Should you be punished for a crime if you have no memory of it?

[Shoesme]

The below question was taken from another website as it asks it better than i could. What are your thoughts?

 

 

Occasionally, you read about people who have suffered amnesia -- total loss of past/recent memories and sometimes even knowledge of their identity. Suppose that it was discovered that such a person had, before suffering amnesia, committed a crime. Assuming that the person really does have amnesia (and therefore, would believe he is answering truthfully when he says "No" in response to "Did you commit the crime?"), do you believe that such a person should receive the legally prescribed punishment for the crime? What if the crime was first-degree murder? How would your answer be affected if you knew that he might, someday, recover his lost memories?

[Conscious]

Tricky one.

 

I'd say yes, or all of a sudden amnesia will be a lot more common.

[Shoesme]

Can you imagine being the person who has commited the crime? You wake up one day in hospital for example, no memory of anything, you don't know who you are but you could potentially face the rest of your life in prison because you're being told you killed someone.

[HeadingNorth]

I think - though I'm far from certain - that merely having no memory of an event does not bring you immunity from prosecution. After all, many crimes are committed while drunk, high or otherwise mentally incompetent - if you can't remember beating someone up and raping two women whilst drunk, you will still go to jail for it. I would assume, therefore, that amnesia brought about by, say, a blow on the head shortly after you robbed a bank, would not see you found innocent of the robbery.

 

 

I read a book by Desmond Bagley in which, as part of the plot, a man who had been a major scumbag in his college years was caught in a car crash and fire, and when he awoke from his injuries he had lost his entire memory and personality, and was in effect a completely new person. He was not held responsible for the crimes his former personality had committed. I do not know if any such case has ever cropped up in reality, or what the outcome was if it did.

 

 

And in answer to your actual question, should people be prosecuted in such cases - I'm tempted to say that they should, if it's only amnesia of recent events. If you were legally sane at the time of the criminal act but lost your memory of it afterwards, that doesn't excuse what you did. It's not a position I hold with any great strength, though, and others may well disagree with me. And they may even be right.

 

If you have no memory of anything at all, then you probably should, and probably are, deemed unfit to stand trial. (In answer to the point raised by Conscious, above; it's a lot harder to pretend to have total amnesia than you might think. They can spring pictures of people you should know upon you suddenly, and your biological reactions and brain chemistry will tell them whether or not you have any recognition. Merely denying you remember them won't hold water for very long.)

[Shoesme]

I think - though I'm far from certain - that merely having no memory of an event does not bring you immunity from prosecution. After all, many crimes are committed while drunk, high or otherwise mentally incompetent - if you can't remember beating someone up and raping two women whilst drunk, you will still go to jail for it. I would assume, therefore, that amnesia brought about by, say, a blow on the head shortly after you robbed a bank, would not see you found innocent of the robbery.

 

 

I read a book by Desmond Bagley in which, as part of the plot, a man who had been a major scumbag in his college years was caught in a car crash and fire, and when he awoke from his injuries he had lost his entire memory and personality, and was in effect a completely new person. He was not held responsible for the crimes his former personality had committed. I do not know if any such case has ever cropped up in reality, or what the outcome was if it did.

 

 

And in answer to your actual question, should people be prosecuted in such cases - I'm tempted to say that they should. If you were legally sane at the time of the criminal act but lost your memory of it afterwards, that doesn't excuse what you did. It's not a position I hold with any great strength, though, and others may well disagree with me. And they may even be right.

 

That is more of the question i was wanting to ask, as if the person wakes up a completely new person.

[megalithic]

I can't ever remember promising the rest of my life to our lass, but she's adamant i did.

I'll have to live with it i guess.

[HeadingNorth]

That is more of the question i was wanting to ask, as if the person wakes up a completely new person.

 

My added piece above gives my opinions on that - I was editing while you were replying.

[Shoesme]

Lets take it to the extreme, the person in question is largely responsible for millions of people being killed, do you think they should be punished? Even though this 'new' person hasn't technically done it, if you get what i'm trying to say.

 

On a side note, i like the cut of your jib on here HeadingNorth.

[WARANTED]

That is more of the question i was wanting to ask, as if the person wakes up a completely new person.

The law would have to recognize the person as a completely new person. If a person has a capacity to commit a crime but has lost memory for whatever reason but the capacity to do the same again still remains and could pose potential danger to society. Isn't that the reason for incarceration anyway, to remove danger from society? I believe the law would still regard the physical presence of the individual as the person and not the new mental identity unless convinced by a very competent lawyer or a very heavy bribe:)

 

Otherwise when we do anything in our childhood and in later life can't remember it, does that mean we no longer can be held responsible for having done it? You could argue since every cell in the body renews itself over time so that eventually none of the cells remain that we were born with does that mean we are not the same person?

[Rupert_Baehr]

To be found guilty of an offence under the Common Law, the prosecution must prove both 'mens rea' (a guilty mind) and 'actus reus' (that the event did indeed take place.)

 

Drunkenness would not be a valid defence (unless it was involuntary - If somebody held you down, filled you with booze and let you go and you subsequently committed an offence, then you might have a defence.)

 

Insanity is a valid defence ... Many of those who might consider using insanity as a defence tend not to bother - insane people are hospitalised and the 'criminally insane' tend to be hospitalised in secure facilities for a long time. If they're incurable, then they are not treatable so there's no point in putting them in an hospital and they go to another secure place - a prison. If they're incurable and untreatable, that could be for an extremely long time.

 

Sutcliffe is mentally ill. If his illness was treatable (and curable) he would be in an hospital, It's not and so he's not.

 

A diabetic who committed a crime whilst suffering from hyperglycaemia might plead insanity. Most don't. (A diabetic who committed a crime whilst suffering from insulin-induced hypoglycaemia could not plead insanity, because he injected the insulin (ordinarily - there is case law which details a few limited exceptions), so it would be self-induced - just like the drinker who committed a crime after drinking alcohol.) - Stupid, but that's the law.

 

The question the courts must consider is:

 

'Prior to the offence itself, did the accused act in such a manner which (s)he might reasonably have expected might lead him/her to commit an offence?' (Cunningham liability)

 

Prior to R v G and Another [2003] UKHL 50 it was possible to convict somebody if the prosecution could prove that 'a reasonable man' would have foreseen the consequences and declined to act in such a manner'.

 

Subsequent to R v G if the person accused of the offence did not understand the circumstances fully, (s)he could not be convicted.

 

It's commonsense, really - but after Diplock in Caldwell it took a while to get there.

 

See: R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341 and R v. Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396