I think we are conflating the issue. The original question was whether it was right to continue the sentence of a person who has not the state of mind to remember even committing the crime.
If our personalities are the sum of our memories and experiences, would it not be wrong to continue this persons sentence? At this point, would it not be more revenge than penance?
Guys, you're focusing on murder, where there is already evidence that there is little to no deterrent effect.
You questioned it, and you're getting the response that your question warranted. Don't bitch out now. :P
As for the rest of the crimes you mention, how about copyright infringement? There's an example where the existence of penalties does virtually nothing to deter the problem.
How about Prohibition? Yeah, that was a great deterrent.
But of course, the question of prevention is inherently impossible to answer without a controlled scientific study. The only way to know if anti-shoplifting laws actually do anything is set up a controlled environment a la The Truman Show where the only variable being considered is the law in question.
Any other scenario involves a shit fucking load of variables that simply are not being controlled, and thus we are limited in the scope of the conclusions we can draw.
The best we can say is that sometimes, it appears that punishment has a deterrent effect on some crimes, while it appears to have no effect at all on other crimes.
EDIT: And as for the original question, the person with dementia should be placed in full-time psychiatric care in a secure hospital. Observe to see if the homicidal tendencies are gone and if they are and the person is still functional, then they can be released back into society.
Of course, most people with sufficiently significant dementia are incapable of functioning on their own, so no matter, this person is almost certainly unlikely to continue life without significant outside intervention ever again. If this person can't remember murdering someone, then the odds are good that their personality will only continue to radically destabilize over time.
I think we are conflating the issue. The original question was whether it was right to continue the sentence of a person who has not the state of mind to remember even committing the crime.
If our personalities are the sum of our memories and experiences, would it not be wrong to continue this persons sentence? At this point, would it not be more revenge than penance?
And like I keep saying, it depends on the crime; if a "knowing" or "intentional" state of mind was one of the elements of the crime or not.
In this specific case, murder, it probably did require at least a mens rea of "knowing" (if not intentional), and as a result, in his current state of mind, he's not really "guilty" anymore, and should probably be let free, or get treatment (but this will probably never happen). In other crimes, where the requirement of mens rea is much lower, it might not matter at all.
So to sum up, in this case, free Danny... but maybe not in all cases.
EDIT: And as for the original question, the person with dementia should be placed in full-time psychiatric care in a secure hospital. Observe to see if the homicidal tendencies are gone and if they are and the person is still functional, then they can be released back into society.
Of course, most people with sufficiently significant dementia are incapable of functioning on their own, so no matter, this person is almost certainly unlikely to continue life without significant outside intervention ever again.
Yea, the interesting part here is if he has dementia at 63, he was most likely already suffering from some effects of early onset dementia when he murdered those people possibly.
Really, mental illness is a whole other ball of wax. True mental illness tends to result from a physiological malfunction, and shit like that needs to be corrected through actual intervention strategies way beyond standard behavioral rehabilitation. Hell, we don't really have good answers for a lot of this stuff.
I suppose you could say that my argument is that people with serious, debilitating mental illnesses are too broken to actually be covered by the law. We need some other institution to deal with them.
For those of you saying that this man is no-longer suitable for the sentence given to him, I have a couple minor nuances to consider as variables.
If you could determine the exact day the man went from knowing about his crime to not-knowing, would you prefer he serve his sentence or delay it? Is it better the man that knows his crime is punished, or better that he just forgets and is forgiven? What if the person chooses to forget (insert sci-fi method of choice here)? What if the person is forced against his will to forget?
Then there's the questions of what if the criminal was on rohypnol/blacked out/already had dimensia when the crime was committed?
I'm fairly certain most people here already have prescribed answers for these questions, but I do think they are worth a few thoughts at least.
There are a bunch of characters with vast psychic powers. One of them uses these psychic powers to rape women. He gets caught. They erase the victim's mind, so she doesn't remember. They end up deciding to erase the rapists mind and make him not a rapist anymore. Still waiting to see how it pans out.
For those of you saying that this man is no-longer suitable for the sentence given to him, I have a couple minor nuances to consider as variables.
If you could determine the exact day the man went from knowing about his crime to not-knowing, would you prefer he serve his sentence or delay it? Is it better the man that knows his crime is punished, or better that he just forgets and is forgiven? What if the person chooses to forget (insert sci-fi method of choice here)? What if the person is forced against his will to forget?
Then there's the questions of what if the criminal was on rohypnol/blacked out/already had dimensia when the crime was committed?
I'm fairly certain most people here already have prescribed answers for these questions, but I do think they are worth a few thoughts at least.
