What if.... (Serial killer)
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.
Comments (37)
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.
Of course. This is the normal procedure. I don't think that there is any moral dilemma in this.
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.
Amnesia does not absolve anyone, as the greatest witness of all is history.
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.
Would be far easier to go along with the "new start".
The state apparatus proving me right again.
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.
That's for me to know, and you to find out.
Why would that bee? (just kidding :)
You call them as you see them based on what?
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.
I am an unbearable smarty pants - and as such, I can say with certainty that yours is a good question.
Or none! In which case, can I have your drivers license!?
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.
Quoting 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]
There is no remainder to prosecute.
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.
:up:
My answer would be: We shouldn't prosecute him but people will anyways.
Too, one of the aims of judicial punishment short of execution is to give criminals an opportunity to see the error of their ways and reform.
On what I see.
Judgments are influenced by prevailing moral standards, no?.
I think it depends on the nature of the head injury. If it’s only memory loss then I would say they are still morally responsible but there is lots of data now where brain injury can drastically alter someones personality. If the head i jury has done this to such a degree that the person cannot reasonably considered the same person then it becomes less clear what moral responsibility the person has for the actions of what is essentially another person.
Elect them president.
None other than Bill Clinton personally executed a guy just like that. Ricky Ray Rector shot a cop in Arkansas then put the gun to his own head and fired. He didn't die, but he lost enough brain function to have no memory of knowledge of what he had done. During the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton didn't want to appear "soft on crime" so as governor of the state he insisted that Rector be executed. Clinton personally flew back to Arkansas from the campaign trail to witness the execution. Rector had so little mental function that he saved half of his last meal "to eat later."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector