But the reason behind the murder is completely unknown. There are certain reasons for murder that make it somewhat more forgivable (self defense, insanity, threatened into doing so by an outside force, accidental ect...) and knowing that they meant and wanted to commit murder is impossible.bombadilillo said:
Poll: Moral Dilemma...
- Thread starter pppppppppppppppppp
- Start date
Recommended Videos
How do you know exactly how the murder happened with definitive proof but not know why? Using the word murder implies it wasnt self defense in fact so...this is getting into an impossible hypothetical. But still, society must error on the side of safety for everybody else.Glass Joe the Champ said:
If we get out of the habit of always viewing sentences as "punishment," this gets a lot easier to resolve. We detain someone guilty of a crime because they have demonstrated they are a danger to society, not to "get back at them" or necessarily to "make them feel sorry." You kill people, you're not allowed to roam free.Glass Joe the Champ said:
In the case of your guy, if he's the sort of person that can kill someone like that and not remember it, he has demonstrated that he is very dangerous to the people around him. I'd offer that he's even more dangerous because he can't be convinced not to kill--it happens involuntarily, to all appearances.
He should be detained because he has demonstrated that he is a danger to people around him. When the justice system feels he no longer poses that danger, go ahead and release him. It's not punishment, it's just precaution.
Charge him with involuntary manslaughter and put him on probation for the rest of his life. That's probably the most likely result.
Hm, so you see prison as more of a quarantine than a punishment. (rubs chin introspectively)Dastardly said:
...Yeah, I could get behind that.
The justice system doesn't just exist to punish and contain criminals, it exists so people won't commit crimes in the first place. Letting him off would undermine the last goal.
Still just as murderous as he was before the had amnesia. Unless you rewrite his personality, convict the guy.
Yeah jail him. He must still take responsibility for the action, even if he doesn't remember it. Amnesia doesn't change the fact that he did murder someone.
Basically, yeah. I do my best to subscribe to a concept of "justice" that doesn't center on variations of vengeance or retribution. Of course, the current system falls short in many ways--particularly prisons.Glass Joe the Champ said:
In any worthwhile quarantine, you're not just containing the sick, but you're also actively working to treat them so that they can eventually be released. Otherwise, why not just put the gas to them all now, and save both suffering and money?
Our prisons don't do a very good job in that regard. Prisoners are given the wrong freedoms (like having a weight room and unstructured free time), while the wrong freedoms are taken away from them (like not being raped/beaten). We are not releasing prisoners that are "better" than they were when they went in, in any appreciable way.
If all a prison sentence is going to do is release the same man, except bigger, bulkier, angrier, and more desperate not to go back to prison, I say we should never release them. That is, of course, ridiculous. But if prison sentences are meant to be finite, then we have to make sure the prison experience is focused on rehabilitating these people so that we are releasing someone who is prepared for a productive life on the outside.
It's not supposed to be happy-hug-time, and we certainly shouldn't accept these prisoners they way they are... but we should also not leave them as they were. We have to meet them where they are and bring them to where they need to be, or we should resolve to never release them into society again (which raises the question of why we don't just euthanize them, instead of allowing them to live out their days on the public dime).
The added benefit of this rehabilitation-focused prison system is that people like your guy, who aren't necessarily malicious offenders, aren't turned angry and evil by a soul-shattering prison term.
You charge a man for his actions, not for his memories. If we worked by the latter then we would have an even shittier judicial system than we have now. This question popped up rather recently, but it's always nice to hear people's views on the matter. However, I dispute the value as a morality question, it's more about law than morals and while the two tie together quite well, they can still be separated easily.
Of course you still charge him. He committed it and likely had some reason for doing so, even if he doesn't remember it. It's not like his personality has completely changed - just the events involving the murder. So he's still the same person, he killed someone, and thus should be charged for it.
I would drop the charges, because you have to ask yourself what is the aim of convicting someone? Is it to protect society? Teach him a lesson? Justice to the victim, so that they feel 'better'? Or many more options...
If to teach him a lesson then what good is it if he can't remember his motive?
Truthfully, I don't know, but I am leaning towards a sign with "Acquit him of all charges" on it"
If to teach him a lesson then what good is it if he can't remember his motive?