If anyone is really interested, some of these issues were raised in People v. Newton, where a defendant was entitled to bring up a claim of "unconsciousness" as his defense to a murder charge, but the judge didn't let the defense attorney do so.
On appeal, the higher court held that the conviction be overturned because "There was evidence in the record that it was “reasonably probable†that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had they been given the instruction on unconsciousness. Thus, there was actual prejudice."
If you could determine the exact day the man went from knowing about his crime to not-knowing, would you prefer he serve his sentence or delay it?
If it were as cut and dry as one day he had no recollection and we could prove it, let him go, or lighten his sentence.
Is it better the man that knows his crime is punished, or better that he just forgets and is forgiven?
It is better that he knows and is punished, this serves as a balm to those who were wronged and as negative incentive to the perpetrator and others. One could go the Babylon 5 route and use the forced forgetting, complete personality wipe, and a light sentence of community service to help serve as a balm to those who were wronged.
What if the person chooses to forget (insert sci-fi method of choice here)? What if the person is forced against his will to forget?
I wish I had more examples than B5. If you just forget about the event, I don't think that is enough. It would have to be that the personality that conducted the action would need to be forgotten as well. It would have to be a "new" person, for all intents and purposes, for the person to be forgiven.
Then there's the questions of what if the criminal was on rohypnol/blacked out/already had dimensia when the crime was committed?
I believe this is already covered by the current laws in the US.
What if the person chooses to forget (insert sci-fi method of choice here)? What if the person is forced against his will to forget?
I wish I had more examples than B5. If you just forget about the event, I don't think that is enough. It would have to be that the personality that conducted the action would need to be forgotten as well. It would have to be a "new" person, for all intents and purposes, for the person to be forgiven.
What if I go to jail. Then when I'm in jail I purposefully cause myself to acquire a mental problem using smuggled poison or some such. Can I then get out?
What if I go to jail. Then when I'm in jail I purposefully cause myself to acquire a mental problem using smuggled poison or some such. Can I then get out?
Do you want the real answer or the answer that complies best with your moral code?
What if I go to jail. Then when I'm in jail I purposefully cause myself to acquire a mental problem using smuggled poison or some such. Can I then get out?
Probably, but then you have to live with the fact that you're willfully damaged your brain or driven yourself mad to get out of jail. I'd rather serve my sentence and stay intelligent and sane than be a babbling idiot with freedom.
Probably, but then you have to live with the fact that you're willfully damaged your brain or driven yourself mad to get out of jail. I'd rather serve my sentence and stay intelligent and sane than be a babbling idiot with freedom.
What if I'm able to screw myself up enough to get out of jail, but not enough to be completely fucked? What if I fuck myself up a little bit, and combine it with a good acting job? What if I find a way to temporarily fuck myself up, get out of jail, and then recuperate!
What if I go to jail. Then when I'm in jail I purposefully cause myself to acquire a mental problem using smuggled poison or some such. Can I then get out?
I were listening to the SGU podcast today and they interviewed a gentleman named Jon Ronson, he wrote that Men Who Stare at Goats book and apparently went investigating the thought that most of the people in power are psychopaths.
He mentioned a case where a guy was incarcerated and to get out he faked being insane. Apparently the psychologists know he was faking but took him anyways because just that behaviour alone means he's a psychopath.
So, why not? Though I'd say that if you're willing to damage yourself in such a permanent way that it really no different than committing suicide to get out of prison as well.
So, why not? Though I'd say that if you're willing to damage yourself in such a permanent way that it really no different than committing suicide to get out of prison as well.
Probably, but then you have to live with the fact that you're willfully damaged your brain or driven yourself mad to get out of jail. I'd rather serve my sentence and stay intelligent and sane than be a babbling idiot with freedom.
What if I'm able to screw myself up enough to get out of jail, but not enough to be completely fucked? What if I fuck myself up a little bit, and combine it with a good acting job? What if I find a way to temporarily fuck myself up, get out of jail, and then recuperate!
First, it's asking a lot to have us assume that you could smuggle something in. This is not The Shawshank Redemption. It is, to use language you're likely to understand, non-trivial to smuggle something in to most institutions. If you were actually successful, you'd get more felony time to serve consecutively to your primary sentence due to the contraband you smuggled in - it's not like the state would have any proof problems at trial. Second, you won't be able to scam prison psychiatrists. Before you start talking about how much smarter you are than they and how they would be fooled by your awesome acting skills, you need to know that it's not a question of fooling. They find that nearly everyone is malingering, whether the symptoms are real or not. They'd just send you back to the general population.
