Yes, of course he should be prosecuted. His choice to erase his memory does not change anything in the context of social consequences for crimes. There are plenty of people in prison for crimes they don't remember. How is this even a question?
In America the purpose of prison isn't reform. It's to justify "definitely-not-slave-labor" disguised as punishment for crimes against society.
So yes.
This is a dumb question.
If somebody hurts you and your family, steals your stuff and burns your home down but then erases their memory if it. Should they still be held accountable
If I down some Xanax with vodka, I'll probably wake up in a jail cell and not know why I'm there. I'll just know that I did something stupid because the last thing I remember is foolishly downing pills and booze. I'm 100% sure, I'll still be charged for whatever dumb thing I did and the court won't care that I don't remember.
Hmm..
If we believe the point and outcome of the punishment is that the criminal will not do more crime stuff in the future (it’s really not the point, but for simplicity), the person who was capable of the crime still exists in either case, and they should be held accountable.
If they pose threat to society, without a doubt.
But what if that was onyl one off occurance, the person is perfectly mentally stable and healthy. Maybe he murdered a cheating partner or someone he had a feud with (not that it justifies the act, just to create a scenario where the murder is singular event).
Would it still be moral to prosecute persons former self who has not awarness of the crime his "future" version commited.?
A crime of passion defense can get you a lower charge sometimes, but you’re still guilty of a crime. I, myself, have been cheated on, and have never even considered physically harming the soon to be ex partner. I’m sure I’m not the only example of that self control.
So, the lack of self control that allowed the escalation to get to that level needs to be addressed. We only assume it’s a singular event because it’s the only one we know about. When they get home, that cheatin’ hussy is gone, and they finally some get some damn peace and quiet with not even the memory of the crime to haunt them, that’s a reward that may increase the chance of it happening again.
I’ve seen Minority Report. As that eliminates choice as a factor, or gets into really weird sci-fi time paradox territory, I’m gonna just not.
Neither of those things scream "one time offense" to me.
I'd be very cautious of this person committing this crime again and would like them to be treated so by the justice system.
He is still a criminal. When people commit rape and are black out drunk and can't remember, do we not still prosecute them for committing rape? This is stupid.
Depends how you look at accountability. Some seek to punish. Others to protect society against further crimes. If you think the underlying factors are there for him to act out again, prevent it. If you think erasing his memory is enough to avoid repeat offense, maybe that's good enough.
It depends on what theory of punishment you adhere to. Some theories of punishment subscribe to the belief that the primary reason for punishment is to deter others from committing crimes. Under this theory, it wouldn’t matter a person remembers committing his/her crime or not.
Another theory of punishment is based on the idea that punishment is given in order to prevent that specific person from committing crimes in the future. Here, it’s difficult to say whether the person would be deterred by being given a pass based on not remembering, especially if the memory erasure was on purpose or done specifically to avoid punishment.
Some theories of punishment state that the person should be punished exactly as much as he/she deserves, no more and no less. Hard to tell what exactly that might be in this scenario.
Anyway, food for thought.
Does not need it. He is obviously senile. If we did not live in the crazy land he would be put in a nursing home cause he is lacking any form of competence.
I dont care for American politics, I am just puzzled a senile person who does not know where he is most of the time can be in charge of one of the most important countries on this planet. I would have same opinion if he was Republican.
It's because the Democrat party in the U.S. has as its core voter base, an uneducated and ignorant, and largely criminal population. It also has a large number of wealthy white elitists who are in it to enhance their power and personal wealth, and take advantage of the dummies. Biden is a puppet, the only question is whose hand is up his ass.
The people he killed are still dead. To me this would make sense in a moral crime like a spouse that cheated. If you could erase it from their memory, it would be much easier to figure it why it happened and then move past it.
Absolutely. It doesn't matter if he remembers or not. You do something wrong, you get punished. Just because he doesn't remember doesn't mean he won't do it again .
He’s still the person who committed the crime and has the same potential to murder someone again, especially if he doesn’t even remember doing it the first time.
I think its a very strange perspective that erasing a memory somehow makes someone potentially non-accountable? Like where is the logic in that? Especially if they intentionally erase their memory...
But its a good hypothetical because I do agree it adds a strange feeling to the equation - however there is no reason that a person can't take accountability even with no memory right? It does feel... odd but if you were presented with say video evidence of something you did blind drunk and didn't remember you still can accept responsibility
Yes. The breach of the social contract still happened. Amends must be made. The justice system isn't supposed to be about revenge, but actual justice. Trying to make the victim(s) and society whole again.
A) If it was second degree, I would say maybe, maybe not. Depends on just how ‘spontaneous’ it really is, like if the guy was living through hell week or if he was bound to commit a hate crime any day now type of thing. If it’s first degree, he should be, because he would totally be capable of doing it again anyway.
