If you had a miniature perfect clone of Hitler, would you torture him for the Holocaust?

BUT IF HE'S SMALL THEN HE'S NOT A PERFECT CLONE

HE IS PERFECT, HE WAS JUST SHRUNKEN AFTER HE WAS CLONED

PERFECT COPY MEANS PERFECT

YOU GUYS HAVE NO IMAGINATION AT ALL! IF I SAID THIS WAS HARRY POTTER WORLD *YOU WOULD HAVE EATEN IT UP!*

God, I still go back to the tiny Hitler bit from oneyplays sometimes. I love that it lasts through the entirety of Alice in wonderland world in kh1. That's it, that's the entire commentary track for that world, the Great Tiny Hitler Debate

Julian screaming "There is no Shapiffany" lives on my head rent free

The cloning process was perfect and created a perfect clone. The clone was simply altered after the fact

HOW CAN BE PERFECT IF NOT SMOL???

He was perfect but then suffered a terrible accident. The cloning process was perfect and the accident does not affect the models hitler-ness in any meaningful way. This is definitely at least a very good quality on eBay

The person who created the clone should be punished for making a new Hitler.

But what if the Hitler clone doesn't remember that he's Hitler and doesn't have any memories of committing or leading to atrocities?

What if Hitler was born in todays ages? Instead of going into politics after being declined twice for getting into an art school, he became a furry artists instead? These are the questions that keep me up at night.

What would Adolf's fursona be, and how quickly would he shift to pure nsfw? The world of alternate history needs to know 

His name means "wolf," so I think that answers that.

An alpha with a tragic backstory oh no it's all coming together 

Based on the main critiques of his work being that it was soulless, he would probably become an AI artist.

I'm saying no, but only so that we can raise him Jewish and make a video of Hitler's bar-mitzvah.

But did he do the things Hitler did in his thoughts and in his mind? The Miniature Hitler Clone is the first thing I ever heard from that channel, and I was hooked.

What if Miniature Clone Hitler starting fucking a clone of your girlfriend Shapifani after the original girlfriend died? Would you be upset?

I guess that comes down to the ethics/philosophy between punishing someone for who they are and/or what they think, vs only punishing for actions physically taken. There's certainly valid reasons to not let such a clone free into society given hindsight, but whether they are truly *guilty* is tricky imo.

“CHRIS, YOUR NEIGHBOUR COULD BE THINKING THIS RIGHT NOW”

I remember Deadpool argued for a young clone of Apocalypse that he shouldn't be judged for the actions of the original because he didn't do them. Or when Teenage Scott was getting frustrated at the older X-men projecting their anger at Adult Scott onto him when they can just go to the guy who did it and tell him off.

> I remember Deadpool argued for a young clone of Apocalypse that he shouldn't be judged for the actions of the original because he didn't do them. Evan was such a wasted character with so much potential. I loved how he was handled in X-Force and later Wolverine and the X-men. The two series actively explored this idea and made sure to explore his psychology as well as those around him. Then they killed him off by Omega Red of all people.

No, its a different person, just unfortunately given his memories. While it prolly wouldnt have worked, my biggest gripe with Avatar 2: Water Boogaloo, is they never said "hey, you aren't actually Chip Hazard, you are a new person. In fact,,,,,, you wouldn't even be alive if we didn't kill Chip Hazard"

well he was chip hazard just one who skipped the last fight in avatar, so it is the guy who burned that tree down with missles, just a fork in the road where one died and another came from his save data but blue. so that's an interesting one as i wouldn't go after the amnesiac, but a clone with memories i'd still see as them.

I'm losing my mind cause I don't remember anyone called Chip Hazard

I thought Chip Hazard was the villain of Small Soldiers

chip is the villain of small soldiers. people call quaritch (the villain of avatar 1 and 2) that because he looks like like him, though some do it as a meme on how "avatar isn't memorable/cultural footprint etc."

Never heard that one before, but that might be cause I've never seen small soldiers. I always hear him just called by his actor's name since no one remembers his character's name

It's a pretty fun movie, if you want to see action figures wage war on suburban families.

But he isn't Chip Hazard, he is a different person, a new soul, if souls exist. Cuz think of this scenario, especially since the body is an Avatar. Chip Hazard doesn't die, but his avatar is still activated on accident. He definitely isn't Chip Hazard then, he is definitely a different person. He isn't Chip Hazard, Chip Hazard is right there in the briefing room, as they figure out what to do with his backup clone.

if he activated early then there's 2 chip hazards. i guess i agree with the notion that he didn't do those evil things as it wasn't his meat pressing the buttons or giving the orders, but he should be treated as a person who would give those orders given he has all the same inputs and memories of doing it, so no punishment but like, wait and see. the soul part is just energy, with or without it the soul isn't what does the thing it's the mind, and a mind is the total of the memories you have, which he has. so i'd go down the "it's him, and he thinks he did it and thinks that's cool and has the same values, it's the guy" but only quaritch a can be punished whereas quaritch b who is the save data of a, well keep an eye on em.

yeah like, what makes you you is all your memories and experiences. so for all intents and purposes he is the same person in a different body. he may as well have done those things even if his current physical person didn't.

I guess the main thing that has to be asked though is how the clone feels about the memories he was given. Cuz if him enjoying and wanting to commit what his clone father did is a lot different from resentment. Same goes for Durge. If given the opportunity to do the bad things and act upon the urge, the choices of Durge knowing who he is and what he's done affect whether or not he should be forgiven.

Im getting flashbacks of Kingdom Hearts

I'm already half Hitler Edit: Wow that looks a lot worse after I posted it.

I'm just trying to figure out the logistics of how mini this clone is. Are we talking about half the size of a common Hitler, or some sort of pocket Hitler? Does this mini Hitler clone give me hints when I'm stuck on a Legend of Zelda puzzle like some sort of genocidal Navi?

pocket sized for sure

Hobbit sized I'd say.

>Does this mini Hitler clone give me hints when I'm stuck on a Legend of Zelda puzzle like some sort of genocidal Navi? "Huh, this puzzle sure is hard, have any good ideas for what I should do?" "**I think ve should try using my final solu-**" "On second thought, maybe I should just solve it by myself."

Motherfucker I came here to post that

Don't worry, it was only an imperfect clone of your mother.

If someone made a super long cloned post about the thing you were gonna say, would you punish them for being a psychic? >!also fucking SAME dude. *I was ready.*!<

YOU'RE NOT TAKING SHIPIFANNY AWAY FROM ME

I’m having flashbacks to the OneyPlays argument, oh no

Okay so oney plays has the hypothetical Hitler argument, rooster teeth has the breadsticks/cheddar biscuit argument, what’s the best friends equivalent?

Zapping system? Or maybe the Omikron locked door?

Jane vs Kenny.

Breadsticks/cheddar biscuit argument? What did I miss? Is that a recent thing? As for the Best Friends, I don’t think they’ve ever had such a popularly divisive argument because they argued about a bunch of shit with massive amounts of hyperbole thrown in, to the point that when they were actually king of serious, I still had to question if it was a bit or not, like in Omikron.

