quote:

Originally posted by MehGoat The question is this: two people...

supposing the aim of the 'police' is to protect society at large, yes, the man should be prosecuted in all these cases; the differnce between the scenarios should only affects the sentence the prosecutor would be aiming for.

quote:

Originally posted by MehGoat Of course, these are just two arbitrary situations; there is a whole spectrum of circumstances that could happen bewteen them and in either direction. I think it just throws some questions into our ideas of justice and fairness.

not our ideas of fairness nor justice, but society's ideas of safety.

and also, if you should be able to get away with murder due to memory loss, i should be able to get away with practically any other crime that benefits me due to memory loss (especially considering i actually do suffer from it).


p.s. philosophy threads > political threads

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by MehGoat This isn't really politics. It's more philosiphy, I suppose. The question is this: two people enter a cave amicably. All of a sudden, some passerby hear screams, etc etc. When they come in, they see one person dead, a knife through his heart, while the other is out cold on the floor. He comes to several hours later in a hospital with a pair of handcuffs on, no memory of the fight. But forensic investication shows his fingerprints on the knife, and he acknowledges he owns the knife. He killed a man, but has no memory of it. Can/should he be prosecuted?

This sounds like a CSI/Forensic Detectives episode. There could have been a third person already in that cave that took both of them out. Probably a ninja.

quote:

Originally posted by MehGoat Suppose instead that he doesn't come to, but stays in a coma for years. I would presume he doesn't get prosecuted due to that condition. One day he miraculously wakes up, and remembers everything. He admits that he stabbed the other man just on an impulse, and the other man knocked him out before he collapsed and died. Should he be prosecuted, if he were in the coma for a year? What about 5? 10? 50?

Yes, he still killed a man, just becouse that man managed to put him in a coma in self defense before he died doesnt change the situation. A coma is not a prison sentance but a really long nap, and a nap, albeit a really long one isnt really sufficient punishment for murder.

quote:

Originally posted by MehGoat Lets change locations now. In a convencience store, one man bumps into another man. They get in a fight, and one stabs the other before being knocked out. It's all on camera. He comes to a day later in a hospital bed with handcuffs on, remembering getting out of his car to go in the store but nothing after that. Can/should he be prodecuted for something he has no memory of? Suppose, instead, that he comes to and doesn't remember anything for a year prior. Or that he remembers english, but not people or his past. He remembers how the legal system works, but has no memory of old friends or even his family. Should he be prosecuted?

My dad got cought speeding once. he didnt remember going to fast but the proof was there. Are you saying that becouse he didnt remember driving to fast he shoudnt had been presented with a ticket?

Just becouse one doesnt remember screwing up doesnt excuse him from that fact that he did screw up. Besidesn maybe he doesnt remember then, but what if he remembers it a week from then or a month, perhaps a year form the incident. How would you know that he remembered killing osmebody in cold blood. I wery much doubt that the man would admit to murder and go to jail if the only thing he needs to do to stay free is to keep his mouth shut.

quote:

Originally posted by MehGoat I find it suprising that many of the people I've asked about these questions have said "yes" to pretty much every question. I can't imagine saying yes to the vast majority of these questions- I always think about it from the 'murderers' point of view. Think about it... you walk in to a store... and wake up a day later accused of murder and likely to spend the next 20 years in jail. Would you consider that fair? And what if you simply awake in a hospital bed, not knowing your family or your history, knowing nothing more than that you're going to spend years in prison for a crime you don't remember committing?

I guess if i woke up in that situation i woudnt think its fair, but then again i belive that the family and friends of the deceased wont think its fair that some idiot murdered their loved one but is going to walk away free becouse he says he doesnt remember doing it.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T i should be able to get away with practically any other crime that benefits me due to memory loss (especially considering i actually do suffer from it).

Drugs are bad m`kay



is what i would like to say but i seem to have holes in my brain aswell

___________________

I did wake up in a hospital bed once. But when I woke up, I wasn't handcuffed, I was just sick, and my ear was bandaged up!!

Your questions all seem to be special cases of the general question "Why do we punish criminals". It has been dealt with extensively, and to my knowledge it is usually answered in one of four ways:
- To protect society from the offender (obviously only applicable in cases of capital punishment, prison sentences, and amputation).
- To give the criminal a wake up call, allowing him to reflect on his actions and why they are wrong.
- To strengthen the (necessary?) feeling of justice in society.
- To give the victims revenge, thus stopping any cycles of offense and counter-offense.

If you subscribe to number two then of course you would answer "no" to all your questions.