Let's assume that the prison psychiatrists actually did find that you had a problem. You still wouldn't get out of the institution. Most prisons have psychiatric facilities. If yours didn't, they'd transfer you to one that did. For the sake of argument, let's assume that you actually had to go to a hospital. They would treat you and then send you back. The time you spent in hospital would, depending on your state, probably be "dead time", or time not included in calculating the time spent towards completing your sentence.
The only reason the defendant in Jason's story is getting any concern over his mental problems now is that he's sentenced to death. There's a constitutional problem (or at least defense attorneys argue this) with executing people who don't have the capacity to understand their sentence. Their defense attorneys argue that it's cruel and unusual. This argument doesn't often work. Normal sentences not involving execution don't have the problem. Defendants normally don't have their sentences commuted or significantly changed because of medical problems arising after sentencing.
Sure, that's how it works now, but how SHOULD it work? If we say it's ok to let someone off the hook because they can't remember what they've done, what if they intentionally cause themselves to forget what they've done?
No one said it's okay to let someone off the hook because they can't remember what they've done. If you want an actual, real world answer to your question about what happens when a person intentionally does something to forget what they've done, read about what happens when a defendant is voluntarily intoxicated. What happens to the drunk driver who kills a busload of kids but can't remember it?
If you're looking for the ScottWorld answer, you wave your magic wand, things work out the way you want, and everyone is astonished at how smart and awesome you are. The End. Pretty boring, really.
Sure, that's how it works now, but how SHOULD it work? If we say it's ok to let someone off the hook because they can't remember what they've done, what if they intentionally cause themselves to forget what they've done?
I'm going to assume that you mean what if they can perfectly excise the exact memory from their minds ala Paycheck.
I'd say that shouldn't get you off the hook because, you are still you. The personality that committed the crime is still there. Now if you wiped your entire memory, became amnesic, that would be a slightly different situation and more akin to what started this whole thread in the first place.
Then again, Joe makes some good points for how we currently handle such things.
What happens to the drunk driver who kills a busload of kids but can't remember it?
Well, they might not remember what they did, but they will be able to understand what they did when they become sober. So perhaps it's not a matter of remembering, but comprehending what you have been convicted of doing, whether you remember it or not. What if with significant advances in neuroscience I can zap my brain such that I actually can't understand the concept of theft, but am otherwise just fine. Is it ok for me to steal things? It's not a matter of being ignorant of the law. It's a matter of being physically incapable of comprehending a law. How can you hold someone responsible for following a rule they are absolutely incapable of understanding?
What happens to the drunk driver who kills a busload of kids but can't remember it?
Well, they might not remember what they did, but they will be able to understand what they did when they become sober. So perhaps it's not a matter of remembering, but comprehending what you have been convicted of doing, whether you remember it or not. What if with significant advances in neuroscience I can zap my brain such that I actually can't understand the concept of theft, but am otherwise just fine. Is it ok for me to steal things? It's not a matter of being ignorant of the law. It's a matter of being physically incapable of comprehending a law. How can you hole someone responsible for following a rule they are absolutely incapable of understanding?
If you thought about the drunk driver, I mean actually thought about him Instead of dismissing the comment out of hand because it wasn't posted by a someone as smart as you, you'd have your answer. The law doesn't now nor is it likely anytime in the future to allow a defendant to negate a mental state because of actions intentionally calculated to achieve such negation.
Just as the driver is not allowed the benefit at trial of lacking the mental state necessary for conviction due to voluntary intoxication, you would not be allowed to benefit from your lack of capacity because your lack of capacity to conform your conduct was caused by your voluntary, intentional act.
If you thought about the drunk driver, I mean actually thought about him Instead of dismissing the comment out of hand because it wasn't posted by a someone as smart as you, you'd have your answer. The law doesn't now nor is it likely anytime in the future to allow a defendant to negate a mental state because of actions intentionally calculated to achieve such negation.
Just as the driver is not allowed the benefit of lacking the mental state necessary for conviction due to voluntary intoxication, you would not be allowed to benefit from your lack of capacity because your lack of capacity was caused by your voluntary, intentional act.
So I commit a horrible crime, intentionally. Then I brainwash myself in some manner. Now I don't remember doing it at all. I purposefully brainwashed myself to achieve this effect. The law might keep me in jail, but is that right? Imagine that person sitting in jail suffering every day, not even knowing who they are, or what they've done to deserve it. I guess you could tell the person who they used to be and what they did, but is this a new person? It's the same physical body. Maybe it can regress and become the person it used to be again? But if it doesn't, what purpose does it serve to finish their sentence? Is there something good to be had by letting them go?