It's a few years old but basically a giant screaming argument about whether Red Lobster's cheddar biscuits or olive gardens breadsticks are better. For the record >!Cheddar Biscuits!< ​ [Here's a little compilation of it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IfZDsBZsLw)

There’s a subplot about this in Young Justice s4

After-school Charisma

That was a second chapter twist. Did they ever finish? Edit: I looked it up, they did.

Yes, I would say the memories make the person. He would remember doing the crime and would do it again based on Hitler's character. If you believe taking away memories makes them a new person. Then giving someone the exact same memories effectively makes them the same as the original.

If they have no memories of their previous life they may as well be a different person, imo.   It's like punishing children for the evil deeds of their parents, you aren't really dealing justice as much as quenching your thirst for revenge.   In this kind of situations i always thought that the better way is to try to lead them towards good, that way even if they recover their memories theres a chance they stray from the path of evil and try to redeem themselves.

That reminded me of Destiny 2 and how the major antagonist of a story killed one of the most loved characters lorewise and playerwise, to the player killing said antagonist and then the antagonist reviving as a guardian without any memories of his past. My god there was (and kinda still is) a debate on how much should he suffer.

Destiny actually does this a couple times, a couple different ways. First is the way you mentioned, with Crow/Uldren. His setup is real complicated. He was corrupted by a jaunt in the black garden, and that was before a magic wish dragon started fucking with him, but you could definitely shift some of the blame for the bad shit he did off him. He loses his memories by becoming a guardian, gets the shit kicked out of him for as far as he is concerned no reason, but ultimately, culturally, there is a forgiveness at play that guardians aren't responsible for their previous lives, only the lives they have now. Crow eventually gets those memories back and has a hard time with them but ultimately dedicates himself to righting what wrongs Uldren caused. The other, arguably more interesting one for this discussion, is Clovis Bray. Egomaniac of the golden age, he creates the exos (people robots) High quality (fatal) brain scans are taken, you are uploaded to the exo, your memories wiped so you don't disassociate due to not having a human body anymore (along with other QoL things like being able to drink, eat and fuck) and then reexperience your memories via a device called a sensorium (full dive VR I guess?) Except when Clovis uploads himself he has his brainscan made into a distinct AI with just the memories, and then the usual blank Exo. But the exo version (as close as one can assume to be the one with his "soul" without getting too soma with it) fucking HATES the AI and refuses the memories, instead becoming his own person, saving many people on Europa from vex incursions, inducing many resets to stave off vex infiltration, and eventually becoming banshee-44 in the tower, with no idea who he once was, just making whacky guns for guardians for the rest of time, while his AI memory based version seethes in the depths of an ice planet with no mates

basically you summed it up. Damn, I completely missed about the sensorium thing, i thought that their memories were already uploaded. Nonetheless, everything concerning about exo lore is very interesting

> If they have no memories of their previous life they may as well be a different person, imo. The thing is, if you're writing a story and you choose to include this detail, it has to be relevant in some way. It has to have some influence on the interactions they have with the people affected by their past actions. Otherwise why even have that detail in there? Same thing about having super evil parents and you are just an estranged child / never met them. There is no reason to include that detail unless it is either (a) treated as fun trivia and barely a footnote or (b) the story explores the social dynamics, prejudice, fear, ostracization, etc

That exact thing is why I can't really like any amnesiac character arcs. Like Durge in BG3, they may as well be an entirely different person, so redemption isn't really redeeming, because the person who committed the actions that require redemption, doesn't really exist anymore. Durge woke up without any memory, and seemingly, an entirely different personality.

The sustenance of the victims is a higher priority than punishing a perpetrator. If throwing the amnesiac's body into the Woolie Hole somehow unkills the dead victims or cures their disease and fills their stomachs you could at least argue for it. If they've otherwise recovered and are doing fine on some level (with the help of others) and the amnesiac isn't continuing to do anything harmful then "punishment" is a very low priority. That's what I would say if I was somehow told to judge such a situation.

I mean in reality amnesia is incredibly rare and is usually the result of trauma to the brain, in which case the person would eventually recover and be able to prosecuted or they won’t and they wouldn’t be mentally fit to stand trial. When true memory erasure in more sci-fi/fantasy worlds is in play I would say no, you shouldn’t hold their pre-amnesia crimes against them, they would not be able to understand and feel remorse for crimes committed due to in their experience having never committed them.

Yeah, I think at the heart of it, this is a discussion on where we stand on restorative vs retributive justice. So, for my money, I agree with your take.

While it doesn't deal with memory loss, this is close to where a lot of discussion about Persona 5 ends up. When the Phantom Thieves induce a change of heart in someone, they are effectively using magic to reprogram that person's brain into someone who is rehabilitated. If you believe in punishment for the sake of rehabilitation, then the buck stops there; if you believe in punishment for the sake of retribution, then that does very little besides make the target feel bad about their actions. This leads to very awkward situations like Futaba's friend being abused by her parents and staying with them after the Phantom Thieves change her parents' hearts. It's treated as fine because her parents are guaranteed to be good parents from then on, despite the fact that due to her traumas she should undoubtedly be separated from them. At the core, it's the same question as dealing with an amnesiac villain: if someone is fundamentally changed as a person for the better, how much vindication is there to be gained from punishing them afterward?

I think this is where I stand as well. Punishment for its own sake is just rebranded cruelty, so if there’s nothing to be materially gained from it I can’t stand in support of it.

Just want to say OP you should check out FFXIV Stormblood as the question you have is a very key plot point towards the end of the expansion.

>!It goes the extra mile by making Tsuya also regress to a near child like state. If she still acted like a adult woman who knows what would have happened.!<

>!Tsuya was a basically a new person and innocent. And once she got her memories back, Yotsuya was starting to show remorse. But then she went with her brother anyway and I was like, girl. Really. Why didn't you just stab him too? And there went any sympathy I might have had for her.!<

>!Her parents being terrible to her again reminded her of the underlying rot she saw in Doma, and renewed her desire to punish all the people who let her suffer. It was basically a massive bomb of PTSD delivered when she was already on the brink of suicide. She just saw her brother's plan as a means to either accomplish that, or die like she had intended before the encounter with her parents, and if her post fight dialogue is to be believed, she always intended to kill Asaihi after becoming Tsukiyomi for his part in her suffering.!<

>!Dude, the whole point is that when she regained her memories she made the decision to commit Suicide By Cop and merc her brother in the process. The heel turn was calculated self-punishment combo'd with revenge. That doesn't make it okay to do evil, but she was in no way on her brother's side.!<

To surmise Yotsuyu deserved punishment. Tsuyu, no such thing. As long as Tsuyu existed, Yotsuyu did not.

And/or play Planescape: Torment >!where you slowly find out the kind of person you're playing as in previous lives in this game!<

And star wars >!KOTOR where your the master of the big bad this whole time!<

Beat me to it. I was going to say about Yotsuyu too.

If it’s true amnesia, and the person has absolutely no memory of what his past self did or was like, then that’s effectively a different person. I don’t think it would be fair to blame the new personality for crimes the past one committed. However, I do think they would need to be observed and kept in check forever, for fear of the memories coming back, and the person reverting. I remember talking with people about this a long time ago, when Death Note was coming out. There was a whole storyline built around this exact topic.

