According to the law of my country, good deeds do not cancel out criminal deeds. Some decisions take into consideration that the defendant may do good in the future and not rescind, but in case of murder, that is not a consideration.

This is the legal side of it.

If you ask about the moral "should", then I abstain from the discussion.

I am the type of philosopher who prefers to make his points the way the proverbial umpire did: "I calls them as I sees them". In other words, I give the status quo, I may even explain things, but I make no moral judgments.

If evidence arises linking him to the crimes he committed should he be prosecuted. — Steve Leard

Of course. This is the normal procedure. I don't think that there is any moral dilemma in this.

I see. Thank you. Would the mind and soul of the one before and the one after not be, in essence, two seperate and distinct indivuals. The mind being the seat of the soul, as it were.

I think he would be prosecuted, because the fact he has no memory of events, and isn't the same person anymore - is a God's eye view, not accessible to an earthly court. Assuming the evidence was compelling, and he was convicted, a good person - knowing they had a head injury and loss of memory, would accept that the evidence proves that their former self did these dastardly deeds, and would accept the consequences.

What if a vicious serial killer tripped on his way back from his most recent depravity and incurred a serious head injury. He is found and taken to the hospital where he lays in a coma for several months. When he awakes he has no memory of his past deeds. He recovers and spends the remainder of his life helping the poor and downtrodden. If evidence arises linking him to the crimes he committed should he be prosecuted. — Steve Leard

Amnesia does not absolve anyone, as the greatest witness of all is history.

Good points.

Amnesia does not absolve anyone, as the greatest witness of all is history. — Gus Lamarch

Not morally, but legally, amnesia can absolve even the worst criminality.

Amnesia that presents not in the criminal, but in the jury that decides the case.

If all jury members after they start to deliberate but before they come to a decision, have amnesia, then they say, "hey, this guy/gal did nothing wrong, I don't remember hearing any evidence to convict him / her." Then of course they come in, the foreperson says "not guilty in all / in any of the charges," the guy is set free, and bob is your uncle: amnesia absolved (in the criminal sense) a criminal.

I admit this is highly unlikely, but it is not impossible.

Actually some people would handle the situation by faking that they have no memory of their past deeds.

Would be far easier to go along with the "new start".

ot morally, but legally, amnesia can absolve even the worst criminality.

Amnesia that presents not in the criminal, but in the jury that decides the case. — god must be atheist

The state apparatus proving me right again.

I think my view on this matter was too shallow. I assumed that such an individual would have to be judged as two seperate entities. If the killer could be judged on his deeds before his accident why could he not be judged on his deeds after the accident as well. In other words this is actually two men in one life if you like. Justice for his victims and personal responsibility on behalf of the individual in question, regardless of his present mindset and state of humanity, did not enter into my thought process.

I got your argument, and in English Law - "mens rea" is an important legal principle.

Interesting essay on the subject here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318970308_Amnesia_and_criminal_responsibility

CONCLUSION

Claims of crime-related amnesia are particularly common among offenders of violent crimes. Medical literature is replete with such reports, and many studies have explored their underlying basis. Despite their medical legitimacy, courts insist on treating amnesia under the insanity framework, or refuse to address it altogether even though it affects the procedural fairness of the trial. In light of the developing medical literature about crime-related amnesia, courts should consider recognizing certain amnesia as providing a legitimate ground for criminal defense.

I'm sorry. What is "mens rea".

I'm sorry. What is "mens rea". — Steve Leard

That's for me to know, and you to find out.

Gonna make me google it aintcha. Fine

I am the type of philosopher who prefers to make his points the way the proverbial umpire did: "I calls them as I sees them". In other words, I give the status quo, I may even explain things, but I make no moral judgments. — god must be atheist

Why would that bee? (just kidding :)

You call them as you see them based on what?

Ok. Just trying to wrap my wee brain around this. If i had knowledge of how wrong my actions were while committing the crime then i would be guilty of said crime and should be judged accordingly. If my actions are a result of decisions i made, and those decisions were formulated within my mind, then i am guilty. Would an injustice be created by prosecuting me when my brain has been altered and is no longer a cause of deviant thoughts but is essentially a mind born anew and without any conciousness of guilt or responsibility. The body is not the brain/mind/soul....or what have.

Oops. My bad. Just looked at some of the other threads here and realized i wasnt on reddit any more. All my protons are two places at once. Thought i felt something weird going on.