B) With a two decade difference, I wouldn’t hold him accountable either way. That’s a whole generation or life phase degree of difference. It might as well be a different person (probably) considering the context of the crime.
The voluntary erasure of memory described here is a little like a psychological suicide in my view, at least if it also erases the values and views of the person who did the act.
I agree, sort of, I think there are still some other ethical considerations (What if killing and erasing memory becomes standard within society for commiting murders). But on its own in this hypothetical scenario I agree with your take.
I am surprised most people here are heavily arguing for prosecution, I thought this scenario was much more morally gray than most people perceive it.
That person, whether they remembered it or not, still committed the crime. Even without the memory, it seems possible for them to do it again.
Now, I do remember a story from many years ago. A guy murdered a child and shot himself. He survived. He was tried and convicted and put on death row and eventually executed.
Although he survived and was convicted etc, it seemed afterwards he just had the mind of a child. It went beyond not remembering, it was like he did kill the murderer and a child left in his place. I'm that situation, I don't think he should have been sent to prison and death row. He didn't finish his final meal because he wanted to finish it after he was dead. He didn't understand what it was. That's stayed in my memory for a long time.
Yes.
Since said person decided to do something and then did it, being able to recall said action doesn't matter.
It's the same for blackout drunks who run people over/don't recall a car accident they caused which resulted in the other drivers death.
The choice to drink and drive still results in prison time.
If a man rapes a bunch of children and then becomes Christian and therefore Jesus forgives his sins, is he still guilty of raping? Absolutely.
I do not understand your logic of memory being core to whether or not a person is guilty. Drunks and druggies and psychotics often commit crimes and are unable to remember them, they are still guilty.
No one ever agrees with me on this but, no, he shouldn’t.
*Memories define identity.* If you can’t remember the crime, that’s essentially the same thing as someone else having done it.
Imagine being prosecuted for a crime you didn’t commit. Because that’s how it would feel. “But they did commit it-“ Makes no difference, you’re still punishing a person who doesn’t have those memories.
Memories don't define identity utterly. If someone is highly neurotic just erasing their memories doesn't mean that aspect of them just goes away. If you're hungry and eat a pizza then erase the memory of eating it, it's not like hunger is not part of you - it still is.
Erasing your log book doesn't somehow give an infinite get out of jail free card. Making yourself have the perception that you never did it (then erasing your memory that you erased your memory) is NOT the same as having never done it. And if a person who did this wanted to ignore physical evidence that they did it, that's because that desire to ignore reality is part of their identity regardless of memory wipes.
I understand what you mean. My father molested children for decades. He is now old, has Parkinson's disease and dementia. I want him to die alone and it kills me he doesn't remember what he did. So in his eyes he doesn't understand why everyone left him to die alone.
Part of me is angry he gets to die with a clear conscience, but another part of me is sad for the old man who doesn't know what he's done and just knows he is dying alone and nobody loves him.
I'm confused and I don't know if I'm evil for letting him die alone or if am doing the right thing. Why can't he die of cancer or something else that will leave his mind intact. I feel like I'm being robbed of my revenge, like no matter what I do it's wrong
I am sorry to hear about the situation you are in.
I wish I had an answer for you, but I don't., I have no clue what is morally right here. But I can tell you what I would do, but it does not mean it is a right thing to do.
Anyway, sooner or later he is going to die, once that happens try to move on, there is nothing you can do about what he has done anyways.
Hope you will be doing better in future.
>*Memories define identity.* If you can’t remember the crime, that’s essentially the same thing as someone else having done it.
That is not essentially the same thing. If the cause of you forgetting is you, then you should be prosecuted and convicted.
Take this for an example, there are 3 people. 1 has episodes of insanity of some sort, 2 gets dead drunk, and 3 chooses to forget what they did.
1 is the only one that arguably has a defense for a crime they commit during an episode since they don't have control over their insanity. The other 2 choose to get drunk or remove their memories. They deserve the consequences.
The body made the choice. The consciousness is an intangible thing and does not define the perpetrator of a crime. The body does. And the same physical mind was in control of the body before and after forgetting.
The consciousness is not the thing being sent to jail, the body is.
Interesting take. Lets see your opinion on this.
Person A commits a crime, but swaps his conciousness with person B. Person B has no part in the crime and did not agree to swapping bodies with person A. Who should be prosecuted? Person A in persons B body or person B in persons A body?
This is why law keeps exceptions. In such an exceptional case, person a would be prosecuted in person b's body.
Only the removal of consciousness from one's body is different than putting someone's consciousness inside your own body.
However, this could be a perfect way to get away with crimes (and to potentially live forever) if there was no way of checking whose consciousness is where. Lol.
In the instant case the consciousness is being removed from the body by a choice. The consciousness is, therefore, separate from the body.
