Question about murder

[Talshere]

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.

What if he comes into a police station a year later having regained his memories, but maintained his post amnesia personality?

He know why he has done it, when, how. Maybe even in the circumstances (such as self defence) agrees with it.

Is it still him?

 

[CrystalShadow]

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.

What if he comes into a police station a year later having regained his memories, but maintained his post amnesia personality?

He know why he has done it, when, how. Maybe even in the circumstances (such as self defence) agrees with it.

Is it still him?

Well now you're asking something...

I'd say if he remembered the act suddenly, that changes the situation.
Of course, if he goes to the police station and says so, that's tantamount to an admission of guilt.
We may let people off with next to no punishment if they plead guilty, but that doesn't change the fact that we take their word for it that they did the act. (Anyone who was innocent but pleaded guilty anyway knows this - And don't say it never happens)


Look at it from your own perspective...

If you lost your memory, had a huge personality change as a result, then remembered your own past, would you see your memories as being you?

I would think you would. Even if you don't feel the same as you did then, you know they're your own memories...

 

[Talshere]

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.

What if he comes into a police station a year later having regained his memories, but maintained his post amnesia personality?

He know why he has done it, when, how. Maybe even in the circumstances (such as self defence) agrees with it.

Is it still him?

Well now you're asking something...

I'd say if he remembered the act suddenly, that changes the situation.
Of course, if he goes to the police station and says so, that's tantamount to an admission of guilt.
We may let people off with next to no punishment if they plead guilty, but that doesn't change the fact that we take their word for it that they did the act. (Anyone who was innocent but pleaded guilty anyway knows this - And don't say it never happens)


Look at it from your own perspective...

If you lost your memory, had a huge personality change as a result, then remembered your own past, would you see your memories as being you?

I would think you would. Even if you don't feel the same as you did then, you know they're your own memories...

On the other hand it could just be like you were passenger in someone elses body...Or your own : / Or however you wana say it.

Just because we remember something doesn't make it true. Its why finding eye witnesses is so hard. We automatically embelish events depending on how we felt, how we reacted, how other reacted, studies have shown that just changing one word in how information is presented, without changing any facts within a text can drastically change how we will remember an event.

If two cars crash and you associate how they impacted with the word "smash", as opposed to "bump" there can be up to a 40 mph different is recalled speeds just a week after the event.

If memories are so fickle, and this person is still this new person, just with old memories of a killing : / Its a moral conundrum.

He did it. We all know he did. He freely admits to having memories of the event with him as the killer, but he swears blind its not him and professionals are still telling you this is not the same person as before.

EDIT: At this point do we base our prosecution on how the person perceived themselves in the memory?

 

[helldragonX]

Yes because you still killed them. Whether you remember it or not you still did.

 

[Paksenarrion]

Sounds like Ol' Bats is still after you, eh, Two Face?

 

[WolfEdge]

There are two basic ways of looking at the situation, and it all depends on what the word "Justice" means to a legal system and a society. That is to say, you can either emphasize "protecting the innocent", or "punishing the guilty".

It's nearly impossible to do both.

Take America's judicial system, and contrast it to Japan's. In America, even the rights of criminals are regarded with respect, to the point that a person could conceivably be cleared of charges (or at least heavily reduced) if it's proven that the defendant was mistreated by law enforcement or officials in any way. This is because American justice is planted firmly in the "protecting the innocent" camp, as it would be preferable to let the guilty walk free rather than to punish and defame an innocent for a crime they didn't commit. "Innocent until proven guilty" leaps readily to mind. In Japan, however, the mindset is almost completely reversed. The conviction rate was (last I checked) 99%, and suspects can be held for days without stated reason or access to a lawyer. Definite signs of a "punish the guilty" sense of justice. "Guilty until proven innocent" is the name of the game.