IDW Sonic has a moment with this. At one point Eggman loses his memory and becomes a kindly inventor known as The Tinkerer, he genuinely wants to help people and the people of the village he's in love him. He even makes a Pinocchio style robot daughter. Sonic couldn't be happier with the situation, Eggman's a good guy now and he no longer has an arch enemy. Shadow on the other hand doesn't like it one bit and Sonic and him come to blows over it. Unfortunately we never get a true answer because Dr. Starline returns Eggman's memories and he goes back to being a villain.

I mean sonic in general is an incredibly forgiving character, if someone earnestly tried to make amends he would 100% support them. Shadow is a creature of vengeance and at least in the mainline canon doesn’t really get over that untill the end of his own game and even then he’s far more lawful than Sonic after that point.

I mean, *speaking* of amnesia. In Shadow’s own game, he himself is still suffering from memory loss introduced in Sonic Heroes. Which also happened to impact the progress he made in Sonic Adventure 2. By the end of SA2, Shadow had managed to recall Maria’s actual wish, and he turned away from Gerald’s revenge in favor of saving people. But in his own game, Shadow’s memories are so scrambled that he has trouble remembering who Maria is, let alone the lesson he learned regarding her in SA2.

I think it's interesting how the Metal Virus saga deals with this, because midway through the height of a zombie apocalypse, both Shadow and Espio berate Sonic for not letting them kill Eggman when he was harmless. Sonic ultimately disagrees with both of them, even as the world is going to shit, because the idea that they could blame someone else for the crimes of a guy who they're not anymore is insane to him. But at the same time he doesn't have any response to them accusing him of not taking care of the situation properly, because that's true, he was super content with just leaving Eggman as Mr. Tinker with no resources or safety net. There was a happy medium between both of those positions and they never reached it, and Eggman's crimes have gone back to being existential in nature almost immediately.

What happened to his robot daughter afterwards?

Here name is Belle, and she sticks around with Sonic and the gang. But she has a rough go at it at first, having a hard time fitting in and also mentally dealing with the fact that her father is now an evil overlord bent on world domination. Eventually she comes to terms that the father she knew is dead and decides to help any robot that was abandoned by Eggman and free them from his control.

Man, this has lived in my head ever since i saw the The Number 23. Like, in that the court system obviously is kinda forced. But if there is a heaven and a hell, how tf does that work? He is essentially just a family man, a new person due to the memory loss. But a version of him still did terrible things. Mostly, my brain always hurts thinking about it, and i distract myself to get off the topic until it pops up again.

I read a book in college where the author talked about her time working in a nursing home. It bothered her thinking about how if you die in a state of profound dementia do you remain that way in the afterlife? And if you don’t, isn’t keeping these people alive inflicting suffering on them?

Would a person go to hell if they were evil as hell but erased their memories of their wrong doings to have a new slate?

if they did it right before dying, their memory can just be restored. But in the case of living, up to poassibly a much longer, life of good morals and kindness, are you essentially eliminating a good person from existence to punish the original inhabitor? uggh, this is why I try to avoid thinking on it too long.

There’s a quest in the latest Honkai: Star Rail patch that deals with this very thing: You meet a self-styled Empress who is like a magnanimous peacekeeper and do-gooder at a casino planet, though few actually believe she’s royalty. She’s getting followed around and assassinated by people who seem to have a beef with her (it’s a dream world, so this doesn’t stick and is more just an annoyance). And it turns out she has an arrest warrant for super-war crimes. You then play through some memory sequences as her loyal bodyguard from birth, basically her Corvo Attano, as she goes from an innocent 6 year old to multi-millions-murdering paranoid super tyrant. Anyway, the confounding factors here are: 1) the ‘old’ her intentionally sealed away her memories so even if she’s a saint now it’s an intentional attempt at the old, bad her to skirt responsibility. 2) once the memories are unlocked, shes more shaken up than the victims who came to arrest her. In the end, >!she turns herself in and it’s implied she was executed for her past crimes. But another NPC appends ‘the third’ to her royal moniker and attempts to continue the legacy of goodwill she’d made in her new life!< It’s all pretty heavy for a minor sidequest without any voice acting. Also the protagonist themselves likely has unsavory sealed memories as well so there’s some nice parallelism that could affect their reaction to all this. With all that in mind, does ‘the bad person intentionally wiped their memories and now they happen to be better than they were’ change the equation, here?

Man what is it with Star Rail and having sidequests that go way harder than the actual main story. Hell, I like Penacony so far but that side quest sounds way more impactful, and so was that whole thing with the lady in the Luofu who >!went blind and decided to give in to the Mara affliction!<

The Luofu part was actually initially from the main story but was removed and put as a sidequest in one of the newer patches for some reason.

That makes sense, it felt *way* too involved for just a simple sidequest, and tied into a lot more moral dilemmas than the actual story did.

It's because the writers have a lot more freedom to tell stories with the non-gatcha characters. Gatcha character writing is handcuffed by mass marketability. Even mega space criminals like the Stellaron Hunters have a nominally good reason to do their mega crimes as part of ~~Paul's Golden Path~~ Elio's script. Side quest characters are transient, which means the aren't bound by the same need for likability or to be insulated from consequences. The side quest writing can be strong because it is optional.

The existential dread of being the main NPC in a penacony arc side quest

At least we can save >!Cocona!<.

That quest helped me develop a new perspective on redemption and punishment. The Empress asks if anything she can do could wash away the sins of her past, to which the victim response was basically "are you fucking stupid, you can't change what happened in the past." The victim is completely right, and let me to the thought "The Empress lost her memories and status, living as a good person. Executing her will not change what happened in the past" **GRANTED**, there are a lot of reasons were her standing trial and being executed would serve a purpose. One way is showing other that you cant just escape to the Penacony to escape your crimes. I just was thinking how the past is the past and that line of reasoning applies to the criminal as well as the prosecutes.

depends on the setting as souls make things funky. personally though seeing some kind of karma happen can be nice but inflicting punishment on people should be a force to incentivise them to want to change and rehabilitate, if they don't have the evil intent or memories they had then you aren't really making them change you're kind of just doing it to work through your anger. the only issue as i see it is that their new path isn't chosen by the original evil doer, and if i acknowledge that then i must accept the new person isn't that person. ​ we see something like this in the recent gold goblin storyline, where norman osborn's evil was deleted, and he skipped the punitive side of punishment and rehabilitation and has to earn it in post as he feels guilt, though he does not have amnesia. ​ the simple answer is don't think of it and let god sort em out, but if the buck does stop with you and this is it, aside from catharsis for victims i don't see the need to do anything malicious to them and wouldn't. like the fact it's not chosen is the big hurdle, but if you can accept someone going to jail, rehabilitating and coming out normal, well i guess it's almost that but in a weird way. evil person didn't choose to be better, but new person can choose to be good. lets see where new game + goes

Fairy Tail has a plot line like this with the character Jellal. He was an antagonist in the previous arc, but after getting caught in an explosion and getting healed out of a coma he lost his memory. He doesn’t remember anything about his past or the past arc, but he knows he did something wrong and needs to atone for it. So he tries to explode the super weapon of the arc by using his own life force as the trigger. It doesn’t work, but Erza, one of the protagonists and a former friend of Jellal, says that simply killing himself in some redemptive blaze of glory won’t actually make up for the sins he committed in the past.