If someone changes from being a criminal into being a nut, I imagine they would cost the state a lot more money in terms of psychiatric expenses. Wouldn't we actually be better off letting them go so they have to pay for it themselves, instead of having the state pay for it?
@Joe: The drunk driver will be sober again. Give it a few hours. A person suffering from senility to the point of permanently lost cognition will not ever recover.
@Joe: The drunk driver will be sober again. Give it a few hours. A person suffering from senility to the point of permanently lost cognition will not ever recover.
What if someone has a really weird condition where they remember during the day, but not at night. Should we have them come and go from prison like day camp?
What if someone has a really weird condition where they remember during the day, but not at night. Should we have them come and go from prison like day camp?
Some guy should write a book about it. Then they can make a movie about it. Then Brad Pitt and Ed Norton can star in it.
But your examples are fucking ridiculous. Someone who forgets things at night would probably be horribly non-functional and would require full-time hospital care, probably in a secure facility. And if we have the technology to selectively eliminate parts of someone's personality, why not go for the real question: why not use that technology to just eliminate criminal impulses completely?
EDIT: And as Joe has said, choosing to eliminate your sense of a particular crime post facto is way different than not having the sense before you commit the crime.
@Joe: The drunk driver will be sober again. Give it a few hours. A person suffering from senility to the point of permanently lost cognition will not ever recover.
Jason, please. Where did I say that the defendant you're concerned with is in any way similar to any sort of drunk driver? I DID NOT SAY THAT. The drunk driver was only, only, only in response to Scott's silliness regarding voluntary incapacity. Obviously, your guy is not voluntarily incapacitated.
If you thought about the drunk driver, I mean actually thought about him Instead of dismissing the comment out of hand because it wasn't posted by a someone as smart as you, you'd have your answer. The law doesn't now nor is it likely anytime in the future to allow a defendant to negate a mental state because of actions intentionally calculated to achieve such negation.
Just as the driver is not allowed the benefit of lacking the mental state necessary for conviction due to voluntary intoxication, you would not be allowed to benefit from your lack of capacity because your lack of capacity was caused by your voluntary, intentional act.
So I commit a horrible crime, intentionally. Then I brainwash myself in some manner. Now I don't remember doing it at all. I purposefully brainwashed myself to achieve this effect. The law might keep me in jail, but is that right? Imagine that person sitting in jail suffering every day, not even knowing who they are, or what they've done to deserve it.
Listen, with your silly hypothetical set up as it is, I still have absolutely zero compassion for you. Why? Because your incapacity is VOLUNTARY. If you're really, really sad because you're stuck in jail and don't know why, it's YOUR fault that you VOLUNTARILY incapacitated yourself. Is that a little more clear?
Listen, with your silly hypothetical set up as it is, I still have absolutely zero compassion for you. Why? Because your incapacity is VOLUNTARY. If you're really, really sad because you're stuck in jail and don't know why, it's YOUR fault that you VOLUNTARILY incapacitated yourself. Is that a little more clear?
What if I cloned myself after committing a crime, then killed myself. That clone didn't commit the crimes, but it has a physically identical body to myself. Should you keep it in jail in my place?
Now if I erase or reset my brain somehow, how is that any different than creating a clone and committing suicide? Or is it not a whole new person? Is who you are so strongly tied to those specific atoms which make up your body? Considering in 7-10 years every cell in your body dies and is replaced, I'm not so sure. Then wouldn't a clone, who at least starts in the same molecular configuration as the original, be the same person? If I created a clone of Bin Laden in a lab, would he be responsible for the crimes of the original?
I'm talking like sci-fi clone, not Dolly the Sheep style.
Comments
If our personalities are the sum of our memories and experiences, would it not be wrong to continue this persons sentence? At this point, would it not be more revenge than penance?
As for the rest of the crimes you mention, how about copyright infringement? There's an example where the existence of penalties does virtually nothing to deter the problem.
How about Prohibition? Yeah, that was a great deterrent.
But of course, the question of prevention is inherently impossible to answer without a controlled scientific study. The only way to know if anti-shoplifting laws actually do anything is set up a controlled environment a la The Truman Show where the only variable being considered is the law in question.
Any other scenario involves a shit fucking load of variables that simply are not being controlled, and thus we are limited in the scope of the conclusions we can draw.
The best we can say is that sometimes, it appears that punishment has a deterrent effect on some crimes, while it appears to have no effect at all on other crimes.
EDIT: And as for the original question, the person with dementia should be placed in full-time psychiatric care in a secure hospital. Observe to see if the homicidal tendencies are gone and if they are and the person is still functional, then they can be released back into society.