To bring this post around to the main topic, it depends entirely on these two basic mindsets. If you wish to Protect the Innocent, then the trial for the person in question would, if not drop the charges, severely reduce them, and have him or her sent to therapy to reinforce and monitor the change in behavior. If your goal is to Punish the Guilty, then you would assume that a killer is dangerous regardless of the state they're in, and that they still took a human life, regardless of the frame of mind they may be in NOW.

 

[kikon9]

If it isn't still murder then a lot of writers are going to lose their inspiration for mystery story ideas.

 

[omegaT]

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

So if someone is under mind control (improbable and pulp science fictionish as it is) and kills someone they would be charged? The body argument really doesn't hold up

Also if he remembers it afterward then he should be rehabilitated

 

[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.

What if he comes into a police station a year later having regained his memories, but maintained his post amnesia personality?

He know why he has done it, when, how. Maybe even in the circumstances (such as self defence) agrees with it.

Is it still him?

Again, it depends in why we punish. The law might not look at it from that perspective, but if you ask me, and you do, then he should not be punished.

If we say that a person is not punishable if he is, in theory, a different person in everything but his physical shell, the what is really the difference that he remembers that he did the deed? If things like motive are still missing from his mind, then consider if it isn't almost as if we took an innocent person, and then brainwashed or otherwise "installed" a false memory into him.

If we hold the oppinion that the goal of criminal justice is to reform and rehabilitate a man, then it does no difference that he recollects having done the murder. As would it not matter if he had done the murder, but he had been possessed, or forced to do so with no other alternative.

Now, we may take a different oppinion as to what the goal of criminal justice is. If our oppinion is that it serves to give satisfaction and revenge to those hurt by a crime, then the man should be punished. It is a question of what philosophy you follow.

 

[Malkavian]

There are two basic ways of looking at the situation, and it all depends on what the word "Justice" means to a legal system and a society. That is to say, you can either emphasize "protecting the innocent", or "punishing the guilty".

There are two other ways to look at the concept of criminal justice, though, two of which I think are very relevant to the question. It can be interpreted, in addition to the two ways you described, as "Rehabilitate the criminal" and "Give satisfaction to the injured" as well.

Otherwise, a well made point.

 

[olendvcook]

People can kill people on accident and still get manslaughter, so getting amnesia and changing your ways should not get you off the hook

 

[Gamblerjoe]

You obviously still commited the crime. There is no extisentialism involved as far as the victim, or their family and friends are concerned. You obviously wouldnt be able to testify against yourself, since you dont remember commiting the crime, but the 5th ammendment allready protects people from having to testify against themselves.

Now lets look at the actual issue the OP was getting at. Does the amnesia itself count as rehabilitation, and render prison, probation, counseling etc unnecessary? The defendants lawyers will say yes, the prosecution will say no, and what the judge and jury say is what matters. A properly played "twinky defense" could get the jury to let you off (we've all seen crazier shit). A sympathetic judge could give you a sentece as light as the mandatory minimun. You could get paroled or released early due to your genuine good behavior.

Short answer, the legal system is run by humans, and therefore completely f*cked.

 

[Gamblerjoe]

Well, I would send him/her to therapy to try to make him/her remember. If he/she did, then punish them. If not, then you can't, since they truly don't remember it.

Rubin Carter didnt remember killing those 3 people (because he didnt) but that didnt stop him from serving 20 years in jail.

 

[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.

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.

Not at all. The point is, a person who is drinking is assuming the responsibilities of being drunk. It has nothing to do with the person's decision making while drunk, but the decisions made before. If someone were to have amnesia, there would be no responsibility to pin that to; the only similarity that would exist is that the same body is used to commit the murder.

 

[sam13lfc]

Well yeah you should be punished, you still comitted murder.

 

[tigermilk]

I would say the perpetrator shold be punished yes. Even if they pose no threat to society or individuals I believe one of the puroposes of the legal system is to allow the victims of crimes and their friends and families to feel justice has been done.