I've always been fascinated by memory, especially amnesia. There are so many aspects of it, all fascinatingly documented - married couples, one of whom has forgotten their courtship and wedding, worst perhaps, a mother who has no memory of her children.

Then too, existential questions of immortality in whatever form. How could we persist in whatever immaterial form, if we forget our very selves while still living?

And morality - crime and punishment? If we justify capital punishment as retribution, what purpose does it serve if the criminal has no recollection of committing the crime, much less that s/he is to be terminated? Or (to extrapolate to speculations about why we DO execute), are we doing justice to families of victims - in which case, it doesn't matter if the perpetrator is effectively "emptied"?

Can a murderer be considered guilty if his mind has been effectively erased of the murder? Can we figure we're ridding society of the on-going risk posed by the "essence" of the criminal (especially if a violent crime) as demonstrated by their former commission, regardless of their cognizance of committing it?

This recent instance, was resolved by the criminal's having his execution cancelled because of strokes and dementia occurring long after his crime and sentencing. Not only this story but overall, how do you regard punishment imposed when a once competent defendent becomes incompetent? For that matter (this has also troubled me considerably), what about a criminal once declared incompetent - for example, because of severe mental illness - who because of treatment, is later declared competent to stand trial?

All ruminations about any aspect of lost/regained memory and moral issues welcomed.

Alabama reconsiders execution of murderer

PS Issues of whether or not capital punishment is ever justified, exempted from consideration.

Anmanda, have you seen the movie "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"? It ties fairly directly to the questions you're raising. The movie takes place in the near future, where people can selectively erase portions of their memory they find distasteful, sad, or upsetting.

If you haven't seen it, I would recommend it. It's one of my faves.

As to the questions posed in your thread, I'd have to think about it. The purpose of incarceration, at least on paper, is twofold: punishment and rehabilitation. I think it *might* still hold, except in cases of extreme dementia. I mean, there was something in the person's world view that allowed them to commit a crime, and that world view is not necessarily changed due to dementia. (Though, tbh, there's so much we don't know about the extent of dementia, and we all know of cases where the afflicted individual has lost all sense of self.) I think it's possible to punish and rehabilitate someone in the early stages of dementia. I think. But some of the more dramatic amnesia cases have occurred due to some sort of organic problem (such as a brain tumor), so I'm not sure how that applies. Speaking hypothetically, if I shot and killed someone but later had an accident that made me a paraplegic and unable to hold or shoot a gun, should I get out of prison?

Alabama is notorious. There recently has been another controversial case besides Madison: Doyle Hamm. He'd been on death row for over 30 years and sometime in the past 5 years fell ill with cancer; the treatments destoyed his veins. A passing acquaintance (he's is the brother-in-law of my recently deceased boss; I've enjoyed dinner in his company a few times) represented Hamm in court and has written about the case. Bernard has written quite a bit about punishment which you might find interesting, Amanda. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Harcourt )

https://www.law.columbia.edu/n...abama-doyle-lee-hamm

Bernard:
In this case, it seems Alabama "saw the light" in a sensible/merciful reconsideration of this man's situation.

About the one who was (I'd call it that too) tortured by a botched execution of an inmate who'd lost access to his veins after cancer treatment - not so.

How strange our society's standards are, really - to treat (at who knows what expense?) a criminal for cancer over a period of 30 years, only to ready him for execution! I mean, really, where's the sanity both for the inmate and society? Only perhaps the family of the victim would be satisfied.

Reminds me, that not long ago a murderer was (after another very long wait - he was 70 when he was a executed) killed by chemical injection. I was struck by the killing agent having been a single dose of phenobarbital. Witnesses said he coughed a few times, began to snore and was dead within minutes.

Why then is there so much controversy between states about what chemicals to use (some being so unpredictable in efficacy)? Unless the goal IS to inflict both pain as well as death, why don't they all use such a simple and effective drug? (Of course, an overdose of heroin would also be effective but perhaps be regarded as TOO pleasurable. Even with the phenobarb, surviving family of his victims complained it was too easy especially considering how he had killed them.)

I don't see much difference between the excruciating ways of executing convicts and sicking [sic?] lions on them or the guillotine. So much of the death penalty is psychological, after all (the guillotine is supposed to be physically painless.)

(Bernard Harcourt sounds like an intriguing thinker, especially because he has explored issues os special interest to me. Thanks!)

Nina,

You seem to be exploring many of the same issues I am, and reaching just as few satisfying conclusions.

The movie sounds great! All the greater if it's been out for a while, and is available online. (I hate to shell out so much just for novelty, to see fresh out movies in the theatre - besides which the popcorn smell tempts me!).

Amanda--it's an older movie. I'm pretty sure you'll find it on Netflix, or Amazon Prime or whatever.

Just do away with the whole grisly process. It's beyond the limits of our justice system, horrible to those who have to participate. It's beneath us anyway.