Guilt

[Hollowghoul]

Do you think that someone could still be held responsible for whatever evil thing he has done even if he can not physically remember it, for example because he suffered brain damage?

[Rkolter]

Do you think that someone could still be held responsible for whatever evil thing he has done even if he can not physically remember it, for example because he suffered brain damage?

Sure. The fact that you no longer remember having done such a thing does not mean that it didn't in fact happen. He might be given a chance to atone however, as opposed to simple punishment, if he truely wasn't the person he once was, if it was up to me.

Read your comic regularly... just what are you saying here?

[Warren]

Maybe the brain damage is his punishment.

[CaptainClaude]

is this act putting your banner in every post you make rather than in your sig?

Because I totally blame you for that.

[Warren]

If you give him brain damage, it isn't his fault!

[CaptainClaude]

I'll brain him, does that count?

[Jeffy]

is this act putting your banner in every post you make rather than in your sig?

Because I totally blame you for that.

SNAAAAAAP!

[Keffria]

In spite of its remarkable prevalence in soap operas and anime and the like, Convenient Memory Loss doesn't excuse you from anything.

[MixedMyth]

Why do I have a sudden urge to go watch Momento again?

[Jeffy]

are you asking because you... forgot? *GASP*

[Dr Legostar]

not remembering having done something absolves you of your own feelings of guilt, as you'd have to remember it to feel guilty. It does not however absolve you of actual guilt of the crime and responsibility for your actions remembered or not. Now the question is, do you not remember it or is someone trying to pin it on you?

[BOMC]

Depends on what you did and how drunk you were

[MixedMyth]

Along with the stool pigeon and the scapegoat, perhaps we need a new avitar of guilt- the amnesia weasel!

[BOMC]

Along with the stool pigeon and the scapegoat, perhaps we need a new avitar of guilt- the amnesia weasel!

Now I have the best image in my head of a very confused looking weasel.... so cute!

[Warren]

"I have no recollection of how the dead hookers got in my trunk, your honor."

See? It works!

[Jim North]

What should I do if I do remember how the dead hookers got in my trunk?

I'm just . . . asking hypothetically, of course.

[McDuffies]

I guess you'd have to consider more strictly what you think by "responsible". What is the point of legal penalty? Actually, all of the below:
-Punishment for the one who commited the crime. A kind of pay up for sins.
-Reforming of the one who commited the crime. Stopping him from commiting it again.
-Keeping the social balance. By having a knowlegde that criminals are being punished, less people are inclined to commit crimes.

Now, I suppose you suggest that the one who lost memory has changed his personality from "evil" to "good" too (let's say for the sake of discussion that there are such categories as pure good and pure evil). That he is now a different man. In that case, the reforming part is not neccesary. However, I don't think that society is concerned over one man's change, so for keeping the social balance, he still has to be held responsible. And as for the first reason: materially, he still did commit the crime. Loss of memory doesn't change that.

That is all if we suppose that he changed as a person. However, I don't think that one's memory loss can change him as a person. I am not very inclined to believe in stories like "Regarding Henry" one, where a person, upon the memory loss, develops into a different, better man. We are unfortunately trapped with our drawbacks and, realising them or not, trying to fight them or not, we can never hope that they can be sweeped away as if by hand. Thus the reforming part is debatable too.

Well, at the end, to someone who commited the crime but doesn't remember him, imprisonong can seem very unfair and anyone can respect that feeling. However, life is often not so fair and here, we are dealing with one man's perspective against the perspective of many other men, some of whom might be hurt by the "evil" thing that he did.

Either that, or I'm secretly conservative.

[Tehdugz]

Do you think that someone could still be held responsible for whatever evil thing he has done even if he can not physically remember it, for example because he suffered brain damage?

good question, in the eyes of the beholder he has done nothing wrong because he cant remember it - yet in the eyes of the population he has still done something wrong because he is the same person. - That kind of theory though could be applied to mass murderers who believe what they are doing is justified and correct, they believe what they are doing is right - yet everyone else doesn't qutie share that view. An interesting concept no?

[CorpAmis]

Well If the brain damamge is because you were drunk...You are at fault....

[BookOfEwan]

It depends on the punishment, on what he did, why he did it in the first place, if he still holds the opinions that caused him to do what ever he did before, if he is even able to become the same person he was again etc. Sorry, but there are still to many varibles there for a yes or no answer to be given easily.

But I will say that "An eye for an eye" kind of punishment system never really sat very well with me.