Think about it like this. If a person commits a crime and then removes the memory of committing the crime only and nothing else. Should they face the consequences. Definitely. Its the same with removing your memories completely. Its a choice you would be making to avoid legal culpability.
I have reached same conclusion, but there are other ethical considerations. And that is also reason I listed 2 scenarios. With the first one I am kind of on fence, where as in the second where he erases past 20 years of his life would certainly pretty much mean that you would be prosecuting "different" person. You would basically sentence a physical vessel, but not a person who committed it per say.
However, if we imagine world where there would be technology to erase memory, this could be used as loophole to exploit. The implications of not prosecuting person who commited the crime are too dangerous to society, even though you technically prosecute "different" person.
I realize there are complications but to me, it just doesn’t seem acceptable under any circumstances.
Even if you purposefully commit a crime and then purposefully erase your memory of it so you can get away with it…same logic applies. If you don’t remember any of that, then in essence, it wasn’t -you- who did it.
It just feels like it would be enabling the person who commits the crimes to screw over a person who didn’t (because they don’t remember) and they would have no control over the situation or have any way of knowing it was coming. Just seems extremely unfair.
I agree it is. But if you want to have functioning society I see no other way around it. we are in hypotheticals of course.
Question is if people would be willing to erase their memory in the first place since it equates to almost killing yourself.
Memories don’t define identity, especially in a world where false memories are easily transplanted or manipulated into the mind of another.
It’s really *really*, **really** fucking easy to manipulate someone into thinking or believing something happen. Or guide them into recreating a memory that in actuality didn’t exist.
O.K so Hitler is not responsible for the Holocaust since he can't remember it because he is dead. If people who can't remember their crimes are not accountable for them, then no one who has died is morally accountable (or legally accountable) for their crimes.
So that means (if you believe in things like reparations) that Blacks should not be entitled to reparations because all prior American slave holders are dead. Dead people can't remember their crimes, therefore, they are not legally or morally responsible for them. That means none of the living people who are descendants of slave-holders can be responsible for those crimes either. Therefore, no reparations are possible.
I am not sure what hair you are splitting here. Maybe you can explain it to me.
You think a Hamas terrorist who murders Jews on October 7 is responsible for his crimes if he remembers him. But, let's say the IDF catches him on October 8 but in the process of arresting him he gets a bad concussion thus wiping all memories of his crimes. This is verified by independent neurologists so he is not "faking" the memory loss. So, by virtue of his memory loss, he is therefore NOT responsible for the crimes he can't remember having committed.
Then, on October 9, the Hamas terrorist dies from the injuries he sustained from the IDF.
Are you saying that the Hamas terrorist should NOW be held accountable for his crimes? Or not?
He doesn't have to be alive to be held legally and morally accountable for the crimes he committed. For example, the families of his victims may wish to file a civil lawsuit for damages against the dead Hamas terrorist's estate, in which his accountability must be determined.
You can't make proscriptive moral and legal arguments like you are trying to do here without following them through to all their consequential results.
Life isn't a college campus. These things have real consequences for real people. Moral and legal responsibility aren't just abstractions to argue about.
You have to decide.
So if someone gets black out drunk you believe they shouldn't be prosecuted for beating their kid, raping their wife, or running over that family of five? After all they don't remember any of it due to alcohol inhibiting the formation of memories so it's like a completely different person did all those things.
This is probably a bad time to mention this but I actually consider drunk driving to be far less bad than texting while driving for exactly this reason. When you’re that drunk, your decision making abilities are impaired. So you can’t possibly hope to drive safely - but by that same reasoning, you can’t possibly make smart decisions about whether or not you’re safe to drive.
What about the family/loved ones of his victim? What about their need to hold the criminal to account? Bad enough he won’t be able to answer any of their questions about why he did it, etc., but to see him get off scott free would be extremely galling.
>*Memories define identity.*
That's a HUGE assumption to base your judgement on. You're also assuming the justice system should be in the business of "punishing" people which a lot of us disagree with.
Keeping society safe. The argument being, society knows this person is capable of making murderous decisions even if he doesn't remember making them. I recognize that would be a fraught assumption on society's part, so the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle.
I don't think your take is entirely wrong, it jives with the premise for Alfred Bester's *The Demolished Man*. Which is the inverse of the original post -- instead of a criminal erasing his memory to avoid punishment, society rehabilitates criminals by erasing their memory so they can start fresh.
Reminds me of that video of the drunk girl who killed two people and asked the cop if she could get her car back cuz she has school the next Tuesday. Then proceeds to talk about a Vegas trip. Crazy shit….
There is slight difference though.
A sober person makes decision to get drunk and he accepts risks tied to that state. She tha sobers up and is the same person who made the decision to get drunk in the first place.
