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

[HeadingNorth]

No.

 

Yes. I suggest you read the opening post, and post #3. That makes his question fairly clear.

[Badlittlepup]

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

 

But they are still the same person. They may not remember things but there will be enough of their essential personality left that they would still be capable of rape or murder if that was what they'd done before.

 

Also how far would you take it? A man was pleaded guilty last year to a rape that happened about 20 years ago, he was only caught because his DNA was taken after he called police to a break in at his sons. He pleaded guilty because the forensic evidence against him was overwhelming but he claims to have absolutely no memory of the attack. Should he have been let off even though he did do it no matter what state he was in?

 

Or people who are off their nuts on drink or drugs who don't remember battering someone should get off?

 

Don't you also think it would be dangerous to let people off as it would lead to a flood of people claiming memory loss to try and get off for a crime?

 

As I understand it at the moment the way the law stands they would still be liable for everything they had done unless they could prove that they were mentally impaired BEFORE the amnesia which meant they couldn't be held responsible for the crime or if AFTER they were found to be too mentally incapacitated to be tried on the basis that they couldn't understand.

 

But just not remembering in itself, no, that's not a defence and it shouldn't be.

[saxon51]

Yes. I suggest you read the opening post, and post #3. That makes his question fairly clear.

The question was;

 

'If you don't remember doing it, are you guilty of doing it?' Plain and simple. The OP used a few more words, but the question was the same.