law... the most famous case being about the driver asking someone to move from a seat in the non-reserved part is another matter.

As I said, you could still sit there. it was a safety hazard to have someone stand on a bus (still is) if there were no seats or rings, so if it was necessary, they would let you sit in the seat. Depended ont he state.

They say you cant kill an insane person (god knows why), thats about it. and you still go to a jail, just a different jail.

and no, I said they should punished to the fullest extent, if the law gives them a break, then thats that. if the law does not give them a break, fuck them, they shouldnt have done it.

and no, if the law changes, you get the grandfather clause. you commit before the change, you get punished. You commit after, you dont. the law is the law is the law, and I follow it and its punishments when I break it.

 

[tobi the good boy]

to prosecute someone you need three things proven.
Mens rea: refers to the crime's mental elements of the defendant's intent.

Actus Reus: The actual enacting of the crime

and Causation: proof that the crime actually occurred e.g. a dead body is causation for murder.

Seeing as how the person with amnesia lacks the state of mind with mens rea they would likely either be acquitted or receive a lessened sentence.

 

[4li3n]

As I said, you could still sit there. it was a safety hazard to have someone stand on a bus (still is) if there were no seats or rings, so if it was necessary, they would let you sit in the seat. Depended ont he state.

They say you cant kill an insane person (god knows why), thats about it. and you still go to a jail, just a different jail.

and no, I said they should punished to the fullest extent, if the law gives them a break, then thats that. if the law does not give them a break, fuck them, they shouldnt have done it.

and no, if the law changes, you get the grandfather clause. you commit before the change, you get punished. You commit after, you dont. the law is the law is the law, and I follow it and its punishments when I break it.

God, i really hope you're not older the 16... or trolling.


And the grandfather clause doesn't apply all the time, which is why Rosa Parks didn't stay in jail.


Oh, and thanks for admitting that people with amnesia should get some special consideration when in court because the law does make exceptions based on state of mind.

Seeing as how the person with amnesia lacks the state of mind with mens rea they would likely either be acquitted or receive a lessened sentence.

More likely a lessened sentence, they'd still understand what was happening... at the very least they'd be under watch...

 

[maddness666]

It seems that it would come down to if you wanted justice or revenge. But seeing as we like to call it a justice system, I'd say (s)he shouldn't be punished.

 

[corsair47]

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.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Also, just because they don't remember what they did doesn't mean that they didn't have the intent to do it.

 

[Nouw]

No. If they are, it should be lessened to a certain degree.

They didn't want to do it so punishing them in the same way you'd punish someone who did want to do it is wrong. It's all about how the person acts/thinks afterwards.

 

[OutforEC]

Yes, they should still be held accountable for their actions. I would even take it a step further and say that individuals who are deemed "not in their right minds" should be held accountable for their actions as well.

$0.02