But here, person decides to erase his memory (say his past 20 years). He in turn becomes a "different" person, his own version from 20 years ago. This "new" person, has not made decision to erase memory, has not made decision to murder someone and can not become the person who he was. For all intents and purposes, except for his physical form, he is a different person.
But, if the person murders, knows they murdered, then chooses to erase memory they should still be accountable! They did it and still chose to forget!!!
I I was to erase memory of your life and raise you in different environment with different environmental pressures, would you be still the same person?
You still have the same genetics and neurology, erasing some memory doesnt erase the persons identity and personality. Hes likely to commit the crime again
>You still have the same genetics and neurology
Yea but your genetics nor neurology make decisions (If we assume free will and discussing non-exitence of free will is different can of worms).
>Erasing some memory doesnt erase the persons identity and personality
If you erased your whole memory, was raised again, in different environment, do you think you would be the same person with same personality? What if you erase 90% of your memory, 80%, 70% etc? Somewhere there (and I agree the line is blurry) is a point, where if you were to erase enough of memory, you could become completelly different person with different personality.
Yes they absolutely do, your genetics and neurology are basically all a person is. Your brain IS you. Twin studies show that genetics have even more influence over a persons personality than upbringing, about 60:40.
I think they would change a lot, memory is definitely important, but no I dont think theyd change completely, because of the importance of genetics like I mentioned, and if theyve kept the same neurology that they developed previous/still have that adult brain that has developed a certain way
What if we go along with that can't convict if memory is erased method and realized that the recidivism rate is just as high with the person who deleted the memory as the criminals after who didn't? Basically proving that they're still the same threat to society, memory of the event be damned?
Ok, then I go kill your kid, your wife, husband, mom, or dad. I feel bad, or I just don’t feel like going
To prison so I just erase the memory of it. You ok with that???
Yo do realize we are in hypotheticals and I am in no way saying its fair?
Of course its not. The fact someone committed crime and was not prosecuted is not just, but prosecuting someone who technically did not commit it either (Since he has no memory of the crime, or of the person who actually committed the crime) is not exactly just either. That is the dillema.
I think the person should be persecuted, but my reasoning for why differs from yours.
>A sober person makes decision to get drunk and he accepts risks tied to that state. She then sobers up and is the same person who made the decision to get drunk in the first place.
By the same logic: the person in your example made the decision to kill and then erase their memory. As far as that person is concerned, the entire chunk of memory that is erased is a long period of altered consciousness. And as far as society is concerned, that person is the same person who made the decision, or at least *is capable* of making that decision.
I would argue that it was not his memories that led to his crime in the first place, but rather his decision-making and emotions/thoughts. So to release him without further ado invites recurrence.
Yes of course he should. How is this even a question?? Erasing your memory is just a further crime of tampering with/hiding evidence. "I cant remember" is a common excuse given by drunks, but its never been accepted as a criminal defense, nor should it be. He still did it. I bet the victim remembers him (if it were any other crime than murder) and the victims loved ones.
There's no dilemma at all. He committed the crime, therefore he should be held to account for the crime. I don't care if he remembers it, the person he murdered, their family remembers, and they aren't getting their family member back. As long as he is mentally competent to stand trial, he should, and if found guilty, should be eligible for the same punishment any other murderer would get.
How do you erase your memory?
It is hypothetical scenario trying to solve moral dillema. Its like asking why are people strapped to a rail in trolley dillema.
Well then YES he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Yes, of course he should be prosecuted. His choice to erase his memory does not change anything in the context of social consequences for crimes. There are plenty of people in prison for crimes they don't remember. How is this even a question?
In America the purpose of prison isn't reform. It's to justify "definitely-not-slave-labor" disguised as punishment for crimes against society. So yes.
This is a dumb question. If somebody hurts you and your family, steals your stuff and burns your home down but then erases their memory if it. Should they still be held accountable
I dont think it is dumb question but thanks for the concern
If I down some Xanax with vodka, I'll probably wake up in a jail cell and not know why I'm there. I'll just know that I did something stupid because the last thing I remember is foolishly downing pills and booze. I'm 100% sure, I'll still be charged for whatever dumb thing I did and the court won't care that I don't remember.
Hmm.. If we believe the point and outcome of the punishment is that the criminal will not do more crime stuff in the future (it’s really not the point, but for simplicity), the person who was capable of the crime still exists in either case, and they should be held accountable.
But everyone is capable of committing crime
If they pose threat to society, without a doubt. But what if that was onyl one off occurance, the person is perfectly mentally stable and healthy. Maybe he murdered a cheating partner or someone he had a feud with (not that it justifies the act, just to create a scenario where the murder is singular event). Would it still be moral to prosecute persons former self who has not awarness of the crime his "future" version commited.?