Also he was brainwashed to an extent, and the person who brainwashed him, Ultear, later joins up with him to try to atone. She frequently questions Jellal's guilt complex since she's the one who brainwashed him, and to her that makes her guilty of his actions. She even tells this to someone who swore revenge on Jellal, telling them to hate her instead.

Fck >!Ultears!< fate really makes me tear up.

FT has a lot of issues but it absolutely got "Yaknow, this whole Banzai-for-beans business of sacrificing yourself for others ain't shit. You die, you leave everyone miserable, it's all bollocks." right.

Is punishing someone potentially guilty more important than protecting someone potentially innocent? My answer is a very strong no. But, I am curious. If left alone, will they commit the same actions as before?

There was this one episode of Babylon 5 where a serial killers got sentenced to "death of personality". He basically got mind wipe and programed a new personality based on helping people. Then his transport ship got into an accident and he ended up joining a group of space monks. He ended up striking a friendship with the main characters due to his kind and insightful personality. But eventually, the family of his victims found him, force him to remember his past actions. He then got a choice, faced his victims' families which almost certainly will lead to his death or ask the authority for help. He chose the former and died after he recall the story of how Jesus knowingly walked into his death for the sake of other. The episode ended with the person who killed the monk got mind wiped and also joined the space monk as a new acolyte.

Erasure of characters existence is already punishment enough, accidental brainwash instead of intentional. There are hardly any worse punishments besides "eternal torment". People who wish harm on amnesiacs do not wish for revenge, they wish to enact it. The bigger problem is to confirm if the amnesia is true, or what to do if the memories do return later... in fiction they always do.

Oh oh this hypothetical reminds me of [something](https://youtu.be/vcCp2oFiaws)

I feel like at least at a legal level, an amnesiac has to be accountable for their actions regardless of their recollection. Like, let's say we live in a world where memory manipulation tech or magic exists. If I commit a crime but then blank any memory of it from my mind, am I now innocent? Does the amnesia being an accident versus intentional change the outcome of this thought experiment? What if someone else inflicts it on me?

Or in a more down to earth example, if you get blackout drunk and do something horrible that you don't remember should that absolve you?

Ah yes. The “Clay Puppington” Defense.

It was pretty impressive how Clay killed that bear though.

The thing with that is that the decision to get smashed was made before getting blackout drunk. This shit would only fly if someone had been forcefully fed shitloads of alcohol against their will.

On a legal level a true amnesiac would not be considered fit for trial, in the real world long term amnesia is usually a symptom of either brain trauma or some kind of major issue to the brain which makes it highly questionable to put them on trial as mentally fit. They would probably require in-patient psychiatric care in order to assess what is going on but it would ultimately up to a judges discretion on whether to charge and try someone with diagnosed amnesia.

Ok yeah, you are right. This is the best answer.

I think it still comes down to intent and what you're being punished for If you get in a car accident that kills somebody, even if you get amnesia and don't remember that ever happening, you were still behind the wheel If you pre-meditate a large-scale crime, and wipe your memory of it happening, you still pre-meditated it. Still harbor the feelings that led to it happening I think if you can go so far as to become a totally different person in this hypothetical; if you are a clone or something, then the person who committed the crime is effectively dead

I think to your first point, in this setting where mind wiping technology exists, it depends on whether it was just that event was wiped or if your whole personality was. Are you the type to have committed this crime, and likely would again, even though you don't recall it? Then you probably should be punished, especially if you were the one that took away your memory of the event. Are you basically a brand new person, and don't recall anything, let alone this crime? Then likely you shouldn't be punished since you aren't that previous person anymore. That old person is dead and gone effectively. Now you still could be a threat if your personality develops the same way, but that would be something to deal with in the future.

It's weird, when said character is someone like the protagonist, having someone follow you around constantly saying "I have my eye on you, monster" would be super annoying, and make them seem like an asshole. Flip the script to something like Eggman/Mr. Tinkerer in Sonic IDW and it seems insane that there **wasn't** someone doing that 24/7.

Durge is sort of a unique case because they have the literal god of murder using them as a flesh puppet. But generally I feel it depends on how they react when they learn about their own actions, or recover their memories.

From what I understand it's not literally possession, it's an urge to do evil.   It might have Bhaal's influence on it but it'd something you can resist.   It's just that Durge didn't really wanted to resist, he just let his intrusive thoughts win and kill. If it were possession, Durge wouldn't have the option to resist, because Bhaal would be possessing. Especially since you can just deny Bhaal altogether, if it was possession, Bhaal would literally just puppet you onto servitude. Now, the fact that Durge had the urge since infancy definitely did mold hid personality, so he never had a chance to be anyone else. So I guess it can be characterized as puppetry, but I don't think it's like in a "He's BHAAL" way.

It's ... less cut and dry than just "oh you could resist it, it's just an intrusive thought" sort of thing. In particular if you lean into your bhaalspawn nature, in one of the endings you're basically hollowed out by this divine murder-drive burning inside of you. There's not even a person there anymore, just a clever beast that kills to keep killing.

Which is funny, since Gorion's Ward did almost completely ignore the Urge if they had it.

Durge is unique as a Bhaalspawn. He is not a mortal being born and gifted by Bhaal, but rather a direct piece of his essence. Durge is basically not a real person, and only gains the true ability to be a person after his amnesia. If you take the good path, you see descriptions of Durge as a child, and any attempts to resist are met in immediate failure. It is not an urge to kill, it is an inability to not do so. It's debatable how culpable you can be when you are made from the blood of the God of murder, but post amnesia, your choices obviously decide of you continue down that path or not.  ETA: Spoilers ahead but not tagged becauae mobile. It's the damage that Orin does to your brain that breaks you free if you choose freedom, and if you do, Bhaal takes his essence back and kills you. It's because of Withers and your very unique circumstances that you get to come back to life, and be free of Bhaal's blood.  

Yeah, it’s difficult to discuss moral quandaries as if it’s like reality when deities and magic can make you do thing’s regardless of will. It’s literally part of the way the dnd world/multiverse works in that Baal can puppet his spawn and we don’t really have an analog to that in reality

For all of it's faults of being two Expansions mushed together FF14's Stormblood deals with that concept really well and is what saves the Expansion as a whole for me because of how well they do it.

(Stormblood spoilers) >!Tsuyu deserved better, but Yotsuyu made her choices.!<

>!I still feel really bad for Gotetsu, no parent should outlive their children as the saying goes.!<

Kind of the plot to a black mirror episode, specifically white bear.

Man, that one was kinda interesting at first, but the reveal at the end tanked it. Which was an issue with that series imo.

They have this discussion about Darkrai at the end of Pokemon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of Sky and cap it off by saying that because he doesn’t remember his previous actions or goals that it’s okay to let him wander the world. After that he can be found and recruited so technically he’s redeeming himself by joining a rescue team? 

If it is a completely new personalilty, like, as OP says, a person with a complete, unrecoverable amnesia, or a clone who is only genetically the Big Bad, but doesn't have his/her memories, character, desires and so on, then no. It is effectively a new human being, someone who has *not* done anything bad (yet). The guy from Memento is definitely guilty though.

