Question about murder

[Talshere]

So, if you killed someone, then got a bump on the head, and got amnesia, could you still be said to having killed them?

If family members, a phycologist etc are willing to testify that you have undergone a personality transformation with this amnesia, can you still be classed as the same person? Is it still technically you who did the deed?


EDIT:

Longshot's refinement to my question

Maybe you should expand the question to: Should you be punished?

 

[Nostalgia Ripoff]

Was it by their hand that person died? Obviously by the OP, yes. It was. So yes. It is the same person.

 

[Mikeyfell]

So, if you killed someone, then got a bump on the head, and got amnesia, could you still be said to having killed them?

If family members, a phycologist etc are willing to testify that you have undergone a personality transformation with this amnesia, can you still be classed as the same person? Is it still technically you who did the deed?

wow...thanks man
I'm going to try that

 

[Firoth]

Yes. Whether or not you are different now, you still did what you did back then. That's why people who are drunk still get tickets for drunk driving, even if they don't remember it, or, when they're sober, say they would never do it.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

You still commited the act. It doesn't matter by some pyschological reason they're not the same person, the deed has still been done by the same body.

So yes, you can say yes to have still killed them.

 

[Malkavian]

So, if you killed someone, then got a bump on the head, and got amnesia, could you still be said to having killed them?

If family members, a phycologist etc are willing to testify that you have undergone a personality transformation with this amnesia, can you still be classed as the same person? Is it still technically you who did the deed?

Maybe you should esxpand the question to: Should you be punished?

A bit more discussion value there, I feel.

 

[The Wykydtron]

Oooooh a new question for me to ponder over before probably coming to the conclusion that "it's probably somewhere in the middle"

 

[Fraught]

Is it still technically you who did the deed?

Well, you asked if "technically" it was you who did the deed.

And "technically" it was you, yeah.

Untechnically (hurr), though? Now that's a harder question.

 

[triggrhappy94]

It think it depends on the jury, but its probably easier to just declaire insanity

 

[Brutus03]

That is a hard question to answer. You are still in the same body the other "person" who committed the crime. Most likely people may think your faking it.

In the far future that might be answered by transferring the current personality to a clone body without the memories or the chance the "previous" person could reassert itself. Re-establish the personality of the "old" person in the "Old" body and have him\her stand for their crimes.

 

[Blue_vision]

Yes. Whether or not you are different now, you still did what you did back then. That's why people who are drunk still get tickets for drunk driving, even if they don't remember it, or, when they're sober, say they would never do it.

But that's because the person they are decided to get behind the wheel while drunk.

I'd say no. The only reason you should be "punished" for a crime is in order to deter you from doing it again. Punishing a person with true amnesia would be like punishing a random person on the street.
Still though, family and friends of the victim would probably still call for punishment, out of a misplaced sense of justice. But why create more suffering in the world if there is no end for it?

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Now here is a toughie. You clearly killed the person but you cannot recall motivations, the even itself or probably the victim. How would this legally play out?

I do not know.

What do I think?

I really do not know what I think. I guess if the murder was spectacularly gruesome, I would want the murderer in question to be sent away anyway. If it was just a bullet or a "softer" murder, I might end up excusing the murderer. It would all depend, of course, on whether the amnesia was real or not.

 

[Woodsey]

Well obviously it's still you, even if you've taken on a radically different mindset.

 

[Firoth]

Yes. Whether or not you are different now, you still did what you did back then. That's why people who are drunk still get tickets for drunk driving, even if they don't remember it, or, when they're sober, say they would never do it.

But that's because the person they are decided to get behind the wheel while drunk.

But, that's just it. If you look at being drunk as the person BEFORE the amnesia, and the person now sober as the new person AFTER the amnesia. Before the amnesia, that person still made a conscious choice under the influence of his situation to commit the murder (the person's situation that caused him to commit murder being the "alcohol"), just like a person who drives drunk might only do so under the influence of alcohol. Just because the driver is sober NOW and wouldn't do it, doesn't mean they don't get a ticket. Just like since the person who now has amnesia wouldn't commit murder again, they should still be punished for what they did.

 

[Ampersand]

Good question.
In some cases you could certainly argue that the person post head injury is a different person from who they were before the injury, because serious head trauma can literally change a persons personality. The new guy might not be responsible for the actions of who he was before the injury because he might not have any understanding of why he did it.

 

[Talshere]

Yes. Whether or not you are different now, you still did what you did back then. That's why people who are drunk still get tickets for drunk driving, even if they don't remember it, or, when they're sober, say they would never do it.

But that's because the person they are decided to get behind the wheel while drunk.

But, that's just it. If you look at being drunk as the person BEFORE the amnesia, and the person now sober as the new person AFTER the amnesia. Before the amnesia, that person still made a conscious choice under the influence of his situation to commit the murder (the person's situation that caused him to commit murder being the "alcohol"), just like a person who drives drunk might only do so under the influence of alcohol. Just because the driver is sober NOW and wouldn't do it, doesn't mean they don't get a ticket. Just like since the person who now has amnesia wouldn't commit murder again, they should still be punished for what they did.

Well obviously it's still you, even if you've taken on a radically different mindset.

Im not talking about a solider suddenly getting regrets for his time in service. I'm talking full blank slate.

He doesn't remember his name, he has no memories, maybe he still has the ability to before tasks he performed on a regular basis (Im assuming he can still communicate and reason as a normal human being). I believe this is pretty common, such as the ability to sign your name providing you don't think about it, or perhaps to work out some specific long equation is it was a mainstay to their job. Activities that due to their repetitive nature have formed neural links so you can just "do" them

Everything that would have driven him to possibly kill this person is gone. Say he was a right wing, atheist, gunnut who has been renown his whole life as being a trouble maker. Suddenly becoming a left wing, spiritual, vegetarian who strives to achieve in everything he does. It doesn't have to be so extreme as this but its a good example.

Who we are is a compilation of our memories, our lifetime experiences. If you lose that can you still be considered the same person? You might not even get on with your old friends, all your old interests are boring. Can you really convict that person if he never gets his memories back?

 

[Sn1P3r M98]

You should be punished. It's still the same body, and you committed the crime, regardless of your memory.

 

[Talshere]

You should be punished. It's still the same body, and you committed the crime, regardless of your memory.

But he is no longer the person who killed. Everything about that person is gone, replaced by this new person who started building himself at the moment of the wipe. That puts zero value on the person. This person your convicting knows less about this murder than most of the people on the street who read the paper.

 

[Malkavian]

It really depends on what the motivation is for punishing people. If the motive is to reform the criminial, and make him a productive member of society, then the punishment serves not cause. Since he has "changed" completely, and is, in effect, a different man that just so happens to inhabit the same body, no rehabilitation is required.

Since this is what I believe criminal justice and punishment is/should be about, I will go with this answer. That he should not be held accountable if we, theoretically speaking, could determine that indeed he was a different person in psyche and personality. What would the point be? You would take a confused individual, and punish him for a deed he can't remember doing, and can't even imagine he could have done. He will feel no remorse, only injustice, either at society or something intangible as "fate" or "luck".
He will not be reformed, for there was nothing "wrong" with him to be corrected.