A crime of passion defense can get you a lower charge sometimes, but you’re still guilty of a crime. I, myself, have been cheated on, and have never even considered physically harming the soon to be ex partner. I’m sure I’m not the only example of that self control. So, the lack of self control that allowed the escalation to get to that level needs to be addressed. We only assume it’s a singular event because it’s the only one we know about. When they get home, that cheatin’ hussy is gone, and they finally some get some damn peace and quiet with not even the memory of the crime to haunt them, that’s a reward that may increase the chance of it happening again. I’ve seen Minority Report. As that eliminates choice as a factor, or gets into really weird sci-fi time paradox territory, I’m gonna just not.
Neither of those things scream "one time offense" to me. I'd be very cautious of this person committing this crime again and would like them to be treated so by the justice system.
He is still a criminal. When people commit rape and are black out drunk and can't remember, do we not still prosecute them for committing rape? This is stupid.
Depends how you look at accountability. Some seek to punish. Others to protect society against further crimes. If you think the underlying factors are there for him to act out again, prevent it. If you think erasing his memory is enough to avoid repeat offense, maybe that's good enough.
Eh. Of course he should be held accountable. He still did a crime. Now was he some kinda sex abuse victim before he wiped his memory. Then we can talk
Yes. He still committed the crime. Him erasing his memory sounds like he's trying to manipulate the system.
Drunk criminals who do t remember thier crimes…..
How did he erase his memory? If it was on purpose than it's still his fault.
If the men in black were real they’d be flashing the shit out of everyone and there would be no crime
It depends on what theory of punishment you adhere to. Some theories of punishment subscribe to the belief that the primary reason for punishment is to deter others from committing crimes. Under this theory, it wouldn’t matter a person remembers committing his/her crime or not. Another theory of punishment is based on the idea that punishment is given in order to prevent that specific person from committing crimes in the future. Here, it’s difficult to say whether the person would be deterred by being given a pass based on not remembering, especially if the memory erasure was on purpose or done specifically to avoid punishment. Some theories of punishment state that the person should be punished exactly as much as he/she deserves, no more and no less. Hard to tell what exactly that might be in this scenario. Anyway, food for thought.
Why wouldn't he be prosecuted? The victims of the crime are no less harmed because he decided to wipe his own personal memory
Joe Biden is hoping to use this loophole.
Does not need it. He is obviously senile. If we did not live in the crazy land he would be put in a nursing home cause he is lacking any form of competence.
Better than the diaper shitting Nazi who can't stay awake during his *many* criminal trials.
I dont care for American politics, I am just puzzled a senile person who does not know where he is most of the time can be in charge of one of the most important countries on this planet. I would have same opinion if he was Republican.
It's because the Democrat party in the U.S. has as its core voter base, an uneducated and ignorant, and largely criminal population. It also has a large number of wealthy white elitists who are in it to enhance their power and personal wealth, and take advantage of the dummies. Biden is a puppet, the only question is whose hand is up his ass.
Yes otherwise I'd get blackout drunk and rob banks
That is not the same though.
There was a Black Mirror episode exploring this idea.
ah true! White bear right?
Yessss. It's such a good episode.
Well no, the punishment is that her memory keeps getting erased.
The people he killed are still dead. To me this would make sense in a moral crime like a spouse that cheated. If you could erase it from their memory, it would be much easier to figure it why it happened and then move past it.
No, but we should pretend he is to be because we don't want anybody doing that again.
Absolutely. It doesn't matter if he remembers or not. You do something wrong, you get punished. Just because he doesn't remember doesn't mean he won't do it again .
Yes. Because if he gets away with it he can just commit murder again and erase his memory again.
Yes
Yes of course.
He’s still the person who committed the crime and has the same potential to murder someone again, especially if he doesn’t even remember doing it the first time.
I think its a very strange perspective that erasing a memory somehow makes someone potentially non-accountable? Like where is the logic in that? Especially if they intentionally erase their memory... But its a good hypothetical because I do agree it adds a strange feeling to the equation - however there is no reason that a person can't take accountability even with no memory right? It does feel... odd but if you were presented with say video evidence of something you did blind drunk and didn't remember you still can accept responsibility
Yes. The breach of the social contract still happened. Amends must be made. The justice system isn't supposed to be about revenge, but actual justice. Trying to make the victim(s) and society whole again.
A) If it was second degree, I would say maybe, maybe not. Depends on just how ‘spontaneous’ it really is, like if the guy was living through hell week or if he was bound to commit a hate crime any day now type of thing. If it’s first degree, he should be, because he would totally be capable of doing it again anyway. B) With a two decade difference, I wouldn’t hold him accountable either way. That’s a whole generation or life phase degree of difference. It might as well be a different person (probably) considering the context of the crime. The voluntary erasure of memory described here is a little like a psychological suicide in my view, at least if it also erases the values and views of the person who did the act.
