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

[Ammutseba]

I believe in treatment and help, not punishment. Punishing isn't going to change the past, and it's most likely going to turn the future towards the worse.

 

[Utrechet]

If society functioned correctly, he would be forgiven and molded into a proper citizen with false-new memories. Unfortunately, society sucks, meaning that (Name) would be tormented by media, and furthermore citizens of the world. He would be exactly like the character from the videogames you mentioned, and struggle to find out who he was. More than likely, based on the personality you depict they now have, they would allow themselves to be killed in order to benefit society.

Unless of course, they are still jerk faces in which case society would still eat their soul.

 

[Sariteiya]

I've posed this question to many of my friends, and it always comes down to their feelings on the definition and function of justice.

If your thoughts are that Justice is punishing someone for wrongdoing, then yes.

If your thoughts are that Justice is for keeping others safe from harm, then no.

My thoughts? It depends. Did the criminal commit these acts because of past abuse they suffered, or a permanent mental illness? Either way it's a tough call.

 

[Flack]

Just because they cant remember doing something, doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished.

 

[Cazza]

Yes they still did the crime.
For severe brain damage. Medical treatment and confined to where that treatment is being given.

 

[RaNDM G]

Most cases of amnesia are simply repressed memories. It's a natural defense mechanism, therefore they are still accountable for their crimes.

 

[Projo]

Still don't believe me, just look at the way we treat ex-felons. Just look at their title, they're not reformed criminals or even citizens, they're ex-felons.

Yeah, look at those girls who stripped a little boy in public. Getting off scott free. The American judicial system is dumb, but not dumb in the ways you're suggesting.

 

[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?

Still don't believe me, just look at the way we treat ex-felons. Just look at their title, they're not reformed criminals or even citizens, they're ex-felons. Doesn't matter that they've served their sentence in prison. We as a society want to see them suffer. That's why they can't vote, can't get jobs they're qualified for, and won't be known as anything other than an ex-felon. If they were a doctor or an accountant or a teacher before they went in, there's no way in hell they'd be allowed to continue on with that career. But why? I mean the judge gave them a sentence and they served it. So why do we continue to punish them? Because our justice system is based around an eye for an eye. It's not fair, it's not always right, but it's just.

I really don't want to pull this card, but I'm a Criminal Justice major and have been studying American Criminal Law for two years now. I went into this degree thinking the same things, but after reading my text books and listening to instructors' lectures it really changes the way Law is portrayed in popular media.

I guess you have a point there. I still don't think the two are the same but your logic is sound, so I guess you're right.

 

[Auron225]

Definitely yes. Explain to them if necessary that they have amnesia and they did this and that. It may seem harsh, but even for the sake of their own safety. If it was murder, then the families would want justice of some kind and should that person walk free, they may take it upon themselves to carry out their own justice. Even if the authorities are sure the person isnt lying, it'll be hard to convince the public of that.

And sometimes memories can return, in which case they just got off scot-free. Need there be more victims? No, charge them with what they deserve.

Also - the difference between a newborn baby and a criminal with amnesia. A criminal with amnesia is a criminal, a newborn baby (probably?) isnt.

 

[crop52]

Someone please tell me why it would be like punishing a baby.

I don't see how that would be like punishing a baby at all. A baby doesn't realize that it's doing a bad thing. The criminal did.
The criminal is still a bad person at heart, and should be punished for their crimes,

 

[LandoCristo]

Yes. Punishment is used to say "Don't do that again" or as a warning to others. Even if they don't remember it, it acts as a warning to others that this shit will not fly.

 

[Seraj]

Thanks all for your views, was a good morning read!

In the end it is based on two things:

First, whether (as stated so many times in this thread) you see justice as a means of rehabilitation or closure for the victims family and as a deterrent.

Secondly, it is what your definition of personality is. Is it basically a collection of memories? Or something in a different part of your brain?


I see someone's personality as their memories, if you've lost a lot of loved ones, you tend to be the bitter, mellow type of person. If you forget about your loss due to a head injury, you no longer have any reason to be as you were, unless informed about your losses.

Justice differs from country to country, some countries its more about actual justice, other countries its a little more about rehabilitation. In the case of a war criminal being caught and taken to some international court, who's justice system would he be trialled by?

 

[jamesworkshop]

Depends I think the real question is what messures are appropriate, the law is for the punishment of people that are of sound mind and knew what they were doing was wrong, at the time the individual was not mentally unsound, however by the trial if this level of mental health has changed it needs to be acccounted for.

I'm a non psychologist so I have no real working knowledge of amnesia and how to deal with it, this is as far as I can really go.

 

[4li3n]

Justice, bitches. You do something wrong; you face the consequences, regardless of the circumstances.

So if i came to your house now and arrested you, but you had no idea for what you'd be fine with going to jail like someone that knows exactly what they did?

 

[ICantBelieveItGoesBoom]

Well, my view is that criminal charges such as prison should be to protect the public and to rehabilitate, not to punish. So for that reason, if they still show criminal feelings or behaviours, they should still be locked up.

 

[wfpdk]

i dont remember stabbing you so it shouldn't count.
if he's a vegtible with brain damage a would say let him live... so he suffers for longer. there is no right or wrong, only perspectives and vengence.

 

[4li3n]

Justice, bitches. You do something wrong; you face the consequences, regardless of the circumstances.

So if i came to your house now and arrested you, but you had no idea for what you'd be fine with going to jail like someone that knows exactly what they did?

If there was evidence against me, it wouldn't matter what I felt.

Yeah, i'm sure you wouldn't be fighting it at all...