[DRAFT] Things better off forgotten...

[Carravere]

[The Issue] Recently, a Mr. @@malerandomname@@ was put on trial for murder, and for a crime he most definitely did commit, saying that there were multiple eye witnesses who claimed to see him kill his innocent victim, and even a security camera tape of the incident. But, Mr. @@malerandomname@@ claims his innocence for one reason- he does not remember ever doing the crime.

[The Debate]
Option 1: "This is absurd!", cries the distraught family member of the victim, tissues in hand. "Just because he doesn't remember the crime doesn't mean he didnt commit it! You simply cant accept the plea of amnesia for any crime whatsoever!"

Option 2: The judge of this rather strange case asks for just a bit of your time, telling you, "Well, it would make sense for us to let this man go. After all, if he doesn't remember doing the crime, it isnt likely he will repeat his actions."

Option 3: "I'm not saying he isnt guilty.", your Misister of Second Chances starts out, "But maybe we just let him off with a little warning, and give him a second chance. I'm sure he'll be a good little member of society once this is all over."

[The Results]
Option 1: Sleepwalking kids "disturbing the peace" are given a steep fine.

Option 2: Criminals no longer plead insanity, they lead Amnesia.

Option 3: Triple murderers are let off with just a friendly warning.

[Australian rePublic]

I'm sorry, I'm really sorry, but man lies in court is not an issue for leader, even though the judge in option is an idiot

[Ko-oren]

I can see where you want to go with this issue and it's definitely interesting. The problem is that you need quite a bit of 'objective' information (the man has amnesia, the man did commit the crime, the man forgot that he did it), and most issues don't work that way. A lot of issues work with untruthful narrators, incomplete stories, that you yourself have to fill in and decide on. With this issue, it's hardly possible to convince people of the premise and then make a decision assuming all information they have is correct. Again, I love the premise, but I feel it's more of a movie rather than an issue that people can internalise and decide within a few minutes.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

There's an issue here, but it's not well constructed. As Aussie says, this currently sounds like it lies in the remit of the courts to decide. That's not an absolute thing though - if you can present a clear moral dilemma that the courts need government guidance on, then it becomes a government issue.

The largest problem here is that the specifics of the case are absent from the opening description -- amnesia from psychiatric fugue states is somewhat different from loss of memory from too much alcohol at the time of the crimes being committed, and both are different from loss of memory from a head trauma suffered after the crime. There's also more potential with the idea of an AI citizen having memories deleted, and what self means, but that may overlap with other recent issues.

I'd suggest focusing in instead on the idea of whether you are morally responsible for a crime that you have no memory of. That is, can you punish someone for something they did in a life they don't remember?

I'd suggest a wanted murderer be tracked down by the police, but have them find him because he's in hospital after a massive car accident and head trauma, which has given him near medically-confirmed complete retrograde amnesia. This eliminates the argument of diminished responsibility at time of the crimes, and instead focuses on the question of whether the person you have arrested is the person who committed the crime by virtue of the physical person being the same, or whether the discontinuity in consciousness makes them a new entity.

Then you've got simple options:

1) This man can't be culpable for crimes committed by who he was in what is effectively another life. His memories are absent, and his personality has changed, he's as gentle and compassionate as anyone now.
2) It's about punishment, and the harm he's done. He has to pay for his crimes, even if he doesn't remember them. His victims are still dead, after all.
3) He should be rehabilitated until he becomes his former self, then prosecuted at that time. Until then, keep him under close watch.
4) Some crazy option.

[Australian rePublic]

There's an issue here, but it's not well constructed. As Aussie says, this currently sounds like it lies in the remit of the courts to decide. That's not an absolute thing though - if you can present a clear moral dilemma that the courts need government guidance on, then it becomes a government issue.

The largest problem here is that the specifics of the case are absent from the opening description -- amnesia from psychiatric fugue states is somewhat different from loss of memory from too much alcohol at the time of the crimes being committed, and both are different from loss of memory from a head trauma suffered after the crime. There's also more potential with the idea of an AI citizen having memories deleted, and what self means, but that may overlap with other recent issues.

I'd suggest focusing in instead on the idea of whether you are morally responsible for a crime that you have no memory of. That is, can you punish someone for something they did in a life they don't remember?

I'd suggest a wanted murderer be tracked down by the police, but have them find him because he's in hospital after a massive car accident and head trauma, which has given him near medically-confirmed complete retrograde amnesia. This eliminates the argument of diminished responsibility at time of the crimes, and instead focuses on the question of whether the person you have arrested is the person who committed the crime by virtue of the physical person being the same, or whether the discontinuity in consciousness makes them a new entity.

Then you've got simple options:

1) This man can't be culpable for crimes committed by who he was in what is effectively another life. His memories are absent, and his personality has changed, he's as gentle and compassionate as anyone now.
2) It's about punishment, and the harm he's done. He has to pay for his crimes, even if he doesn't remember them. His victims are still dead, after all.
3) He should be rehabilitated until he becomes his former self, then prosecuted at that time. Until then, keep him under close watch.
4) Some crazy option.

Don't people eventually recover from amnesia? He could remember the crime on the day after the court case case. What if, instead, he had dimentia or comitted the crime whilst sleepwalking, or something like that

[Tadreodal]

There's an issue here, but it's not well constructed. As Aussie says, this currently sounds like it lies in the remit of the courts to decide. That's not an absolute thing though - if you can present a clear moral dilemma that the courts need government guidance on, then it becomes a government issue.

The largest problem here is that the specifics of the case are absent from the opening description -- amnesia from psychiatric fugue states is somewhat different from loss of memory from too much alcohol at the time of the crimes being committed, and both are different from loss of memory from a head trauma suffered after the crime. There's also more potential with the idea of an AI citizen having memories deleted, and what self means, but that may overlap with other recent issues.

I'd suggest focusing in instead on the idea of whether you are morally responsible for a crime that you have no memory of. That is, can you punish someone for something they did in a life they don't remember?

I'd suggest a wanted murderer be tracked down by the police, but have them find him because he's in hospital after a massive car accident and head trauma, which has given him near medically-confirmed complete retrograde amnesia. This eliminates the argument of diminished responsibility at time of the crimes, and instead focuses on the question of whether the person you have arrested is the person who committed the crime by virtue of the physical person being the same, or whether the discontinuity in consciousness makes them a new entity.

Then you've got simple options:

1) This man can't be culpable for crimes committed by who he was in what is effectively another life. His memories are absent, and his personality has changed, he's as gentle and compassionate as anyone now.
2) It's about punishment, and the harm he's done. He has to pay for his crimes, even if he doesn't remember them. His victims are still dead, after all.
3) He should be rehabilitated until he becomes his former self, then prosecuted at that time. Until then, keep him under close watch.
4) Some crazy option.

Throwing out an idea: the crazy option could be to ban cars because of the risk of people getting into such accidents and losing their memory