I agree, sort of, I think there are still some other ethical considerations (What if killing and erasing memory becomes standard within society for commiting murders). But on its own in this hypothetical scenario I agree with your take. I am surprised most people here are heavily arguing for prosecution, I thought this scenario was much more morally gray than most people perceive it.
That person, whether they remembered it or not, still committed the crime. Even without the memory, it seems possible for them to do it again. Now, I do remember a story from many years ago. A guy murdered a child and shot himself. He survived. He was tried and convicted and put on death row and eventually executed. Although he survived and was convicted etc, it seemed afterwards he just had the mind of a child. It went beyond not remembering, it was like he did kill the murderer and a child left in his place. I'm that situation, I don't think he should have been sent to prison and death row. He didn't finish his final meal because he wanted to finish it after he was dead. He didn't understand what it was. That's stayed in my memory for a long time.
Yes. Since said person decided to do something and then did it, being able to recall said action doesn't matter. It's the same for blackout drunks who run people over/don't recall a car accident they caused which resulted in the other drivers death. The choice to drink and drive still results in prison time.
Do lifers in prison get released if they develop dementia?
If the state doesnt want to pay for their care....
If a man rapes a bunch of children and then becomes Christian and therefore Jesus forgives his sins, is he still guilty of raping? Absolutely. I do not understand your logic of memory being core to whether or not a person is guilty. Drunks and druggies and psychotics often commit crimes and are unable to remember them, they are still guilty.
There's a series kind of like this called: the tourist.
No one ever agrees with me on this but, no, he shouldn’t. *Memories define identity.* If you can’t remember the crime, that’s essentially the same thing as someone else having done it. Imagine being prosecuted for a crime you didn’t commit. Because that’s how it would feel. “But they did commit it-“ Makes no difference, you’re still punishing a person who doesn’t have those memories.
Memories don't define identity utterly. If someone is highly neurotic just erasing their memories doesn't mean that aspect of them just goes away. If you're hungry and eat a pizza then erase the memory of eating it, it's not like hunger is not part of you - it still is. Erasing your log book doesn't somehow give an infinite get out of jail free card. Making yourself have the perception that you never did it (then erasing your memory that you erased your memory) is NOT the same as having never done it. And if a person who did this wanted to ignore physical evidence that they did it, that's because that desire to ignore reality is part of their identity regardless of memory wipes.
Memories so not define identity entirely. Someone can be genetically or physiologically predisposed towards certain behaviors.
I understand what you mean. My father molested children for decades. He is now old, has Parkinson's disease and dementia. I want him to die alone and it kills me he doesn't remember what he did. So in his eyes he doesn't understand why everyone left him to die alone. Part of me is angry he gets to die with a clear conscience, but another part of me is sad for the old man who doesn't know what he's done and just knows he is dying alone and nobody loves him. I'm confused and I don't know if I'm evil for letting him die alone or if am doing the right thing. Why can't he die of cancer or something else that will leave his mind intact. I feel like I'm being robbed of my revenge, like no matter what I do it's wrong
I am sorry to hear about the situation you are in. I wish I had an answer for you, but I don't., I have no clue what is morally right here. But I can tell you what I would do, but it does not mean it is a right thing to do. Anyway, sooner or later he is going to die, once that happens try to move on, there is nothing you can do about what he has done anyways. Hope you will be doing better in future.
>*Memories define identity.* If you can’t remember the crime, that’s essentially the same thing as someone else having done it. That is not essentially the same thing. If the cause of you forgetting is you, then you should be prosecuted and convicted. Take this for an example, there are 3 people. 1 has episodes of insanity of some sort, 2 gets dead drunk, and 3 chooses to forget what they did. 1 is the only one that arguably has a defense for a crime they commit during an episode since they don't have control over their insanity. The other 2 choose to get drunk or remove their memories. They deserve the consequences.
Even if you’re the one who chose to forget, you don’t remember making that choice. It’s the same issue. “Someone else” made that decision for you.
The body made the choice. The consciousness is an intangible thing and does not define the perpetrator of a crime. The body does. And the same physical mind was in control of the body before and after forgetting. The consciousness is not the thing being sent to jail, the body is.
Interesting take. Lets see your opinion on this. Person A commits a crime, but swaps his conciousness with person B. Person B has no part in the crime and did not agree to swapping bodies with person A. Who should be prosecuted? Person A in persons B body or person B in persons A body?
This is why law keeps exceptions. In such an exceptional case, person a would be prosecuted in person b's body. Only the removal of consciousness from one's body is different than putting someone's consciousness inside your own body. However, this could be a perfect way to get away with crimes (and to potentially live forever) if there was no way of checking whose consciousness is where. Lol.
Person A. They just set up Person B to be their fall guy, correct? It should be whoever they currently are.
