Coma Patient Dilemma

[Rye]

I just thought about this now while talking about neighbours with someone online...

What if some convicted criminal had an accident, and went into a coma, and, through brain damage, the person who came out the other end was completely different and had no concept of their prior crimes? Would it still be fair to jail him?

[Nick Lancaster]

In Texas, they'd fucking execute him. They did this to a woman who had a jail-cell conversion, so the next time an evangelical Christian tells you to accept Christ as your personal savior, remind them that Texas doesn't give a shit.

(Sadly, I cannot recall the name of the woman, or whether it was while George W. Bush was still Governor.)

[Firefox]

Carla Faye Tucker.

[Kuja]

Carla Faye Tucker.

Inapplicable to the thread.

What if some convicted criminal had an accident, and went into a coma, and, through brain damage, the person who came out the other end was completely different and had no concept of their prior crimes? Would it still be fair to jail him?

Note bolded.

They did this to a woman who had a jail-cell conversion, so the next time an evangelical Christian tells you to accept Christ as your personal savior, remind them that Texas doesn't give a shit.

Nor should they, or simply claiming to be born again would be, in effect, a big Get Out of Jail Free Card.

[Firefox]

Inapplicable to the thread.

In Texas, they'd fucking execute him. They did this to a woman who had a jail-cell conversion, so the next time an evangelical Christian tells you to accept Christ as your personal savior, remind them that Texas doesn't give a shit.

(Sadly, I cannot recall the name of the woman, or whether it was while George W. Bush was still Governor.)

[Kuja]

(Sadly, I cannot recall the name of the woman, or whether it was while George W. Bush was still Governor.)

I wasn't trying to wring your neck dude, just commenting on her inapplicableness.

[Firefox]

Ahh, duly noted.

[RedImperator]

Tricky legal dilemma, though not, in my opinion, a difficult ethical one. If the brain damage completely erased the former personality, then the person who committed the crime is, for all intents and purposes, already dead.

[Morilore]

Depends on what the objective of the justice system is supposed to be. Are you trying to ensure that the convict is no longer a threat to society? If that is the case, how do you verify the completeness of the personality conversion? Are you trying to make criminals "pay a debt"? If that is the case, are there any legal precedents for, say, and individual having such a conversion being exempted from legal debts? If a person's mind is completely wiped and rewritten, is it the same person? I have trouble with this question because frankly, if you want to make criminals "pay their debt to society," labor camps make more sense than prisons.

[Firefox]

If the brain damage completely erased the former personality, then the person who committed the crime is, for all intents and purposes, already dead.

How would it be possible to ascertain this to the extent of satisfying the law? A psychological evaluation?

[RedImperator]

If the brain damage completely erased the former personality, then the person who committed the crime is, for all intents and purposes, already dead.

How would it be possible to ascertain this to the extent of satisfying the law? A psychological evaluation?

Beats me. That's why I said it was an easy moral question but a difficult legal one. The OP states that the transformation is complete, but there's no way to prove that to the rest of the world.

[Queeb Salaron]

How would it be possible to ascertain this to the extent of satisfying the law? A psychological evaluation?

Yep. Expert witnesses who, over a period of time, evaluate both case files concerning the personality of the person before the crime was committed, and the post-coma person. Problem is, both sides will hire professional psychiatrists to analyze a given case, so you might have two professionals saying different things, which would effectively render either testimony useless (or at least ineffective).

And you don't have to satisfy the law to win that case. You just have to satisfy a jury. Defense tactic: Let the defendant take the stand and plead his/her case. If the jury can identify with a sympathetic post-coma defendant, he/she is likely to go free.

[Solauren]

I agree with Red Imperator. It's not the same person anymore, the former criminal is dead.

What the OP suggests is the organic approximation of a switching a computer from one operating system brand (i.e Windows) to another unlreated one (i.e Unix)

Completely new system results.

The best way to handle it legally is a monitoring period, including psychological evalutation including stuff like hypnosis, lie detectors, an anything else you can, treating the criminal personality like a second split personality. Make sure it's gone, and then monitor to make sure it doesn't come back/become dominate.

If it ever does, well, sucks to be in that body

[WyrdNyrd]

not that this is (strictly) relevant, but is this even possible?

