• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Thursday Aug 14, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST. This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Philosophical crime and justice question...

MessiahDecoy123

Psychological Anarchist
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
25,516
Reaction score
4,483
Points
103
If someone did a string of terrible crimes (like serial killing or child molestation) and they get caught but have no memory of the crimes and they no longer have the motivation to harm others, is it wrong to still give this person a harsh punishment?

BTW - You can scientific prove they no longer remember their crimes and they no longer want to harm others.
 
There's actually a reason behind this question.

I can't reveal it until I've gottn more answers. :ninja:
 
I'm taking a wild guess that you're writing some kind of science fiction story, so I'll play along.

Do some reading on criminal sentencing theory. There are 6 main principles or reasons why we sentence criminals to punishment: 1) deterring the specific offender from committing the crime again; 2) to denounce the crime to the rest of society, and to discourage others from committing crime; 3) to physically separate offenders from society, for direct public safety; 4) rehabilitation; 5) to provide some kind of reparation to the direct or indirect victims of said crime; and 6) to promote a sense of responsibility in the offender.

The memory trick likely fulfills condition 1 and 4; 3 is arguably fulfilled as well. That still leaves 2, 5 and 6, and 2 and 5 in particular would be egregiously affected if the criminal was allowed to go free.
 
I saw a crime documentary thing where a high school girl tried to kill herself, and drove on the wrong side of the highway, killing a woman, her son, and unborn child. She apparently had no memory and was in a coma for a few weeks. She was sentenced to life in prison.

This is a tough question, as the victims do deserve justice. But at the same time the person you prosecute isn't the one who committed the crimes...no easy way to answer that.
 
I'm taking a wild guess that you're writing some kind of science fiction story, so I'll play along.

Do some reading on criminal sentencing theory. There are 6 main principles or reasons why we sentence criminals to punishment: 1) deterring the specific offender from committing the crime again; 2) to denounce the crime to the rest of society, and to discourage others from committing crime; 3) to physically separate offenders from society, for direct public safety; 4) rehabilitation; 5) to provide some kind of reparation to the direct or indirect victims of said crime; and 6) to promote a sense of responsibility in the offender.

The memory trick likely fulfills condition 1 and 4; 3 is arguably fulfilled as well. That still leaves 2, 5 and 6, and 2 and 5 in particular would be egregiously affected if the criminal was allowed to go free.

Hmm, interesting.

For the sake of simplicity I'm going to break down these principles into 3 major groups:

1) Rehab
2) Deterring others
3) Revenge

Number one? This isn't helpful since the person is no longer a threat to society.

Number two? This is a strong argument for keeping the person locked up. If memory wiping became common place there would be less deterent for certain, terrible crimes.

Number three? Well this is more subjective than the others. If someone rapes and tortures my best friend, I might not be satisfied until that criminal is also raped and murdered. Does that mean the state should fulfill my revenge fantasy? Where do you draw the line.

So ultimately the only strong argument against letting the mind wiped person go free is reason number two.

Thanks, for the answer. You really gave me some new things to consider.
 
I saw a crime documentary thing where a high school girl tried to kill herself, and drove on the wrong side of the highway, killing a woman, her son, and unborn child. She apparently had no memory and was in a coma for a few weeks. She was sentenced to life in prison.

This is a tough question, as the victims do deserve justice. But at the same time the person you prosecute isn't the one who committed the crimes...no easy way to answer that.

After hearing that story I kind of agree that a that person's punishment should serve as an example to others and give the victim's family a sense of justice (as long as it's reasonable).

Letting the girl go sends a terrible message to potential copy cats and the victim's family.
 
Okay so the real intent to this thread was to get some unbiased answers.

The real question is if reincarnation based on karma fair since we don't know what we've done wrong in our past lives.

If a serial killer is reincarnated into a starving child from a Third World country is that fair since the child has no memory of past wrong doings.

The replies show the answer is more complex than I might have thought.
 
well if there is no memory what so ever of the past life and what ever they did, how is it proven they are reincarnated?
 
This sounds like someone that watched too much Bates Motel :o
 
well if there is no memory what so ever of the past life and what ever they did, how is it proven they are reincarnated?

I'm trying to figure out if it makes sense. If it does I'll consider it when taking future actions.

But does it matter if people believe in reincarnation? Maybe that makes people too careful to truly build positive karma. You know, like being a model employee knowing human resources are doing evaluations that week.
 
I'm going too wait to see how Marvels' Civil War deals with it and bucky.

Than go from there.
 
This makes me think of an idea of a person committing these crimes and makes sure evidence mark toward his/her lookalike.


If manslaughter is punishable, sometimes by long term sentences, I doubt forgetting committing them excuses said person from committing these crimes.
And dude, who could forget constantly performing malicious acts?
 
I'm going too wait to see how Marvels' Civil War deals with it and bucky.

Than go from there.


I don't think Messiah's novel gives him the option of a post-credits appearance by Doctor Strange to magically reset continuity.
 
I don't think Messiah's novel gives him the option of a post-credits appearance by Doctor Strange to magically reset continuity.
They need Mephisto to do what Doc Strange is supposed to do first.
:oldrazz:
 
I think there is a mistake in assuming that the person becomes perfectly normal after memories are erased. The brain is a lot more complex than that, and personality traits wouldn't necessarily change because of no memories.

There was actually a Star Trek Voyager episode that addressed something more interesting. There was a psychopathic criminal who was injured and when he received medical treatment, the treatment fixed part of his brain, and formed a conscience. Do you still punish the guy now that he's capable of empathy?
 
I'm trying to figure out if it makes sense. If it does I'll consider it when taking future actions.
Religion? I'd better behave and be nice to others now - or it will effect me in my "future life".
Or, how about just behave and be nice to others now - because of how it affects others now.
?
 
Last edited:
You know what makes this thread funny coming at a time like this?
I was reading the old Stan Lee/John Romita/John Buscema/Jim Mooney/Gil Kane run on Spider-Man, and MD's question asks about Norman Osborn in those stories.
 
Religion? I'd better behave and be nice to others now - or it will effect me in my "future life".
Or, how about just behave and be nice to others now - because of how it affects others now.
?

I live by the golden rule but there's always the question, "should I be casually helpful or going-for-sainthood helpful". :gngl:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"