Religious/legal unique situation (1 Viewer)

[IC FBGCav]

This is hypothetical of course.

An adult male in his 30’s is the total scum of the earth, we will call him Joey. He stalks and preys on young kids. He rapes and murders them and he enjoys it more and more each time and has zero remorse. After finishing his 17th kill he decides to find another victim because he had so much fun. Joey heads to the local elementary school and a soon as he heads towards the playground he spots his next victim and starts to get very excited when BAM!……..Joey was so excited he did not see the stop sign and was T-boned by a school bus.

After 6 months in a coma with a serious brain injury Joey awakes. His memory is totally erased and his personality totally changes. He lives out his life with his wife and kids with no memory of what he did before. He is an upstanding member of the community and overall good person from the accident on. Since he has no memory of his sins he has never asked for forgiveness.

Joey going to heaven or hell?

Is our soul detached from our memories?

On the legal side, let say years later they DNA match Joey to the rape and murders. Do you prosecute? Is he legally responsible for the murders?

 

[joffer]

This is hypothetical of course.

An adult male in his 30’s is the total scum of the earth, we will call him Joey. He stalks and preys on young kids. He rapes and murders them and he enjoys it more and more each time and has zero remorse. After finishing his 17th kill he decides to find another victim because he had so much fun. Joey heads to the local elementary school and a soon as he heads towards the playground he spots his next victim and starts to get very excited when BAM!……..Joey was so excited he did not see the stop sign and was T-boned by a school bus.

After 6 months in a coma with a serious brain injury Joey awakes. His memory is totally erased and his personality totally changes. He lives out his life with his wife and kids with no memory of what he did before. He is an upstanding member of the community and overall good person from the accident on. Since he has no memory of his sins he has never asked for forgiveness.

Joey going to heaven or hell?

Is our soul detached from our memories?

On the legal side, let say years later they DNA match Joey to the rape and murders. Do you prosecute? Is he legally responsible for the murders?

yes

 

[mr roboto]

The first set of questions - those heinous crimes aren't his only sins

The second set of questions - yes, he's still getting prosecuted. No one would really believe him that he 'changed'.

 

[Cjw_55106]

I dont believe you need to ask forgiveness for your specific sins. A general "I am a sinner" acknowledgement should be suffice.

Of course he would still be held accountable for the crimes he committed.

 

[Exit 1]

Depends. Is he a grinner, a winner....a midnight chicken dinner?

 

[matuski]

Was he texting when the bus hit him?

 

[timschochet]

Hey there Joey, you really don't fool me

You get away with murder and you think it's funny

You don't give a damn if you live or if you die

Hey there Joey boy I hope you fry

 

[IC FBGCav]

For the sake of argument let say everyone knows and is 100% sure he has no recollection of doing anything before the bus accident.

 

[McGarnicle]

Was it Joey Lawrence?

 

[Dan Lambskin]

Joey I'm not angry anymore

 

[The Commish]

To the first, it depends on his relationship with God and what's in his heart. It's really not answerable by any of us. To the second question, he should absolutely be prosecuted.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

For the sake of argument let say everyone knows and is 100% sure he has no recollection of doing anything before the bus accident.

I don't this assumption changes anything, either for legal or religious purposes. If he accepts Christ and does whatever else is necessary under whatever Christian sect he has chosen, I expect most Christians agree he would be welcomed into eternal bliss regardless of his memory of the sins. Similarly, he's legally responsible for crimes he committed regardless of his memory of them or what transpired after.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

For the sake of argument let say everyone knows and is 100% sure he has no recollection of doing anything before the bus accident.

I don't this assumption changes anything, either for legal or religious purposes. If he accepts Christ and does whatever else is necessary under whatever Christian sect he has chosen, I expect most Christians agree he would be welcomed into eternal bliss regardless of his memory of the sins. Similarly, he's legally responsible for crimes he committed regardless of his memory of them or what transpired after.

I think it might be considered as a mitigating factor if the death penalty were in play.

I had the same reaction with regard to criminal responsibility, but let's tweak the hypo a bit. Let's say that the defense attorney argues that because the accident completely altered the accused's personality, that this guy is literally no longer the person who committed the crimes. Now, I doubt a jury would buy that, but let's assume that its a possibility. Should the judge let that argument be made to the jury as a matter of law?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

For the sake of argument let say everyone knows and is 100% sure he has no recollection of doing anything before the bus accident.

I don't this assumption changes anything, either for legal or religious purposes. If he accepts Christ and does whatever else is necessary under whatever Christian sect he has chosen, I expect most Christians agree he would be welcomed into eternal bliss regardless of his memory of the sins. Similarly, he's legally responsible for crimes he committed regardless of his memory of them or what transpired after.

I think it might be considered as a mitigating factor if the death penalty were in play.