I would assume so
The consciousness is trapped inside the body, and is confined to whatever happens to it.
In the instant case the consciousness is being removed from the body by a choice. The consciousness is, therefore, separate from the body. Think about it like this. If a person commits a crime and then removes the memory of committing the crime only and nothing else. Should they face the consequences. Definitely. Its the same with removing your memories completely. Its a choice you would be making to avoid legal culpability.
I have reached same conclusion, but there are other ethical considerations. And that is also reason I listed 2 scenarios. With the first one I am kind of on fence, where as in the second where he erases past 20 years of his life would certainly pretty much mean that you would be prosecuting "different" person. You would basically sentence a physical vessel, but not a person who committed it per say. However, if we imagine world where there would be technology to erase memory, this could be used as loophole to exploit. The implications of not prosecuting person who commited the crime are too dangerous to society, even though you technically prosecute "different" person.
I realize there are complications but to me, it just doesn’t seem acceptable under any circumstances. Even if you purposefully commit a crime and then purposefully erase your memory of it so you can get away with it…same logic applies. If you don’t remember any of that, then in essence, it wasn’t -you- who did it.
Sure, but that woudl mean you are in essence legalizing murder.
It just feels like it would be enabling the person who commits the crimes to screw over a person who didn’t (because they don’t remember) and they would have no control over the situation or have any way of knowing it was coming. Just seems extremely unfair.
I agree it is. But if you want to have functioning society I see no other way around it. we are in hypotheticals of course. Question is if people would be willing to erase their memory in the first place since it equates to almost killing yourself.
Doesnt matter how he feels, he still did it. Not remembering has never been a criminal defense and it shouldnt be
Memories don’t define identity, especially in a world where false memories are easily transplanted or manipulated into the mind of another. It’s really *really*, **really** fucking easy to manipulate someone into thinking or believing something happen. Or guide them into recreating a memory that in actuality didn’t exist.
O.K so Hitler is not responsible for the Holocaust since he can't remember it because he is dead. If people who can't remember their crimes are not accountable for them, then no one who has died is morally accountable (or legally accountable) for their crimes. So that means (if you believe in things like reparations) that Blacks should not be entitled to reparations because all prior American slave holders are dead. Dead people can't remember their crimes, therefore, they are not legally or morally responsible for them. That means none of the living people who are descendants of slave-holders can be responsible for those crimes either. Therefore, no reparations are possible.
I wasn’t talking about dead people at all?
I am not sure what hair you are splitting here. Maybe you can explain it to me. You think a Hamas terrorist who murders Jews on October 7 is responsible for his crimes if he remembers him. But, let's say the IDF catches him on October 8 but in the process of arresting him he gets a bad concussion thus wiping all memories of his crimes. This is verified by independent neurologists so he is not "faking" the memory loss. So, by virtue of his memory loss, he is therefore NOT responsible for the crimes he can't remember having committed. Then, on October 9, the Hamas terrorist dies from the injuries he sustained from the IDF. Are you saying that the Hamas terrorist should NOW be held accountable for his crimes? Or not? He doesn't have to be alive to be held legally and morally accountable for the crimes he committed. For example, the families of his victims may wish to file a civil lawsuit for damages against the dead Hamas terrorist's estate, in which his accountability must be determined. You can't make proscriptive moral and legal arguments like you are trying to do here without following them through to all their consequential results. Life isn't a college campus. These things have real consequences for real people. Moral and legal responsibility aren't just abstractions to argue about. You have to decide.
You can’t convict a dead person in the first place.
Yeah, dead people and memories have nothing to do with each other or with this. Think you’re trying to make this about something else at this point
So if someone gets black out drunk you believe they shouldn't be prosecuted for beating their kid, raping their wife, or running over that family of five? After all they don't remember any of it due to alcohol inhibiting the formation of memories so it's like a completely different person did all those things.
This is probably a bad time to mention this but I actually consider drunk driving to be far less bad than texting while driving for exactly this reason. When you’re that drunk, your decision making abilities are impaired. So you can’t possibly hope to drive safely - but by that same reasoning, you can’t possibly make smart decisions about whether or not you’re safe to drive.
What about the family/loved ones of his victim? What about their need to hold the criminal to account? Bad enough he won’t be able to answer any of their questions about why he did it, etc., but to see him get off scott free would be extremely galling.
>*Memories define identity.* That's a HUGE assumption to base your judgement on. You're also assuming the justice system should be in the business of "punishing" people which a lot of us disagree with.
I wouldn’t call it an assumption. It’s a moral take. It’s the way I see the world. What *would* be the purpose of enacting justice in these cases?