What the OP suggests is the organic approximation of a switching a computer from one operating system brand (i.e Windows) to another unlreated one (i.e Unix)

The key here is "switching", replacing the old personality with a new one. Just where did the "new" personality come from? Did someone just come by with the equivalent of a Red Hat install CD?

"Personality" is (at least partly) an amalgamation of the person's memories. The only way to truly "wipe" the old personality is to erase all memories, which leaves you with a "blank slate", i.e. the mind of a new-born.

And no jury or judge is likely to order the execution of a (mental) baby.

After the wipe, you can then re-educate the person, and that will leave you with a new personality. But that will take years.

[Solauren]

There are forms of amesia that leave you with basic skills and knowledge, but no memories.

Like a computer reinstall
all the files are gone, but the computer still works

[Rye]

not that this is (strictly) relevant, but is this even possible?

I don't see why not, there are strokes that can completely change a personality, there's various ways of getting amnesia, hell, you can even split a brain in half and get 2 seperate minds, it's a safe bet that there's a potential form of brain damage that would produce a new person, for all intents and purposes.

The key here is "switching", replacing the old personality with a new one. Just where did the "new" personality come from? Did someone just come by with the equivalent of a Red Hat install CD?

Personalities and consciousness are emergent properties of the brain. Fuck with the brain enough and I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. Put them in a coma, give them personality-changing brain damage (like strokes), give them a severe form of amnesia, and you'll get a different personality arising from that brain.

"Personality" is (at least partly) an amalgamation of the person's memories. The only way to truly "wipe" the old personality is to erase all memories, which leaves you with a "blank slate", i.e. the mind of a new-born.

No, that's a black/white fallacy. If two people had access to the same memories, for instance, how to speak, that would not make them have the same personality.

[That NOS Guy]

I recall a story out of my Senior Year Psychology book about a railroad worker who had a spike go through his head, he survived oddly enough but his attitudes and mannerisms suffered a direct 180 as a result.

He still had his memories and the like but was a completely different person.

[Mobiboros]

I just thought about this now while talking about neighbours with someone online...

What if some convicted criminal had an accident, and went into a coma, and, through brain damage, the person who came out the other end was completely different and had no concept of their prior crimes? Would it still be fair to jail him?

So the person has alrady been convicted of the crime and is in prison serving the sentence when this accident occurs?

Chances are they wouldn't continue to serve their sentence, they'd be remanded to a psych facility for monitoring. Amnesia and brain damage victims rarely come out of things 'just fine'. They'd likley serve out the rest of their sentence in the care of doctors.

However, assuming they are 'just fine', they are already serving the sentence so they'd need to appeal the original guilty verdict. Which will be a lengthy process anyway. They might be able to get a parole hearing, based on the radical shift in personality (which is why you can get your sentenced reduced for good behavior.).

Determining the extent of the personality change would probably mean option 1 however. Lengthy stay in a mental health care facility under observation.

To answer the question. I really want to get all philosophical on it and say that it wouldn't be fair to jail them anymore. To say they are a new person and deserve to be set free. But I can't. Part of imprisonment is vengeance on the criminal, and the person did commit the crime regardless of whether or not they don't recall it now. It sets a bad precedent to say that lack of memory of a crime absolves you of the crime. I don't want to think of the implications of an "I don't recall" defense.

[Morilore]

Part of imprisonment is vengeance on the criminal, and the person did commit the crime regardless of whether or not they don't recall it now. It sets a bad precedent to say that lack of memory of a crime absolves you of the crime. I don't want to think of the implications of an "I don't recall" defense.

See, that's why I don't like vengeance, as a concept.

[RedImperator]

To answer the question. I really want to get all philosophical on it and say that it wouldn't be fair to jail them anymore. To say they are a new person and deserve to be set free. But I can't. Part of imprisonment is vengeance on the criminal, and the person did commit the crime regardless of whether or not they don't recall it now. It sets a bad precedent to say that lack of memory of a crime absolves you of the crime. I don't want to think of the implications of an "I don't recall" defense.

It's more than just lack of memory, though. The entire personality that committed the crime is wiped out. He can't be punished anymore because he's already dead.

