Penguin
2003-08-31, 06:00 PM
Here's the scenario. A man kills someone and while leaving the scene he gets in a bad car crash. He falls into a deep coma.
The guy wakes up 4 months later but his memory of the murder is gone. He does not remember anything he did in the last say... year. (Now, dont say hes obviously lying but think of it that he ACTULLY DID) Now, the scientists (Lets say they could and this is in the future) perform tests on him and determine he did in fact lose all memory from the past year, including the entire crime.
If the man did not fall into a coma he would of probably been executed, but he does not remember doing it. When they tell him he did it, he cannot believe it and he knows he would never do such a horrible thing ever. What should the police do at this point? Execute him just the same?
Heres some things to think about -.-
Why is it ok for the police to try the man after he wakes up from the coma but they refuse to try him While he in the coma. It is the same thing because either way he knows he did not do it. Even though he did do it before the coma.
Is he considered dead right after his memory erased?
What about the victims family?
Now lets say that after they tell him what he did do before the coma, the guy does not remember doing it and he would never do it, but he does believe the police because they have photos and videos against him and he knows he was in a coma. He still doesnt remember or know he did it, he thinks it is a horrible crime but after viewing evidence he found out he did it before the coma.
Or lets say that you say well he cant be guilty. What if after they determine that he cannot be tried, his memory comes back to him 2 years later? Should he THEN be executed?
Now, for this to even work, you cant just think in your head "Hes obviously lying to get off execution". Lets say he WAS TESTED BY SCIENTISTS or whatever and it is proven without a doubt that he DID NOT REMEMBER.
Opinions/comments ? It has me thinking a lot...
The guy wakes up 4 months later but his memory of the murder is gone. He does not remember anything he did in the last say... year. (Now, dont say hes obviously lying but think of it that he ACTULLY DID) Now, the scientists (Lets say they could and this is in the future) perform tests on him and determine he did in fact lose all memory from the past year, including the entire crime.
If the man did not fall into a coma he would of probably been executed, but he does not remember doing it. When they tell him he did it, he cannot believe it and he knows he would never do such a horrible thing ever. What should the police do at this point? Execute him just the same?
Heres some things to think about -.-
Why is it ok for the police to try the man after he wakes up from the coma but they refuse to try him While he in the coma. It is the same thing because either way he knows he did not do it. Even though he did do it before the coma.
Is he considered dead right after his memory erased?
What about the victims family?
Now lets say that after they tell him what he did do before the coma, the guy does not remember doing it and he would never do it, but he does believe the police because they have photos and videos against him and he knows he was in a coma. He still doesnt remember or know he did it, he thinks it is a horrible crime but after viewing evidence he found out he did it before the coma.
Or lets say that you say well he cant be guilty. What if after they determine that he cannot be tried, his memory comes back to him 2 years later? Should he THEN be executed?
Now, for this to even work, you cant just think in your head "Hes obviously lying to get off execution". Lets say he WAS TESTED BY SCIENTISTS or whatever and it is proven without a doubt that he DID NOT REMEMBER.
Opinions/comments ? It has me thinking a lot...