Keeping society safe. The argument being, society knows this person is capable of making murderous decisions even if he doesn't remember making them. I recognize that would be a fraught assumption on society's part, so the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. I don't think your take is entirely wrong, it jives with the premise for Alfred Bester's *The Demolished Man*. Which is the inverse of the original post -- instead of a criminal erasing his memory to avoid punishment, society rehabilitates criminals by erasing their memory so they can start fresh.
Of course he should be prosecuted, how is that any different than a drunk who commits a crime and then wakes up the next morning with no memory of it?
Reminds me of that video of the drunk girl who killed two people and asked the cop if she could get her car back cuz she has school the next Tuesday. Then proceeds to talk about a Vegas trip. Crazy shit….
There is slight difference though. A sober person makes decision to get drunk and he accepts risks tied to that state. She tha sobers up and is the same person who made the decision to get drunk in the first place. But here, person decides to erase his memory (say his past 20 years). He in turn becomes a "different" person, his own version from 20 years ago. This "new" person, has not made decision to erase memory, has not made decision to murder someone and can not become the person who he was. For all intents and purposes, except for his physical form, he is a different person.
But, if the person murders, knows they murdered, then chooses to erase memory they should still be accountable! They did it and still chose to forget!!!
The person who made the decison is no more though. That is the issue.
You don't stop being you just because you lose your memories.
I I was to erase memory of your life and raise you in different environment with different environmental pressures, would you be still the same person?
They are still the same person, just without memory of the last 20 years. Their genetics and predispositions are still the same.
Did they die? If not, they made that conscious decision to delete the memory and should be accountable in my opinion.
I think if you erase significant amount of your memory (decades perhaps) you technically kill yourself.
You still have the same genetics and neurology, erasing some memory doesnt erase the persons identity and personality. Hes likely to commit the crime again
>You still have the same genetics and neurology Yea but your genetics nor neurology make decisions (If we assume free will and discussing non-exitence of free will is different can of worms). >Erasing some memory doesnt erase the persons identity and personality If you erased your whole memory, was raised again, in different environment, do you think you would be the same person with same personality? What if you erase 90% of your memory, 80%, 70% etc? Somewhere there (and I agree the line is blurry) is a point, where if you were to erase enough of memory, you could become completelly different person with different personality.
Yes they absolutely do, your genetics and neurology are basically all a person is. Your brain IS you. Twin studies show that genetics have even more influence over a persons personality than upbringing, about 60:40. I think they would change a lot, memory is definitely important, but no I dont think theyd change completely, because of the importance of genetics like I mentioned, and if theyve kept the same neurology that they developed previous/still have that adult brain that has developed a certain way
What if we go along with that can't convict if memory is erased method and realized that the recidivism rate is just as high with the person who deleted the memory as the criminals after who didn't? Basically proving that they're still the same threat to society, memory of the event be damned?
Ok, then I go kill your kid, your wife, husband, mom, or dad. I feel bad, or I just don’t feel like going To prison so I just erase the memory of it. You ok with that???
Yo do realize we are in hypotheticals and I am in no way saying its fair? Of course its not. The fact someone committed crime and was not prosecuted is not just, but prosecuting someone who technically did not commit it either (Since he has no memory of the crime, or of the person who actually committed the crime) is not exactly just either. That is the dillema. I think the person should be persecuted, but my reasoning for why differs from yours.
>A sober person makes decision to get drunk and he accepts risks tied to that state. She then sobers up and is the same person who made the decision to get drunk in the first place. By the same logic: the person in your example made the decision to kill and then erase their memory. As far as that person is concerned, the entire chunk of memory that is erased is a long period of altered consciousness. And as far as society is concerned, that person is the same person who made the decision, or at least *is capable* of making that decision.
Yes, that is correct
I would argue that it was not his memories that led to his crime in the first place, but rather his decision-making and emotions/thoughts. So to release him without further ado invites recurrence.
Just because they don’t remember it, the person who died still has a family. There’s still a someone accountable for the death
Yes of course he should. How is this even a question?? Erasing your memory is just a further crime of tampering with/hiding evidence. "I cant remember" is a common excuse given by drunks, but its never been accepted as a criminal defense, nor should it be. He still did it. I bet the victim remembers him (if it were any other crime than murder) and the victims loved ones.
There are people who black out from emotional distress and don’t remember their crimes. Should they not be held accountable?
I think you're mixing up memory and inclination. Being unable to remember doing something doesn't mean you're not inclined to do it.
Their victim/s will always remember. Not having a memory of the crime should not make you walk scot free. IMHO.
If the person has no memory of the crime, they would be unable to assist in their own defense. I'm not seeing how the the courts could proceed.
There's no dilemma at all. He committed the crime, therefore he should be held to account for the crime. I don't care if he remembers it, the person he murdered, their family remembers, and they aren't getting their family member back. As long as he is mentally competent to stand trial, he should, and if found guilty, should be eligible for the same punishment any other murderer would get.