There is continunity of the body, but the fact that the body that comitted the act is still alive isn't relevant, or else insanity isn't a valid defense. From a philosophical standpoint, we have is an entirely new person who came to life one morning in the former body of a convicted criminal. Keeping him in prison would be the same as transplanting a law-abiding citizen's brain into a criminal's body and then imprisoning him for the criminal's acts.

[Mobiboros]

It's more than just lack of memory, though. The entire personality that committed the crime is wiped out. He can't be punished anymore because he's already dead.

No, he's not. There is a shift in the persons personality. It may be a marked shift, even a complete one. but the person never ceases mental functions. The brain is running, albeit changed. There is no 'death', except as a existential argument in this case. For all intents and purposes, this is just an extreme form of amnesia due to brain damage.

There is continunity of the body, but the fact that the body that comitted the act is still alive isn't relevant, or else insanity isn't a valid defense. From a philosophical standpoint, we have is an entirely new person who came to life one morning in the former body of a convicted criminal.

Most people misunderstand insanity as a defense. When you plead insanity, you don't get off. You are remanded into a mental health facility. When you plead insanity you are being legally defined as unable to determine right and wrong and not responsible for your actions. You are then remanded to a facility for study and evaluation and after that, if you are released you lose many rights (the ability to vote or own firearms for example). In addition, 'insanity' is purely a legal term and not a psychological one. Psychologically this person would be diagnosed as acute amnesia brought on by damage to the brain.

I disagree that from all philosophical standpoints that this is an entirely new person. As I said, I don't feel this is a different person. It's simply a person who has no recollection of the crime.

Keeping him in prison would be the same as transplanting a law-abiding citizen's brain into a criminal's body and then imprisoning him for the criminal's acts.

No, it's not the same at all. There is a transference of body mass (the brain), which is also where the 'mind' is reposited. Your example is of a person being convicted for a crime they didn't commit. The OP is an example of a person serving a sentence for a crime they DID commit but cannot recall anymore.

[Nick Lancaster]

The Texas execution case was brought up because despite a 'conversion' to a new person, a newfound belief and value structure, her sentence was upheld. Testimonials to the effect of her salvation and her character were given little, if any, credence.

Similarly, our theoretical coma patient has undergone a similar shift in personality, with the only difference an inability to recall their prior existence. Expert testimony would have to be presented (if the defense did not, the prosecution most likely would) establishing the parameters of brain damage in relation to personality, and the clinical possibilities of inadvertent recall.

Carla Tucker made a conscious choice; our theoretical coma patient did not, yet you seem to be suggesting that the involuntary choice is also inviolable and cannot be revoked. Yet, in questions of faith, knowing the path one has walked in the past is often critical in guiding one's steps in the future. It's a question of growth.

With our theoretical coma patient, there is no conscious process. It could even be argued that, should the patient begin a gradual deterioration towards their original self, that they might not notice - having 'forgotten' the benchmark, as it were.

Texas would probably still execute 'em.

[Firefox]

Well, they are the state that executes mentally disabled convicts.

"Go sit on Santa's lap!" *zap*

[Mayabird]

I recall a story out of my Senior Year Psychology book about a railroad worker who had a spike go through his head, he survived oddly enough but his attitudes and mannerisms suffered a direct 180 as a result.

He still had his memories and the like but was a completely different person.

Phineas Gage. A chunk of his frontal lobe was knocked out, IIRC. It's not the area that deals with memory, so he kept all his memories, but he went from a friendly family man to a brawler with no self-control or ability to think about the consequences of his actions.

Also when invoking Carla Tucker, don't you think that she might have claimed some big conversion to Jesus so she could save her worthless ax-murdering hide? It's easy to fake your emotions - it's called acting, and many people get paid lots of money to do it. I had no sympathy for her and her "conversion."

[Nick Lancaster]

Also when invoking Carla Tucker, don't you think that she might have claimed some big conversion to Jesus so she could save her worthless ax-murdering hide? It's easy to fake your emotions - it's called acting, and many people get paid lots of money to do it. I had no sympathy for her and her "conversion."

It's entirely possible, but doesn't that put Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson in the 'guillble morons' category? (I'm actually of a mind that George W. Bush's 'magic moment' is equally fraudulent, having been done for political/personal gain, and nothing to do with God.)

And can a similar acting job account for the supposed absence of memories?