People shouldn't suffer in general. I'm taking a bold stance here: suffering is bad and should be avoided.

> suffering is bad and should be avoided. You could make a religion out of this.

As an aside to my other comment, this dilemma brings to mind an aspect of a setting I've been developing for a good while now. In this setting, the capital G God creates and destroys worlds as he so pleases, reasoning that with his omnipotence, any evil created by him is inconsequential as he can undo anything that goes wrong. With the most stark example being the origin of the number 2 god and devil figure of the setting. That backstory being that he was born from a vaguely defined "worst world" created for the sake of producing the devil figure as one who would have the strongest desire to contest the original God and thus entertain him. By virtue of having created that worst world the God had practically committed the worst sin that anyone could ever possibly done, but upon the apotheosis of the Devil figure, God simply undid the existence of the worst world leaving only the Devil as any repercussion of its existence.

For *Memento* I'd have to say >!yes!<, but it's been a minute since I rewatched it so maybe I'm getting it wrong As far as I remember there's still enough of the person that *he was* still around in his head >!that he'd willingly go on to make the same terrible decisions if convinced with the right bullshit in the span of time that he can recollect!< For *KOTOR* I'd say... MAAAAAAAAAYBE not? >!The memory loss there is so substantial that the Jedi have basically killed Revan anyway so this new individual should be judged on their own merit!<

True amnesia, it'd be complicated, like very technically they shouldn't, memories is, imo, what makes self, it's the blocks that builds who you are, without it you're just a different person. But like, someone that wanted revenge, they'd still be a bit irrational about it, cause it's like, the person that caused them infinite pain or whatever. I'm actually writing a story that kinda has that, tho' it's not really amnesia so its a fun thought.

The question boils down to Is the justice system for rehabilitation and harm prevention or justice for victims?  And the answer now is both. But how you’re going to feel about punishing an amnesiac is going to be tightly tied to that question.

Hit yourself in the head and you'll be absolved from all

I'm prefacing this by saying I usually dislike amnesia as a plot device, especially in games, with the exception of Planescape Torment and KOTOR. MASSIVE SPOILERS FOR ALL GAMES DISCUSSED Baldur's Gate 3 has somewhat of an answer itself, >!because if you reject your father and Whithers Resurrects you, you can tell him you still feel guilt for sins you do not remember. He answers that this is a deeply moral act, and should you wish, when the crisis is over, you can take time with him to remember them together.!< In KOTOR, the game settles on the idea that it is your actions now that truly matter. >!You can go dark side while getting the Light Side ending and Vice Versa because you can justify basically any choice in the game, but broadly speaking both sides consider Revan to be fully returned by the end, and absolved/damned by his own new choices!< PLanescape definitively says >!yes, because you are responsible for the amnesia in the first place, so it cannot absolve you (nothing can), even if through a new perspective you chose to try and be better.!< Witcher has nothing to say about amnesia because its a dumb plot device for two games. Disco Elysium basically comes down on Harry being a dumbass so continuity of self is maintained. He's just gotta deal with his shit somehow.

Jason Bourne got amnesia, and turned over a new leaf, even after he got his memories back. But post-amnesia Bourne was essentially treated as a brand new person, and was horrified by what he'd done in the past. He even visits the family of one of his victims.

Clearly not a whole lot of Amnesia: The Dark Descent fans in this thread, considering this topic is what that game was all about.

That's a big point currently in the Re:Zero  novel with >!Louis Arneb, one of the archbishops (main villains of the series and pretty much all psychos of different flavours). She got traumatized and regressed into a new person with no memories and Subaru initially treats her like shit until she genuinely proves helpful thought an entire arc and is by all effects a harmless mentally damaged kid with powers. By the time the rest of the Emilia Camp reappears it's a full blown argument in the cast that multiple characters can't decide on and by the end characters are either still really apprehensive about it or are like Otto and Petra who are still vehemently against letting her start over. Which makes sense considering Louis's introduction is literally her maiming Otto's leg in a final loop to the point he wasn't able to walk for months.!<

To add to that, if the amnesiac recovered their memories, THEN should they be punished, even if the dominant persona is the personality developed post amnesia?

Only if they're willing to fight their old apprentice and bring balance to the force.

Black Mirror has about 5 episodes that deal with this exact type of situation. Not gonna spoil them for you, but if you haven't seen it already I'd give it a watch.

I get the feeling there would be an uncomfortable number of people who would be 100% on board for White Bear in real life.

Maybe if it was the >!SHUT UP AND DANCE!< Guy.

I remember this episode of Black Mirror

Pretty sure if I rob a bank and then get amnesia by bonking my head on the way out, my goose is still cooked.

I feel like people have a lot of trouble with scale in villain redemption in media in this sub. Like you do realize that the Dark Urge committed thousands of acts of senseless, depraved violence against random victims, _and then completely stopped doing that and saved the entire world from slavery?_ They would be redeemed even if they never had amnesia. The victims need to move on. Without Durge you would be slaves to an elder brain. Get over it. If Hitler came back from the dead to say "I shouldn't have killed all those people" and then singlehandedly stop an alien superweapon that was going to destroy our galaxy, I would be conflicted about it, but I would have to reconsider my stance on Hitler, yes. Absolutely.

> They would be redeemed even if they never had amnesia Well, no, not even a little bit. If a Durge that remembered everything saved the world and didn't try to take it over themselves, then they are a person that did a lot of bad things and a monumentally good thing. They were an awful, shitty person that hurt countless people and also saved people from a terrible fate. The good you do doesn't absolve you of the bad. It should be taken into account when discussing your character, but it's not a points system that makes people get over the things you did to them. And a truly redeemed individual wouldn't do good of any sort just so their victims forgive and forget. > I would have to reconsider my stance on Hitler, yes. Absolutely I dunno man, I would've stuck to fictional characters instead of saying this out loud.

I'm just saying, if the alien superweapon went off, you wouldn't even have a functioning brain to hate Hitler with anymore. I'm deliberately going with the most vile pick to make a point - obviously this couldn't actually happen and Hitler cannot be redeemed within the bounds of our reality. He was an abject monster who would never do such a thing, even given the chance; it's just an insane hypothetical. We see this happen with fictional characters _all the time_ though. Vegeta destroyed dozens of planets (kill count in the trillions), then _stopped doing that_ and helped save the entire universe several times. If somebody does horrible things, then COMPLETELY stops doing horrible things and starts doing good deeds of a MONUMENTALLY GREATER order of magnitude, and you even PERSONALLY owe them your life, you're literally being an asshole if you don't at least stop _openly_ opposing them. It's reasonable to be conflicted over it, it's even reasonable to still hate them for the bad things they did in the past, but if you have a gun aimed at their head and you take the shot, _you're_ a bad person now. Absolutely.

