Lets say a person (lets call him Josh) did something terrible, killed some people for example.
But is Josh still guilty when...
1. Josh gets such a braindamage that he doesn't remember anything about his life. He still does know how to talk etc. But has no memories of anything anymore. Also docters comfirm that he has lost his memory because some parts of the brain were really damaged. So you know he isn't pretending.
or
2. Josh has a split-personality and the evil personality (that wasn't there always) has done the killing while the other was "asleep". Wich is also confirmed he is not faking.
What do you think? And why?
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
In situations like that, many times the criminal is sent off to a mental institution (for the safety of society) instead of prisons. Many criminals in the past have tried to feign insanity so that they could go to the asylum instead of prison.
Well, the alternate personality is guilty for sure. Unfortunately for Josh, we can't punish the alternate personality without punishing him as well.
Oka and waht about memory loss?
Pretty much what Afaceinthematrix said, they would be sent to a mental asylum and given professional help instead of locked behind bars unless Josh lives in some messed up third-world country where he'd be executed or sent to jail anyway.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Oka and waht about memory loss? |
unless they are 100% sure that he lost his memory and lost it for good i.e he wont wake up in the middle of the night remembering his past, they would put him in a mental institute, but like you said if he has lost it 100% and will never regain it they will most likely take care of him in some hospital and then keep him in a disabled home...Still guilty with memory loss...he still committed the crime, whether he remembers it or not is completely irrelevant in my opinion.
As for the split personality, i agree, someone must be punished and since the "evil personality" lives in Josh's head, Josh's physical person must be imprisoned (or institutionalized)
My 2c 
| Bannik wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Oka and waht about memory loss? |
unless they are 100% sure that he lost his memory and lost it for good i.e he wont wake up in the middle of the night remembering his past, they would put him in a mental institute, but like you said if he has lost it 100% and will never regain it they will most likely take care of him in some hospital and then keep him in a disabled home... |
Why would you keep someone with (personal)memory loss in a disabled home? He can still talk, drive a car etc. He just lost his memories about his life from the past.Josh is obviously innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law. So if he is incapacitated obviously he cannot stand trial. He would have to be sent to a mental hospital for observation and investigation. He will in all probability be found unfit to stand for trial following which he will be committed to an asylum. Unless there is some improvement or miracle and he recovers his memory, he will be tried for the murder. He is still innocent though until found guilty in a Court of Law.
if he did it, he's guilty... if as u said he has mental damages or anything, he won't be charged as a killer but he'll be sent to an institution...
| Poetsunited wrote: |
| if he did it, he's guilty... if as u said he has mental damages or anything, he won't be charged as a killer but he'll be sent to an institution... |
It has to be proven that he is guilty first, right? It is how it usually works. You are presumed innocent in a court of law until proven guilty. And if you are proven guilty, you get a sentence.
If you cannot stand trial they send you to an institution after a proper investigation by the court. But if you cannot stand for a trial, then of course they cannot find you guilty. That has to be proven in a court of law first.Why is it when everyone saw the word "guilty", they automatically assumed "legally guilty" and started talking about crime and punishment, and institutionalization? ^_^;
What about morally guilty? It is possible to be morally guilty for a lot of things that you are not legally guilty of. For example, if i were to rail on and on to Joe about what an evil person Sam is, and how he should be killed, and then Joe goes and does it on his own volition to please me, i would not be legally guilty of Sam's murder... but i would certainly be morally responsible. (Or, to give another example, the preachers who railed on about the evils of abortion and abortion doctors are not legally guilty of the abortion clinic murders... but they are certainly morally guilty of them.)
Law is a poor standard for discussing this kind of thing for two reasons: first, laws vary from country to country, province to province, district to district and town to town... and even year to year; and second, laws are designed to follow moral truths, not vice versa.
Now all that being said, Klaw 2's questions are not simple questions at all. They are very difficult questions. Let me demonstrate with an example for just the first one. Let's say there are two people, Josh and Paul, and they have both killed people then got brain-damage that completely erased their memories. However, Josh's brain-damage was accidental... but Paul deliberately damaged his brain after the killings to avoid legal prosecution. Everyone seems to agree that Josh would be innocent (legally innocent, at least). What about Paul? Remember, just like Josh, Paul does not remember doing the killings, or even why he might want to kill someone, or that he deliberately erased his memory (or even why he would want to). If Josh is innocent, why not Paul? And if Paul is innocent, then if anyone wants to get away with a crime, all they have to do is erase enough of their memory to wipe out memory of the crime and the desire to do it. Is that right?
He should really go to the asylum. But the split personally really does complicate things...
Yup, definitely would end up in a mental institution. At least, in most places. I actually saw something similar to this on TV once, about a guy who claimed he murdered his girlfriend in his sleep, (while sleep walking.) He went to Standford and they conducted several sleep studies on him and he apparently had crazy sleep walking problems and whatnot. Those kinds of cases are always so tricky.