I had the same reaction with regard to criminal responsibility, but let's tweak the hypo a bit. Let's say that the defense attorney argues that because the accident completely altered the accused's personality, that this guy is literally no longer the person who committed the crimes. Now, I doubt a jury would buy that, but let's assume that its a possibility. Should the judge let that argument be made to the jury as a matter of law?

I would think so. It's a rather compelling argument. How people have thought that the only thing they needed to do was reboot their life somehow, get a fresh start, all that stuff. In this hypo it actually happened. He would absolutely stand trial for his crimes. There is no way I see a prosecutor looking at it and saying, oh you're a new guy now because of the accident? Ok, move along. And considering the crimes are against children I can't envision him being found not guilty, but it's also certainly possible. The story the defense has to tell is that the state isn't trying the person who committed the crimes. Pre-Bus Joey was a terrible human being and deserves the full wrath of the judicial system. But Post-Bus Joey is not the same person and the state is trying to punish an innocent man for the crimes that his body committed when he wasn't in control of it. It's an interesting argument.

If I'm on a jury he's guilty. The change of personality doesn't sway me (assuming of course the state proves it's case which the hypo seems to say it will). But as for sentencing? Yeah, I think it would certainly be a mitigating factor if I was the judge.

 

[Tom Servo]

To the first, it depends on his relationship with God and what's in his heart. It's really not answerable by any of us. To the second question, he should absolutely be prosecuted.

This.

 

[Joe Summer]

If he's truly a "good person", then he will understand and accept the fact that he has to face the consequences of his actions.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

For the sake of argument let say everyone knows and is 100% sure he has no recollection of doing anything before the bus accident.

I don't this assumption changes anything, either for legal or religious purposes. If he accepts Christ and does whatever else is necessary under whatever Christian sect he has chosen, I expect most Christians agree he would be welcomed into eternal bliss regardless of his memory of the sins. Similarly, he's legally responsible for crimes he committed regardless of his memory of them or what transpired after.

The simple fact that there are people out there that believe you can rape and kill 17 children and go to heaven while not unconditionally loving what the Bible basically describes as the biggest sociopath in the universe means you'll go to hell shows just how absurd the whole idea of religion really is.

At least when people believe in ghosts and magic they don't think it means that they can go around raping and murdering people and be better off for it as long as they say "my bad" afterwards.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Is his soul different before and after the accident?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Was he texting when the bus hit him?

I certainly hope so.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

Are these the kinds of things you people discuss in church/bible study?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Are these the kinds of things you people discuss in church/bible study?

This, and hating gays. Don't forget the hating gays part.

 

[The Commish]

Is his soul different before and after the accident?

No way to know

 

[IC FBGCav]

Are these the kinds of things you people discuss in church/bible study?

Here is how this question came about. I couldn't sleep last night and my mind was racing. Had a sharp pain in my head and thought what if I have an aneurysm. Then I started thinking about how it would suck if I lost my memory and forgot everything I knew. But then I thought it wouldn't matter because the person I am now would no longer exist. Then if that person, no longer exists then my soul is not connected to my memory. If that is the case is there even a soul and if so what is the purpose? Before I went to bed I was watching the Talented Mr. Ripley. So then the whole murder thing came into play. Then today I just wanted to make the guy a really bad person before.

 

[Bucky86]

Hell no! I say fry him. What if he gets hit by a bus again and returned to his old ways?

 

[Psychopav]

For the sake of argument let say everyone knows and is 100% sure he has no recollection of doing anything before the bus accident.

I don't this assumption changes anything, either for legal or religious purposes. If he accepts Christ and does whatever else is necessary under whatever Christian sect he has chosen, I expect most Christians agree he would be welcomed into eternal bliss regardless of his memory of the sins. Similarly, he's legally responsible for crimes he committed regardless of his memory of them or what transpired after.

The simple fact that there are people out there that believe you can rape and kill 17 children and go to heaven while not unconditionally loving what the Bible basically describes as the biggest sociopath in the universe means you'll go to hell shows just how absurd the whole idea of religion really is.

At least when people believe in ghosts and magic they don't think it means that they can go around raping and murdering people and be better off for it as long as they say "my bad" afterwards.

Not sure why I feel compelled to address this but I do.

The distinction in both cases is much simpler but more nuanced than this poster describes. It comes down to a combination of grace (a freely given gift of God to man) and will to faith (a fully conscious decision of man to love God).

Of course someone who rapes 17 children can repent (act of will) and be saved (act of grace). Whether he remembers his crimes or not is incidental.

The "unconditional love" is that of God to man, and is the source of grace. While we strive for unconditional love towards God (the other direction), it is only achieveable by grace (in other words, not something that we, on our own, can achieve or merit).

So it's not believing one while also believing the other. They are one and the same.