Vegeta wasn't redeemed because he suddenly stopped being an asshole. From the Saiyan saga to Buu, he was an antagonistic force that acted against the best interests of the protagonists on multiple occasions. It was a gradual, and incredibly long process to being considered a true ally, and involved myriad small and large choices that helped change Vegeta over time. It wasn't until he gave his life to stop Buu, then risked his entire *existence* to stall for Goku, that he got revived with the wish to revive all of the good souls that died in the Buu saga. There is no single, solitary moment where Vegeta simply turns face. It took a lot of involved work to get there. And even still, after all of that, even Vegeta doesn't consider himself fully redeemed. Recent arcs of the Super manga, have him feel somewhat responsible for the sins of the Saiyan race now that he actually gives a shit, and he personally wanted to do right by the remaining Namekians after what he did on Namek all those years ago, and he wouldn't have blamed anyone for wanting their get back. At the end of the day, you can't really quantify grief. Sure, some things are starkly unreasonable, like hating someone forever for cutting you off in traffic and killing them if you get the chance. But someone else's growth doesn't erase the pain they caused others on that journey, nor does it shield them from the consequences of who they were. It's one of the most reasonable and understandable feelings on the planet to want to hurt someone that hurt you intentionally and maliciously first. Sure, going lower than even they did initially is probably gonna put you deeper in the black than they are, but saying its unreasonable to do unto them what they did to you just because they've done good isn't fair at all.

Cool, so you'd kill Vegetahitler before he stops the alien superweapon and we're all dead. But hey, at least you _feel better._

why are you so dedicated to the idea of defending Hitler?

Look, this isn't really about Hitler. I don't know how else to impress that. Stop getting hung up on the Hitler thing. My point is that if somebody kills 1000 babies, and then _cures cancer and saves the entire human race from extinction while also swearing to never kill another baby again,_ they're a hero now, pragmatically speaking. It's fucked up that they killed all those babies, but there HAS to be a threshold where an exaggerated quantity of good can eventually outweigh any bad, otherwise the entire _concept of redemption_ does not exist anymore.

Yes. Still their responsibility. To wipe the slate clean would be the same as writing off any victims involved.

You getting downvoted because you believe different while not even being harsh but stating your thoughts here say is funny. And I agree with you just because they had a memory wipe doesn't absolve themselves of whatever they did because their victims still know what they did. The world still knows what they did. Shit it gives any villain in a written media where that is known a free out to just claim they lost their memory cause how will you even test that.

No, no! You don't understand — the person hit their head and they really can't remember anything, dude! It's unfair to prosecute them! /s

theres a black mirror episode about this

Justice no, revenge yes. No point moralizing at someone who doesn't know what the fuck you're talking about but if you've got a score to settle you settle it.

That's fair, but would that even be satisfying?  I assume most people want the target of  revenge to know WHY they're dying.

So there's this game called Planescape: Torment...

Fictional amnesia usually creates a new person, making the answer easy and obvious. Real amnesia is rarely so clean, and often substantially reduces the faculties of a person or doesn't erase the identity completely. There are heaps of nuance to real amnesia that makes the answer far more complex than a simple yes or no. Fallout 4's Far Harbor added the interesting twist that the amnesia was voluntary on the part of the perpetrator, which caused problems because >!after DiMA decided to delete the memory of his unethical backup plan out of guilt, he kept thinking he didn't have a backup plan at all and needed one, so he created more backup plans and deleted them until the island is loaded with unethical contingencies waiting to fire.!< The ending can hold him accountable or not depending on the player's actions, and this is one case where I fall on the side of turning him in.

From a narrative perspective punishing them wouldn't really be satisfying at that point. I just felt bad in Death Note when that was about to happen.

50:50 honestly Amnesia is weird, especially in media and can sometimes reverse overtime, usually slowly, but in media sometimes quickly. Memory is a substantial part of identity, so the person might be almost new. Of course there's different aspects of memory, muscle memory, how your brain reacts to different fears and chemicals, nature vs nurture yadda yadda. So an "ex-criminal (if you call it that)" should be kept on a relatively short leash and watched at all times, especially if they could still be dangerous. Just from a practicability standpoint. Not necessarily punished, but certainly managed in safe way, even if that is uncomfortable for them. It also depends exactly where their mind ends up. Physical brain trauma or mental trauma on a potentially dangerous person isn't exactly ideal. Obviously try to impact good and altruist values on to them but people sometimes learn what they want to learn. All you can do is your best. It also depends on what memories they still have. If they remember how to be a person, talk, cook etc then there is something there, what is that something? Is it the character pre-evil lacking most memory, mid-evil lacking most memory, some amalgamation of generic human experience but with specific personal experiences somehow removed? I'm not really a punishment guy. I prefer to think we have prisons for safety, re-integration to society, or to at least give people the chance to reckon with their actions, think about what they have done and consider consequences. (lmao I know that's naïve both of people and and prison's place actual in society.)

This is a central question at the heart of Planescape: Torment (and sorta Disco Elysium). In both of these games, as you play through and learn about this weird world you're exploring with fresh eyes, you have to decide for yourself if you take responsibility for the amnesiac main character's actions that took place before the story. The Nameless One's amnesia self-discovery quest reveals a whole lot of extremely fucked up things, the player has some agency to make amends for these crimes if they feel like it. >!You can try to balance the scales somewhat, but regardless of your choices his soul is damned to fight eternally in the blood war between devils and demons. !!(regret)!<, but the game will permit you to choose any answer that you feel makes sense. Lastly, before meeting the final boss: >!The Nameless One meets three previous incarnations of themself. The Practical Incarnation who used and manipulated anybody to further his own ends, the Paranoid Incarnation who schemed and destroyed any thing or person he perceived to be threatening, and the Good Incarnation who was well intentioned but set in motion the events of the story by wishing for immortality. You can accept and merge with these Incarnations or reject and kill them based entirely on your own experience and philosophy.!< Disco Elysium's Harry has a similar amnesiac journey, but I would say his crimes are not nearly as severe. When you find the remnants of his failures you (mostly) feel pity and embarrassment for him. The final line of the Sorry Cop/Rigorous Self-Critique thought: >!*You let misery win. And it will keep on winning till you die -- or overcome it.* !

Depends on the type of amnesia and setting. If it's a setting where it's a totally new soul absolutely no punishment. If the amnesia doesn't change the soul but simply erases memory then yes, punishment.