Ok. Just trying to wrap my wee brain around this. If i had knowledge of how wrong my actions were while committing the crime then i would be guilty of said crime and should be judged accordingly. If my actions are a result of decisions i made, and those decisions were formulated within my mind, then i am guilty. Would an injustice be created by prosecuting me when my brain has been altered and is no longer a cause of deviant thoughts but is essentially a mind born anew and without any conciousness of guilt or responsibility. The body is not the brain/mind/soul....or what have. — Steve Leard

Good effort, but it's a little more subtle than that. It's about intent to commit the act. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse - so it's not about whether you knew it was illegal or not. Rather, it's about whether you had the mental capacity to act intentionally. If you intended what you did; regardless of whether you knew it was illegal, you are responsible for it. It would be a fairly novel application of the concept of means rea to argue, that because of a head injury and amnesia, this person is not the same person who intended those actions. I don't know how that would go down in court, because it's an extraordinary claim - and I'm not sure a judge would tolerate the prosecution being required to prove that psychologically, this is the same person.

Schooled. Thx. Think i see the flaw in my argument. Phew. You have no idea how long i have been obsessing over this problem. Problem is now i won't know what to do tomorrow.

Schooled. Thx. Think i see the flaw in my argument. Phew. You have no idea how long i have been obsessing over this problem. Problem is now i won't know what to do tomorrow. — Steve Leard

I am an unbearable smarty pants - and as such, I can say with certainty that yours is a good question.

Thank you and i just thought of my next quandry to ponder. There is a school down the road a ways. The building has a 6 foot retainer wall around the north side. The wall has sections of slits in pairs at 10 foot intervals. I am going to run full tilt and throw myself at one of those pair of slits. If quantum mechanics is correct tomorrow i will be two of me. If that happens will i have to get another drivers license?

Thank you and i just thought of my next quandry to ponder. There is a school down the road a ways. The building has a 6 foot retainer wall around the north side. The wall has sections of slits in pairs at 10 foot intervals. I am going to run full tilt and throw myself at one of those pair of slits. If quantum mechanics is correct tomorrow i will be two of me. If that happens will i have to get another drivers license? — Steve Leard

Or none! In which case, can I have your drivers license!?

No but you can have my tim hortons card. We won't need it. Awesome!!!! Judge Judy is coming on. Gotta go. Nice talkin to ya. Stay on the sunny side of the grass.

Would the mind and soul of the one before and the one after not be, in essence, two separate and distinct individuals. — Steve Leard

I have no idea what the soul is. (well... some idea, but that is neither here nor there)

One thing, though: we can only be ONE person -- not different people at different times. That's why the post-coma good person can be tried for the pre-coma bad person's crimes.

Another thing: Serial killers are thought (by some) to have physical defects in their brains which produce the aberrant and repulsive behavior. Particularly, psychopaths / sociopaths lack circuitry between the limbic system (source of fear) and their pre-frontal cortex (executive center). Most people learn to fear displeasing their caregivers (who might deprive them of love or punish them). This fear becomes the emotional basis of morality. Psychopaths / sociopaths can't develop that fear / morality connection. Most people apply morality or ethical system to control their own behavior.

One could argue that they should be held as mentally ill persons, rather than as criminals. As far as I know, there is no effective treatment for psychopathic personalities.

I am going to run full tilt and throw myself at one of those pair of slits. If quantum mechanics is correct tomorrow i will be two of me. — Steve Leard

People who try to act like photons do not pass go. They do not collect $200. They exit the game--sic transit gloria mundi [thus passes the glory of the world]

What if a vicious serial killer tripped on his way back from his most recent depravity and incurred a serious head injury. He is found and taken to the hospital where he lays in a coma for several months. When he awakes he has no memory of his past deeds. He recovers and spends the remainder of his life helping the poor and downtrodden. If evidence arises linking him to the crimes he committed should he be prosecuted. — Steve Leard

There is no remainder to prosecute.

You guys crack me up. I wouldn't give away my tim hortons card.

I don't quite get the relevance of memory in the equation. Suppose this hapless person does remember every detail of faer horrific crimes and still transforms into a classic good guy, the problem of how we should judge this person still remains; after all, this person has changed faer ways and that's exactly the sticking point in the original scenario in which fae suffers amnesia.

If evidence arises linking him to the crimes he committed should he be prosecuted. — Steve Leard

Yes. The past still be there. It doesn't matter the new circumstances. With this premise you are literally saving that those lives taken are not worth enough if now the serial killer is a renovated man?
I guess no. He should be prosecuted.

Former Fighters Embracing Peace (BBC)

I don't quite get the relevance of memory in the equation. Suppose this hapless person does remember every detail of faer horrific crimes and still transforms into a classic good guy, the problem of how we should judge this person still remains; after all, this person has changed faer ways and that's exactly the sticking point in the original scenario in which fae suffers amnesia. — TheMadFool

:up:

My answer would be: We shouldn't prosecute him but people will anyways.