And of course, the use of the term "sociopath" is not worth addressing imo. Trying to fit attributes of God into human psychological constructs is just silly. To attempt to do so is to deny the infinite otherness of God. We're like Him, yes, but He's not like us.

 

[Doug B]

Anyone else remember that episode of ER where the incognito Serbian war criminal confessed to a Roman Catholic priest while on his deathbed? No one in the hospital knew the old man in Room 3 was a war criminal, but Luka recognized him. IIRC, the war criminal actually had done something terrible to Luka's family, or friends, or something like that. IIRC, I think Luka may also have served as a translator durig the confession.

Anyway, Luka (a lapsed Croatian Roman Catholic) asks the priest afterwards what the confession was really worth after all the atrocities the man commited. The priest explained to Luka about God's grace and such.(similar to Psychopav's post #25) and assured him that if the confession was sincere and the old man had made peace with the Lord, he would be saved. Luka afterwards had a crisis of faith -- he was already lapsed, but the priest's words left him alternately "angry at God" and hopeful about his own eventual salvation. Luka's eventual disposition towards his faith was left ambiguous throughout the remainder of the show's run.

 

[sublimeone]

2. execute him

1. let God sort it out

 

[Tom Skerritt]

Are these the kinds of things you people discuss in church/bible study?

This, and hating gays. Don't forget the hating gays part.

But of course. This goes without saying when we talk about religion these days right? I only assumed we are talking about the religious implications of a gay serial pedophile/rapist/murderer.

 

[tonydead]

For the sake of argument let say everyone knows and is 100% sure he has no recollection of doing anything before the bus accident.

I don't this assumption changes anything, either for legal or religious purposes. If he accepts Christ and does whatever else is necessary under whatever Christian sect he has chosen, I expect most Christians agree he would be welcomed into eternal bliss regardless of his memory of the sins. Similarly, he's legally responsible for crimes he committed regardless of his memory of them or what transpired after.

The simple fact that there are people out there that believe you can rape and kill 17 children and go to heaven while not unconditionally loving what the Bible basically describes as the biggest sociopath in the universe means you'll go to hell shows just how absurd the whole idea of religion really is.

At least when people believe in ghosts and magic they don't think it means that they can go around raping and murdering people and be better off for it as long as they say "my bad" afterwards.

Those folks saying guilty on earth and forgiven in heaven is even more baffling. Especially since the extenuating factor would only exist on earth.

 

[Joe Summer]

Hell no! I say fry him.

I say we hang him, then we kill him.

 

[AAABatteries]

Not too much different from someone who is extremely intoxicated and commits a crime.

 

[The Commish]

For the sake of argument let say everyone knows and is 100% sure he has no recollection of doing anything before the bus accident.

I don't this assumption changes anything, either for legal or religious purposes. If he accepts Christ and does whatever else is necessary under whatever Christian sect he has chosen, I expect most Christians agree he would be welcomed into eternal bliss regardless of his memory of the sins. Similarly, he's legally responsible for crimes he committed regardless of his memory of them or what transpired after.

The simple fact that there are people out there that believe you can rape and kill 17 children and go to heaven while not unconditionally loving what the Bible basically describes as the biggest sociopath in the universe means you'll go to hell shows just how absurd the whole idea of religion really is.

At least when people believe in ghosts and magic they don't think it means that they can go around raping and murdering people and be better off for it as long as they say "my bad" afterwards.

While I am not a big fan of religion in general, this is a bit off IMO. It shows how absurd people can be and what lengths they will go to in order to justify a position. As to the last sentence, I'm not sure of which religions you are referring to, but I am not aware of any where this is the case.

 

[Fennis]

Was it Joey Lawrence?

http://masetv.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/joey_lawrence-whoa.gif

 

[IC FBGCav]

Not too much different from someone who is extremely intoxicated and commits a crime.

Yes it is very much different.

 

[The Commish]

I believe there have been cases somewhat like this in the past. Something about some former Nazi guard escaping capture in the 40s, then turning his life around and dedicating his life to helping people. Then when he's caught there are calls for leniency and clemency.

Right. And as it pertains to this life and the afterlife, the rules and consequences are different, so I'm not sure why people tie them together. The belief is that If there's been a genuine change in the person's heart God won't withhold his grace. None of us can know if that change ever occurs. However, even in that case, it's fully expected that he pay for his deeds within our society and pay via the law of the land.

 

[AAABatteries]

Not too much different from someone who is extremely intoxicated and commits a crime.

Yes it is very much different.

oh, in that case I vote no

 

[Zow]

For the sake of argument let say everyone knows and is 100% sure he has no recollection of doing anything before the bus accident.

I don't this assumption changes anything, either for legal or religious purposes. If he accepts Christ and does whatever else is necessary under whatever Christian sect he has chosen, I expect most Christians agree he would be welcomed into eternal bliss regardless of his memory of the sins. Similarly, he's legally responsible for crimes he committed regardless of his memory of them or what transpired after.

