A Thought Provoking Question
Monday, September 10, 2007
A few days ago, while reading some posts on a forum, I suddenly thought of this question:
"If a person were to commit murder and then lose his memory before getting caught, should he be punished after he has been caught? What if he was allowed to be free and then remembered his past after a while, should he be punished now?"
Indeed, this isn't an easy question to answer, not even when the laws are in place. To analyse the first part of my question, I would say the person has clean forgotten his past and hence will be innocent, since he has no memory of what he has done before. But, one forumer wrote that his character still remains the same even though he has forgotten his memory, hence with that same character and personality, he is likely to commit murder again. Of course, one can argue that if you follow this belief, then a newborn child will always have the same personality and character throughout his life, so if he is deemed to be a violent child, then he should be executed or convicted, lest he commit any heinous crimes in the future. Going by this theory, it may seem harsh as you are not giving the child any chance to prove his innocence. Likewise, a murderer who has lost his memory of the incident can also be considered a 'newborn' in a sense, and hence he should not be killed to give him a chance. Of course this is the age-old "Nature vs Nurture" debate. So the law cannot step in and easily give a verdict without facing any backlash from the public, and thus it's back to square one. (Though I for one am inclined to the philosophy of nurture here and hence I believe that the person should be given a chance.)
Carrying this question further, I pose the question, "What if the person suddenly remembers the memory many years later, should be then be punished?" This is assuming that the person is let away free. Of course, the person who now remembers the past can easily deny remembering anything from the past and thus escape any conviction. But that is not the point of the argument. Here, the sides are again divided. First, it would indeed seem strange that a person were to be convicted many years after his crimes after he has remembered his past. The 'new lease of life that he has gotten' would then lack meaning because the time he lived was limited to when he could remember his past. So then, why let him live in the first place? Why give him a 'new lease of life' only to take it back years later? It would be unfair to the person to give a him 'life' and then take it back later. Who are we to determine his lifespan and play the role of God? Of course, the other argument is that he should be punished appropriately since he has full knowledge of his crimes in the past and hence should be duly punished. This argument is valid as well, because the person did indeed commit murder (or any other heinous acts of crime), and in the eyes of the Law, then he should be convicted.
We also have the debate between "Nature and Nurture". If one stood by the viewpoint of 'nurture', then one would believe that the person's character and personality would change as time passes, especially when he has lost his memory and has to learn everything from scratch again. Given different conditions, it is likely that he would turn out a different person than before he has committed the crime. If so, then the person should not be punished years later if he remembers the past because he has a totally different personality than before, barring his guilt and understanding that he has committed murder in the past. Of course in the eyes of the Law, this is different again. As it usually does not take into account "character and personality". (Correct me if I'm wrong on this.) Why do I say or assume so. The law is usually unyielding to such defenses because the evidence is not concrete and measurable. Hence the Law cannot accurately judge the person, hence it takes only concrete, measurable evidence into count and that would be the person's past. So either way, he should be punished accordingly then. Of course this is but one of the inaccuracies of the Law but going by the book then, he will be punished.
Thus, it's back to square one again of the argument. In reality, whichever stand one takes into this case, it just shows his inclination to the beliefs of "Nature vs Nurture" and his trust in the "Law". Who is right or wrong in this debate, perhaps only God knows.
"If a person were to commit murder and then lose his memory before getting caught, should he be punished after he has been caught? What if he was allowed to be free and then remembered his past after a while, should he be punished now?"
Indeed, this isn't an easy question to answer, not even when the laws are in place. To analyse the first part of my question, I would say the person has clean forgotten his past and hence will be innocent, since he has no memory of what he has done before. But, one forumer wrote that his character still remains the same even though he has forgotten his memory, hence with that same character and personality, he is likely to commit murder again. Of course, one can argue that if you follow this belief, then a newborn child will always have the same personality and character throughout his life, so if he is deemed to be a violent child, then he should be executed or convicted, lest he commit any heinous crimes in the future. Going by this theory, it may seem harsh as you are not giving the child any chance to prove his innocence. Likewise, a murderer who has lost his memory of the incident can also be considered a 'newborn' in a sense, and hence he should not be killed to give him a chance. Of course this is the age-old "Nature vs Nurture" debate. So the law cannot step in and easily give a verdict without facing any backlash from the public, and thus it's back to square one. (Though I for one am inclined to the philosophy of nurture here and hence I believe that the person should be given a chance.)
Carrying this question further, I pose the question, "What if the person suddenly remembers the memory many years later, should be then be punished?" This is assuming that the person is let away free. Of course, the person who now remembers the past can easily deny remembering anything from the past and thus escape any conviction. But that is not the point of the argument. Here, the sides are again divided. First, it would indeed seem strange that a person were to be convicted many years after his crimes after he has remembered his past. The 'new lease of life that he has gotten' would then lack meaning because the time he lived was limited to when he could remember his past. So then, why let him live in the first place? Why give him a 'new lease of life' only to take it back years later? It would be unfair to the person to give a him 'life' and then take it back later. Who are we to determine his lifespan and play the role of God? Of course, the other argument is that he should be punished appropriately since he has full knowledge of his crimes in the past and hence should be duly punished. This argument is valid as well, because the person did indeed commit murder (or any other heinous acts of crime), and in the eyes of the Law, then he should be convicted.
We also have the debate between "Nature and Nurture". If one stood by the viewpoint of 'nurture', then one would believe that the person's character and personality would change as time passes, especially when he has lost his memory and has to learn everything from scratch again. Given different conditions, it is likely that he would turn out a different person than before he has committed the crime. If so, then the person should not be punished years later if he remembers the past because he has a totally different personality than before, barring his guilt and understanding that he has committed murder in the past. Of course in the eyes of the Law, this is different again. As it usually does not take into account "character and personality". (Correct me if I'm wrong on this.) Why do I say or assume so. The law is usually unyielding to such defenses because the evidence is not concrete and measurable. Hence the Law cannot accurately judge the person, hence it takes only concrete, measurable evidence into count and that would be the person's past. So either way, he should be punished accordingly then. Of course this is but one of the inaccuracies of the Law but going by the book then, he will be punished.
Thus, it's back to square one again of the argument. In reality, whichever stand one takes into this case, it just shows his inclination to the beliefs of "Nature vs Nurture" and his trust in the "Law". Who is right or wrong in this debate, perhaps only God knows.
Labels: Musings
|| posted by Kuan Hui[top]