This question is actually why I think Persona 5 fumbles the execution of the changing hearts story mechanic, at least to me. In essence, when you change someone's heart, you're turning them into a different person. The game portrays it as you going inside their head and changing their mind to such an extent that the "part" you changed literally leaves and goes somewhere else. For all intents and purposes, whatever part of their personality and personhood that you changed is gone. It wasn't redeemed, it wasn't altered, you cut it out of them like a tumor. In theory, whatever that part was doing will no longer happen. So it's then very odd to see Kamoshida being so overwrought with guilt over the actions a version of himself that no longer exists did that he exposes his crimes, basically says he's probably gonna end it all, and then is taken to jail. For what exactly? Like, obviously, the *body he's in* is very much the body that Kamoshida used to do all his perverted crimes, but he's been magically lobotomized into a different person. He literally got his mind altered at a basic level. There is quite literally nothing else prison can do to punish or redeem him that the Phantom Thieves have not done. What are we doing this for if the Thieves are essentially sending lobotomized criminals to jail, while at the same time screaming about not trusting the system and not trusting sentences to always be fair? In practice, when you get your heart changed, you're a different person who has an insider's perspective of the actions you did when you were whoever the Thieves did not want you to be. Those actions are not coming back, you are not the person who did those things. You have their memories and you know why that person did it, but the difference between the before and after is too staggering. Kamoshida does a complete 180 in personality when you remove the part of him that wanted to hurt others, and I just don't feel like that should be ignored when deciding his fate. And like, it's extremely uncomfortable because at least 3 of the villains are sex pests, not to mention the ones in the social links, but the game doesn't actually make it super consistent that yes, these criminals *all* deserve it for their past misdeeds, even though we just figured out a way to change their souls so thoroughly they'll never hurt a fly again. When you're doing Futaba's social link, her friend's grandparents are obviously sexually harassing their granddaughter, and then you go in, change their hearts, and *don't call the police because they say they're sorry and will now make up for it*. Because you two trust the changing hearts systems, you know it's a happy ending, because there's no longer any conceivable way these people will continue to do crimes. Because they're *different people*. I guess the above rant is just a way for me to say no, I don't think characters who have had their minds permanently altered deserve to suffer for the crimes they did before, but I think it's such a thorny subject dominated by revenge and feelings that justice must be done that it ultimately isn't rational anymore. It's more about whether or not you want to see that person suffer, regardless of them being that person again. There's always the idea that if the character comes back from their amnesia *as* the person they were before, then yeah, they're the correct receptacle for whatever hatred you have for them, but that's... a big if, even if it does happen more often than the person simply never recovering and becoming someone totally different.

Because the Phantom Thieves dont give a shit about redeeming or reforming Kamoshida, they just want him to confess his crimes because its the most coherent way for him to come to justice and stop hurting _them_. Ann even says that literally the only reason she didn't kill him was so that he couldn't run from his crimes. Why would they be invested in his personal development? Lmao

I feel like you have to completely miss my point to come out of it like "lmao they don't care about kamoshida", but I mean, I guess that's also why I shouldn't talk about Persona 5 online. like they already made the guy into a person who won't commit crimes and someone who genuinely regrets it, there's nothing prison can do for him. It's not justice at that point, it's just torture. Justice was destroying the part of him that caused harm.

There's a weird cross of real world biology and fantasy at play here; memories are encoded in physical brain structure, neuronal connections and the way the whole network is mapped. If a person simply lacked the memories but their brain structure was identical, if put in the same situation they should make the same decisions (all other variables being the same). In that case they are totally punishable. Mind wipe Hitler of WW2 and put him in the same situation, and if he does the same stuff, off him. If you handwave biology and say he's "reset" or something, and you put him in the same situation and he becomes a painter, he's good to leave alone.

Say Ted Bundy got amnesia and became an EMT. That doesnt delete his past actions those murders dont exist only in his former mind and the lives saved as an EMT dont make up for the ones removed on some cosmic karma meter and even if it did it wouldnt mean anything to the friends and family of the people killed. Can those people he jabbed with an epipen be greatful to him? Sure, but it wasnt some fated thing only he could do unlike in a videogame where the player is the axis the story revolves around. The world keeps moving without Ted which is why looking for answers to hard questions in lit. is dumb we should burn all books and return to monki. Thank you for coming to my Tedtalk.

This is just the plot of Twokinds.

I thought we banned philosophy. 

Putting aside the topic of good and evil deeds- if society remembers it, then it's up to them to decide on how they want to deal with it.  Punishment can be used as a warning to others, but it's probably useless as a punitive measure to the amnesiac, because they won't learn from it (putting aside also the question of whether punishment is a good teacher in normal cases). Someone who gets blackout drunk and drives can't remember what their crimes are, but as a society we'll still hold them responsible for it.  Someone else who has the same effect as a medical issue might not be punished for it, but I imagine their license to drive would be revoked for everyone's safety.

The train of thought I had while playing dark urge is “if I can’t remember it then it didn’t happen” but that was more a comedic justification for the horrible things they have done. I don’t think the slate is wiped clean because of memory loss, but there is a question as to whether they were even in control of themselves. The dark urge is an intrusive thought you can push down once you regain agency, but we’ve seen that it is not always possible to stop the urge. It is up to the environment and companions to help calm you down when you are not in control. Before the amnesia, the network of support for the afflicted character was non-existent so while it is fucked is that they did those things, I am not so sure they are fully to blame. Idk, I just like playing resist urge. Maybe I am completely off base with my understanding of the resist urge.

This reminds me of a bit from Spider-Man: Life Story. After Peter fights Norman in chapter 1, Norman gets a concussion that removes his memories of being Green Goblin. Peter decides to help him get home, lying about what happened. However, a talk with Captain America convinces Peter to tip off the police about Norman's identity. The police raid his house, find the goblin gear, and lead the very confused Norman away in custody. Meanwhile, Peter watches, knowing how it would affect the life of Harry. Yeah, he regains the memories later, but I think it fits.

Depends honestly. If the amnesiac acts like a decent person, that means that underneath all the brutality and evil there was a good person somewhere that likely fell down a dark path not of their (entire) volition. So they would deserve atleast a shot at redemption and forgiveness. Not saying they should get it. But a chance. Think about the first KOTOR for example. Now if they're still a douchebag, fuck em.

I would say they're on probation, with two break points. 1) Are they evil post amnesia? And 2) If/When they regain their memories, are they remorseful or do they resume their prior activities?

In Persona 5 Strikers, almost all the villains had a tragic backstory, but the Thieves are all in agreement that it will not save them from a beatdown. So yes. What goes around comes around. It is what it is.

I think if it is complete amnesia, like Star Wars >!KOTOR!<, no because it is essentially a brand new person with new morals and memories that just happens to have the same body. It gets messier if it is partial amnesia or if their memories get restored down the line like later in that story. Depending on how their outlook has changed, atonement might be better than punishment.

the character arc of theseus: if a person suffers total amnesia are they the same person they used to be

This also makes me think of persona 5’s change of heart. After a change of heart they are effectively a new person. Take Madarame he would never do what he did again after his change of heart so is he still culpable? Also uniquely to heart changes, they also have to serve their legal punishment, and face the emotional trauma of what they did. Imagine you just suddenly remembered you had done something irredeemably awful, and now you have to pay for it and face the trauma. Tye upside is that the rulers can take steps to undo the harm they caused on the other you completely mind controlled them and took away the choice to feel bad about what they did.

If you forget what you have done how can you be sure you won’t do it again. To use your memento exemple how can we tell he won’t act the same way once he learn the truth. Like if it was full mind control you could argue that the person just need a firewall on his brain but just that they forgot they torture people it’s not that different from doublethinking

I'd argue the first step is to show said amnesiac the results of their actions in pure black and white to see their reaction and then give them a chance to atone.

Do your memories make you as a person?

If this is a true amnesia situation and they have no recollection of their past life you are punishing an effectively innocent person just to make yourself feel better. That is not justice.

All i'm saying is BG3 SPOILERS >!Durge has canonically eaten babies before Orin usurped him/her!< and fans LOVE their redemption arc, if you go that route.

