I know Mr. Felon has no memory of the incident and may appear currently harmless with a low level of re-committing such a crime. This would be akin to a person doing wrong and being truly truly sorry and really meaning it about never doing it again (but who can believe such a thing?)
I don't think that's an analogous situation. Felon is not like someone who is truly sorry for what he did because he can't
be sorry: he has no memory of doing anything wrong (indeed, he has no memory of doing anything at all). If he said he was sorry, it would be as if he were apologizing for the actions of someone else.
The purpose of convicting and incarcerating is to punish and try to deflect others who would do the same. While I know this seems not to work, there has to be some consquence to committing crimes.
I agree that those are two reasons to punish someone, but do they apply to Felon? After all, how is it fair or just to inflict punishment on Felon when he is unaware of his crime? Isn't that like something out of a Kafka novel rather than a legal code?
And how does punishing Felon under these circumstances necessarily deter others? If the justice system is so arbitrary and capricious that it would convict someone who is incapable of understanding his own guilt, doesn't that bad example outweigh the moral force of the punishment?
and although Mr. Felon does not remember his actions, it does not mean that he is not susceptible to a short-temper with a very violent nature. His amnesia is not a total behavioral change in him, it is only a memory loss.
Very true. Felon could quite easily go on to commit other crimes. But in this respect is he any different from anyone else? Are you willing to put him in jail on the presumption that he might
commit crimes in the future?