Of course, most people with sufficiently significant dementia are incapable of functioning on their own, so no matter, this person is almost certainly unlikely to continue life without significant outside intervention ever again. If this person can't remember murdering someone, then the odds are good that their personality will only continue to radically destabilize over time.
In this specific case, murder, it probably did require at least a mens rea of "knowing" (if not intentional), and as a result, in his current state of mind, he's not really "guilty" anymore, and should probably be let free, or get treatment (but this will probably never happen). In other crimes, where the requirement of mens rea is much lower, it might not matter at all.
So to sum up, in this case, free Danny... but maybe not in all cases.
I suppose you could say that my argument is that people with serious, debilitating mental illnesses are too broken to actually be covered by the law. We need some other institution to deal with them.
If you could determine the exact day the man went from knowing about his crime to not-knowing, would you prefer he serve his sentence or delay it? Is it better the man that knows his crime is punished, or better that he just forgets and is forgiven? What if the person chooses to forget (insert sci-fi method of choice here)? What if the person is forced against his will to forget?
Then there's the questions of what if the criminal was on rohypnol/blacked out/already had dimensia when the crime was committed?
I'm fairly certain most people here already have prescribed answers for these questions, but I do think they are worth a few thoughts at least.
There are a bunch of characters with vast psychic powers. One of them uses these psychic powers to rape women. He gets caught. They erase the victim's mind, so she doesn't remember. They end up deciding to erase the rapists mind and make him not a rapist anymore. Still waiting to see how it pans out.
end
On appeal, the higher court held that the conviction be overturned because "There was evidence in the record that it was “reasonably probable†that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had they been given the instruction on unconsciousness. Thus, there was actual prejudice."
edit:ahh! yes! And I've been meaning to watch that again recently!
He mentioned a case where a guy was incarcerated and to get out he faked being insane. Apparently the psychologists know he was faking but took him anyways because just that behaviour alone means he's a psychopath.
So, why not? Though I'd say that if you're willing to damage yourself in such a permanent way that it really no different than committing suicide to get out of prison as well.
Let's assume that the prison psychiatrists actually did find that you had a problem. You still wouldn't get out of the institution. Most prisons have psychiatric facilities. If yours didn't, they'd transfer you to one that did. For the sake of argument, let's assume that you actually had to go to a hospital. They would treat you and then send you back. The time you spent in hospital would, depending on your state, probably be "dead time", or time not included in calculating the time spent towards completing your sentence.
The only reason the defendant in Jason's story is getting any concern over his mental problems now is that he's sentenced to death. There's a constitutional problem (or at least defense attorneys argue this) with executing people who don't have the capacity to understand their sentence. Their defense attorneys argue that it's cruel and unusual. This argument doesn't often work. Normal sentences not involving execution don't have the problem. Defendants normally don't have their sentences commuted or significantly changed because of medical problems arising after sentencing.
If you're looking for the ScottWorld answer, you wave your magic wand, things work out the way you want, and everyone is astonished at how smart and awesome you are. The End. Pretty boring, really.
I'd say that shouldn't get you off the hook because, you are still you. The personality that committed the crime is still there. Now if you wiped your entire memory, became amnesic, that would be a slightly different situation and more akin to what started this whole thread in the first place.
Then again, Joe makes some good points for how we currently handle such things.
Just as the driver is not allowed the benefit at trial of lacking the mental state necessary for conviction due to voluntary intoxication, you would not be allowed to benefit from your lack of capacity because your lack of capacity to conform your conduct was caused by your voluntary, intentional act.
If someone changes from being a criminal into being a nut, I imagine they would cost the state a lot more money in terms of psychiatric expenses. Wouldn't we actually be better off letting them go so they have to pay for it themselves, instead of having the state pay for it?
But your examples are fucking ridiculous. Someone who forgets things at night would probably be horribly non-functional and would require full-time hospital care, probably in a secure facility. And if we have the technology to selectively eliminate parts of someone's personality, why not go for the real question: why not use that technology to just eliminate criminal impulses completely?
EDIT: And as Joe has said, choosing to eliminate your sense of a particular crime post facto is way different than not having the sense before you commit the crime.
Now if I erase or reset my brain somehow, how is that any different than creating a clone and committing suicide? Or is it not a whole new person? Is who you are so strongly tied to those specific atoms which make up your body? Considering in 7-10 years every cell in your body dies and is replaced, I'm not so sure. Then wouldn't a clone, who at least starts in the same molecular configuration as the original, be the same person? If I created a clone of Bin Laden in a lab, would he be responsible for the crimes of the original?
I'm talking like sci-fi clone, not Dolly the Sheep style.