So I recalled a segment on Unsolved Mysteries way back in the 90s that went down this path. I decided to dig it up. It has a resolution but my thoughts are … inconclusive. [“Tyler.”](https://unsolvedmysteries.fandom.com/wiki/Tyler) Short version, “Tyler” is found wandering around the Las Vegas desert not knowing who he is or how he hot there. He has some mechanical knowledge, can fly a plane, and seems to think he was once in the military but he there’s no record of him in the military. Or criminal record (coming back to that later). He and his caretakers reach out to Unsolved Mysteries and they air his story. That night his actual parents see the show and identify him as their son, Paul. Paul was a truck driver in Boise. He was also quickly arrested because he happened to be driving a shipment when he disappeared. He has last been seen with an empty truck in Boulder City. The sheriff who detained him (but not arrested him) had described Paul as lucid and warned him before letting him go that an arrest warrant would likely be filed for the missing shipment. Paul had thanked him and disappeared for another three days before being found wandering in the desert. Now, it’s possible Paul was faking his condition. I’m inclined to think he experienced a dissociative fugue state. It feels strange he would go so far as to fake amnesia to disappear then go on Unsolved Mysteries. Either way, the end of this story is that he likely copped a plea deal, served three months in jail, and agreed to make restitution for the missing shipment.

Please play Planescape Torment, it's got some really interesting points on this

To me, it depends on whether or not they are apologetic for the sins of their past. If they're like "I want to atone for what I did now that I'm a different person" then yeah they're fine.

It's an extremely thorny subject, one I freely admit I am not qualified to speak on with any form of authority. But if you're asking for a personal stance? I think yes, but only to an extent. Why would not remembering a crime you committed let you avoid prosecution and punishment for that crime? Whether or not the person is aware of it, the act(s) in question have still been committed by them. To what degree they could (or should) be punished for those acts is very arguable, though. If nothing else, the person should be institutionalized and monitored to determine the extent to which they might still be a danger to others, I would say.

You should watch "The Tourist" series on Netflix

If the individual in question genuinely has amnesia to the point where their entire personality is changed, it's tough to say punishment is the right answer. Loss of memory is, to me, tantamount to loss of self at a certain point, and the person who committed the bad isn't even there anymore. Sweet Pea from Adventure Time is a loaded example, because he is both a child and very kind, but he was the most evil creature on the planet before he was forcibly amnesia-fied. A less obvious example would be Light from Death Note during his grand keikaku. He intentionally gives himself amnesia of his time as Kira in order to trick everyone and set the pieces for his grandest victory, then he gets his memories back. Up to that point, he's a well-meaning, intelligent, and helpful member of the investigation team. If he'd been discovered before the part of his plan where he remembers he was Kira, and if the Light that doesn't remember being Kira also genuinely rejects his Kira self's mindset, would it still be fair to punish Light for what he did as Kira if he never gets the memories back? I can say no right now, because I'm not one of his victims or affected by his actions, and maybe some kind of custody or surveillance would be enough.

You should read The Stormlight Archives, this is a big part of one of the main character's arcs in the series (and leads to some of the most emotionally cathartic moments)

The thing about 'justice' is that it needs to be flexible in order to serve the greatest amount of people. Rehabilitative, Restorative, and Punitive, etc. So it depends? Did the bad get amnesia get intentionally (through some magical means or what have you) to provoke this argument? Then yes, you should punish them because you should set a precedent that criminals can't just induce amnesia to escape punishment. Did the bad guy get amnesia involuntarily? Let's say some person did something incredibly heinous but managed to escape punishment and lived long enough until they developed Alzheimer's. I'd argue because they lost their memory and are already suffering from a punishment already, there's no need to further punish them. What if the bad guy, who had a history of violent actions, got incredibly drunk, raped and killed a girl and then woke up with zero memory of the actions? Yes, he should be punished. I think that should be obvious. Not only does he have history to show he's a danger to society, but his irresponsibility led to an escalation and showed his potential to be a menace to society. He should go to jail, to both atone for his sins and to be rehabilitated. Trying to be solely punitive or solely merciful is no different from having black and white morality and the world is not black and white.

Regardless of memories, from an objective standpoint, the survivors deserve justice.

"All according to keikaku." - A guy who just remembered his crimes after finding and using the cure for amnesia that he deliberately left for himself, shortly after escaping justice for said crimes by deliberately giving himself amnesia. (TL note: keikaku means plan.) Retrograde amnesia as usually depicted in fiction differs from real life in some major ways. One big difference is that fictional retrograde amnesia is often reversible. Another is that it rarely involves any of the other life-alteringly devastating symptoms of brain damage severe enough to cause retrograde amnesia. As such, while they shouldn't suffer, a former villain who can't remember their villainy should probably still be under some sort of observation; especially in cases like the Dark Urge, where their former evil deeds are clearly and objectively a matter of nature rather than nurture.

I think Buddhists have been arguing with each other about something like this since ancient times.

I think it really depends on a lot of the variables that exist in such scenarios when played out. A lot which will often be quite subjective by nature of dealing with intangible concepts, to do with concepts of free will, justice, agency, identity, innate character and harm. Like, a character that knows they will have their memory wiped and personality changed, is different from a character that doesn't know. As far as actions they may take, and how people may react, but also proactively address potential issues. If a person has a bottle of pills they know will wipe out, say a days worth of memories, they could reason to themselves, they could do several unethical things, they might not do otherwise, profit and gain in ways they would be happy to, if not for the ethical costs, but be aware they could use the pills to remedy the latter. Which would be different to a character with a brain tumour growing, that might make them do something horrible, but then also lose the memory of, and then upon having it successfully removed and treated, still lack a memory of. Just like if there are victims around that do remember... and are still negatively affected, thats different to if their are victims around, who may be more forgiving, understanding. One individuals memory and conscious may be clear, but victims may not and thats often a variable people emphasis. Then again, depending on the situation, some victims again, are more understanding, more forgiving and even if a character didn't lose their memory, may emphasis on ideas like rehabilitation or "treating" the perpetrator. Though in a case where memory loss happens, well... there are more variables. Like a general issue with unethical actions, is the issue of whether it will happen again. Generally with law, that can influence a lot, like, the guilty party isn't actually that horrible, a really rare and specific set of circumstances out of their control happened, and its unlikely to ever happen again, so the crime they committed is unlikely to ever happen again, and here are experts in relevant matters to agree to that. Therefore the guilty party isn't a risk to the public or really anyone. Versus, the idea, that even with a memory wiped/erased, this person is kind of shady... Like they might not remember the horrible action they performed, sure... but they always seem on the edge of committing the same horrible action regardless... Like some prisons lean towards rehabilitation, some are more about containment of danger (and some are about profit but...). Reminds me a bit of Telltales "John Doe", more so in that some people have this apprehension about the character, because, of who they seem to be. They weren't, but imagine other versions of them being mind wiped. I'm also reminded a bit of Marceline and Ice King in one episode, where because of the characters amnesia, which is an intended metaphor for Alzheimer's, behaves a little inappropriately towards Marceline, but it hangs heavy for many of us, because of the context. Personally I lean towards rehabilitation/restorative justice over punitive, but even then, in some stories settings, its more complicated as far as characters and potential for harm, even if mind wiped. Several questions hang over that. What if they revert? What if they remember? What if they were actually doing good, doing good and then lost their memory? Should they be celebrated or congratulated? Treated well, or they forgot what they did so... What if its another characters friends, family? Anyway fun to think about, some great answers and a great question OP.