I think it might be considered as a mitigating factor if the death penalty were in play.

I had the same reaction with regard to criminal responsibility, but let's tweak the hypo a bit. Let's say that the defense attorney argues that because the accident completely altered the accused's personality, that this guy is literally no longer the person who committed the crimes. Now, I doubt a jury would buy that, but let's assume that its a possibility. Should the judge let that argument be made to the jury as a matter of law?

I would think so. It's a rather compelling argument. How people have thought that the only thing they needed to do was reboot their life somehow, get a fresh start, all that stuff. In this hypo it actually happened. He would absolutely stand trial for his crimes. There is no way I see a prosecutor looking at it and saying, oh you're a new guy now because of the accident? Ok, move along. And considering the crimes are against children I can't envision him being found not guilty, but it's also certainly possible. The story the defense has to tell is that the state isn't trying the person who committed the crimes. Pre-Bus Joey was a terrible human being and deserves the full wrath of the judicial system. But Post-Bus Joey is not the same person and the state is trying to punish an innocent man for the crimes that his body committed when he wasn't in control of it. It's an interesting argument.

If I'm on a jury he's guilty. The change of personality doesn't sway me (assuming of course the state proves it's case which the hypo seems to say it will). But as for sentencing? Yeah, I think it would certainly be a mitigating factor if I was the judge.

Yep. Or would very likely be considered as mitigating factors for a jury to decide if the state sought the death penalty.

 

[Zow]

The Sarah Jane Olson story is kind of a modern real version of your hypo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Jane_Olson

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

The Sarah Jane Olson story is kind of a modern real version of your hypo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Jane_Olson:

Although I don't think Olson "changed her ways" out of any sense (new or old) of morality. She just didn't want to go to jail.

BTW: As a lawyer type guy what is your opinion on Patty Hearst?

 

[trogg78]

Make him a civil servant.

 

[IC FBGCav]

For the sake of argument let say everyone knows and is 100% sure he has no recollection of doing anything before the bus accident.

I don't this assumption changes anything, either for legal or religious purposes. If he accepts Christ and does whatever else is necessary under whatever Christian sect he has chosen, I expect most Christians agree he would be welcomed into eternal bliss regardless of his memory of the sins. Similarly, he's legally responsible for crimes he committed regardless of his memory of them or what transpired after.

I think it might be considered as a mitigating factor if the death penalty were in play.

I had the same reaction with regard to criminal responsibility, but let's tweak the hypo a bit. Let's say that the defense attorney argues that because the accident completely altered the accused's personality, that this guy is literally no longer the person who committed the crimes. Now, I doubt a jury would buy that, but let's assume that its a possibility. Should the judge let that argument be made to the jury as a matter of law?

I would think so. It's a rather compelling argument. How people have thought that the only thing they needed to do was reboot their life somehow, get a fresh start, all that stuff. In this hypo it actually happened. He would absolutely stand trial for his crimes. There is no way I see a prosecutor looking at it and saying, oh you're a new guy now because of the accident? Ok, move along. And considering the crimes are against children I can't envision him being found not guilty, but it's also certainly possible. The story the defense has to tell is that the state isn't trying the person who committed the crimes. Pre-Bus Joey was a terrible human being and deserves the full wrath of the judicial system. But Post-Bus Joey is not the same person and the state is trying to punish an innocent man for the crimes that his body committed when he wasn't in control of it. It's an interesting argument.

If I'm on a jury he's guilty. The change of personality doesn't sway me (assuming of course the state proves it's case which the hypo seems to say it will). But as for sentencing? Yeah, I think it would certainly be a mitigating factor if I was the judge.

You are the only one that understands what I am looking for in this thread.

 

[Zow]

The Sarah Jane Olson story is kind of a modern

real version of your hypo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Jane_Olson:

Although I don't think Olson "changed

her ways" out of any sense (new or old) of morality. She just didn't want to go to jail.

BTW: As a lawyer type guy what is your opinion on Patty Hearst?

Yeah, Olson didn't exactly become mother Theresa which is why I put in the "kinda" qualifier. She did, at the very least, stop committing crimes and went on to live a pretty normal life and become a wife, mother, member of the pta, soccer mom, etc. My criminal law class in law school actually looked at this quite extensively because of the locale and the fact my prof was a close personal friend of her family's with the obvious underlying issue being how much weight should be given to a person's successful rehabitation of herself after the crime was committed but pre-sentencing versus the public policy position of not trying to encourage or reward running from the law. As for Hearst, I don't know her case as well but my understanding is that she claimed she was brainwashed and made to commit those acts. If true, this would possibly give her a duress defense to anything but murder.

 

[glumpy]

Funny that the concensus here seems to be that what this guy did is unforgivable for us but absolutely forgivable for God.