Should someone with total amnesia be punished for what they previously did?

[Blue3]

Should someone with total amnesia... can't remember any of their previous life, has been living peacefully since their amnesia incident, no sign of committing a crime now or in the future...  be punished for a crime they previously committed before their amnesia?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No. If they are actually diagnosed with it. There are tests to weed out fakers. However, if they regain their memory they should be punished and thus should be subject to periodic retesting.

[dead0man]

Is such a thing even possible?


I say yes anyway.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No. If they are actually diagnosed with it. There are tests to weed out fakers. However, if they regain their memory they should be punished and thus should be subject to periodic retesting.

This.

[Torie]

Does it matter what the odds are even with amnesia that the individual would commit additional crimes? Just because they have amnesia, may not mean that they have ceased to be a sociopath for example.

It is true as a matter of procedural justice, that a defendant who has lost his or her memory is impaired in defending oneself.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Does it matter what the odds are even with amnesia that the individual would commit additional crimes? Just because they have amnesia, may not mean that they have ceased to be a sociopath for example.

It is true as a matter of procedural justice, that a defendant who has lost his or her memory is impaired in defending oneself.

No Torie... we must continually subject them to retesting with the threat of dire punishment should any of their memory come back.  That is what is best for.... well... idiots who don't think things through.

[DC Al Fine]

Does it matter what the odds are even with amnesia that the individual would commit additional crimes? Just because they have amnesia, may not mean that they have ceased to be a sociopath for example.

It is true as a matter of procedural justice, that a defendant who has lost his or her memory is impaired in defending oneself.

IANAL but this sounds like the sort of thing where an insanity verdict is useful.

[Fudotei]

Imagine going up to Doris Tate and saying that Leslie Van Houton should be set free because she doesn't remember doing it.

Law has multiple sources and applications. It is not just defendants and the state, and the social consequences of crimes have to be taken into account. Criminal justice isn't just about the criminal, but about the prosecution and sentencing process writ large and many other factors.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Would someone with total amnesia be deemed even competent to stand trial?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Does it matter what the odds are even with amnesia that the individual would commit additional crimes? Just because they have amnesia, may not mean that they have ceased to be a sociopath for example.

It is true as a matter of procedural justice, that a defendant who has lost his or her memory is impaired in defending oneself.

No Torie... we must continually subject them to retesting with the threat of dire punishment should any of their memory come back.  That is what is best for.... well... idiots who don't think things through.

Would you rather have dead0man's preferred option, punish them anyway? True total amnesia is rare enuf that it makes for horrible edge cases about the law. I was trying to balance justice, which requires the punishment of the guilty, with mercy, which requires mercy to the innocent. Obviously, it's going to be difficult when both the guilty and the innocent are in the same physical body.

Are there any statistics on how common it is for people to recover from total amnesia and under what circumstances? Obviously that would permit a better informed decision on how to proceed.

[Fudotei]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure I'm understanding the total amnesia concept, but in what world does not remembering something negate that the thing happened? A person who gets hit with a brick and loses memory after hitting another person - you've got two brick-hitters, not two brick victims.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure I'm understanding the total amnesia concept, but in what world does not remembering something negate that the thing happened? A person who gets hit with a brick and loses memory after hitting another person - you've got two brick-hitters, not two brick victims.

Punishment isn't about negating an event, restitution would be, but that's a separate matter. Punishment is primarily about applying a mental goad that will deter the guilty person from doing a similar event in the future. But if someone has no memory of the event so that the desired effect can't be achieved, then punishment wouldn't be justice but cruelty. (A secondary goal of punishment is to deter others from undertaking similar activities, but without the primary goal, such punishment would not be just.)

[dead0man]

What if it's a robbery that they've forgotten and they refuse to give the money back?  What if it's mid rape where they got the brain damage (from getting hit by the victim with a brick)?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What if it's a robbery that they've forgotten and they refuse to give the money back?  What if it's mid rape where they got the brain damage (from getting hit by the victim with a brick)?

The former involves restitution, not punishment. The latter sounds too convoluted for even a CSI episode.

[dead0man]

What if it's a robbery that they've forgotten and they refuse to give the money back?  What if it's mid rape where they got the brain damage (from getting hit by the victim with a brick)?

The former involves restitution, not punishment. The latter sounds too convoluted for even a CSI episode.

The OP is already more convoluted than a CSI episode though.  We can talk of a never gonna happen hypothetical, but we can't take it any further than that?  But fine, ignore the mid rape bit.  Say the bastard got the amnesia from the victim (or otherwise during the course of the crime) and don't worry about the specifics of it....do you still let them walk free?  Say he was beating somebody to death with a baseball bat and missed once and the bat hit a tree, bounced back and smashed his own head in?  Or he was drowning his baby in the bathtub and slipt and fell?  Maybe he was trying (and succeeding) at running his girlfriend over and got in an accident in the process and bonked his noggin?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What if it's a robbery that they've forgotten and they refuse to give the money back?  What if it's mid rape where they got the brain damage (from getting hit by the victim with a brick)?

The former involves restitution, not punishment. The latter sounds too convoluted for even a CSI episode.

The OP is already more convoluted than a CSI episode though.  We can talk of a never gonna happen hypothetical, but we can't take it any further than that?  But fine, ignore the mid rape bit.  Say the bastard got the amnesia from the victim (or otherwise during the course of the crime) and don't worry about the specifics of it....do you still let them walk free?  Say he was beating somebody to death with a baseball bat and missed once and the bat hit a tree, bounced back and smashed his own head in?  Or he was drowning his baby in the bathtub and slipt and fell?  Maybe he was trying (and succeeding) at running his girlfriend over and got in an accident in the process and bonked his noggin?

As long as he has the total amnesia, then as far as punishment instead of restitution is involved, yes the body the perp used should walk free.  Depending upon one's point of view, the perp is either locked up in the skull of its former body or has departed, allowing a new soul to animate the body. No matter what the metaphysical reality of what happened to em, the perp isn't there to be punished and it would only be just to punish that body if the one who committed the crime resumed occupancy.

[dead0man]

Maybe you're right, idk, I'd want to put that er in jail whether he remembered it or not.


What if you let him go for the reasons you give (he legit can't rememeber doing the crime), and then he does the same sh**t 2 years later (drowns the other baby, beats another dude to death with a bat, runs over gf/whatever).  During sentencing does the judge/jury just look at it as one crime or.....?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Maybe you're right, idk, I'd want to put that er in jail whether he remembered it or not.


What if you let him go for the reasons you give (he legit can't rememeber doing the crime), and then he does the same sh**t 2 years later (drowns the other baby, beats another dude to death with a bat, runs over gf/whatever).  During sentencing does the judge/jury just look at it as one crime or.....?

Well, with my preferred sentence for that sort of crime, it wouldn't matter.  You can't execute someone twice. (Or have them serve multiple life terms if the death penalty is off the table.)

[Greatest I am]

Should someone with total amnesia... can't remember any of their previous life, has been living peacefully since their amnesia incident, no sign of committing a crime now or in the future...  be punished for a crime they previously committed before their amnesia?

I voted yes because I had the victim of the crime in question in mind as they are the victims and deserve closure.

If they buy into the amnesia, then they will require less punishment for closure. That is what victim reports for the courts is designed to ascertain.

Legally, amnesia is not a defence as mens rea is always applied to a mind that commits a crime and it is at the time of the crime where any mental evaluation should be focused on.

Yours can be a complicated question. Nice.

Regards
DL