Truthfully, I don't know, but I am leaning towards a sign with "Acquit him of all charges" on it"
I could swear we just had a thread asking this exact question not too long ago.
OT: Yes, whether or not he remembers, the fact remains that he still killed someone.
OT: Yes, whether or not he remembers, the fact remains that he still killed someone.
I have to completely disagree with the consensus. If, hypothetically, someone's mind was completely reset by a force beyond their will, and it could be reasonably shown that person posed no more threat to society than anyone else, I could not in all good conscience convict them. For all intents and purposes, it's a different person.
We as human beings are our memories and our personalities more than we are our physical bodies. If both of those have been substantially altered to the point where that person has a different personality and no memory of their past life, they'd might as well be an entirely new person. Therefor, it would be comparable to convicting someone for something someone else did.
Don't try to make the argument that it's comparable to being drugged or wasted on something and killing someone - under those circumstances, the person voluntarily placed themselves in a situation where someone might get hurt, and still has the memory and personality to match. Punishment still applies. It also doesn't apply to memory loss where the personality hasn't been altered, as that person could still be dangerous (though in that case I would sentence that person to a mental institution before a prison, it would be more of preventive measure than a punishment).
We as human beings are our memories and our personalities more than we are our physical bodies. If both of those have been substantially altered to the point where that person has a different personality and no memory of their past life, they'd might as well be an entirely new person. Therefor, it would be comparable to convicting someone for something someone else did.
Don't try to make the argument that it's comparable to being drugged or wasted on something and killing someone - under those circumstances, the person voluntarily placed themselves in a situation where someone might get hurt, and still has the memory and personality to match. Punishment still applies. It also doesn't apply to memory loss where the personality hasn't been altered, as that person could still be dangerous (though in that case I would sentence that person to a mental institution before a prison, it would be more of preventive measure than a punishment).
I'd arrest him for murder, but try for manslaughter, or convict him of unlawful killing and have him committed to a mental facility for his own good.
If he has no recollection of the attack or motive for the attack, how do we know he didn't genuinely fear for his life and was justified in killing the person?
If he has no recollection of the attack, upon learning that he did kill someone, a normal person should feel a lot of remorse and be depressed, which is grounds enough for psychological care, or if he doesn't show remorse, then that's signs of being a psychopath and more grounds to lock him up in a secure psychiatric unit.
Regardless, I wouldn't let him go free, but I wouldn't lock him up in prison as punishment. I'd commit him to a facility where he would get all the care and help he required until he got his memory back and could come to terms with his actions.
To be honest, I'm not even sure if a case like this would go to trial, but instead he would be remanded in a secure psychiatric unit until he regained him memory and could stand trial for either murder or manslaughter/unlawful killing.
If he never regains his memory, then he would never leave the care of the psychiatric unit, but that shouldn't matter because his incarceration in the psychiatric unit is care and treatment for his condition, not punishment for his actions.
If he has no recollection of the attack or motive for the attack, how do we know he didn't genuinely fear for his life and was justified in killing the person?
If he has no recollection of the attack, upon learning that he did kill someone, a normal person should feel a lot of remorse and be depressed, which is grounds enough for psychological care, or if he doesn't show remorse, then that's signs of being a psychopath and more grounds to lock him up in a secure psychiatric unit.
Regardless, I wouldn't let him go free, but I wouldn't lock him up in prison as punishment. I'd commit him to a facility where he would get all the care and help he required until he got his memory back and could come to terms with his actions.
To be honest, I'm not even sure if a case like this would go to trial, but instead he would be remanded in a secure psychiatric unit until he regained him memory and could stand trial for either murder or manslaughter/unlawful killing.
If he never regains his memory, then he would never leave the care of the psychiatric unit, but that shouldn't matter because his incarceration in the psychiatric unit is care and treatment for his condition, not punishment for his actions.
Almost sounds like an episode of Gilligan's Island. I can almost see the castaways holding a court with little bamboo podiums and seats. "But Professor" says Maryanne "After that bump on the head with a coconut, he can't remember killing and eating those Watutsi tribesmen..."
But since this isn't Gilligan's Island (assuming?) of course he should be punished. He did it.
But since this isn't Gilligan's Island (assuming?) of course he should be punished. He did it.