In most legal systems the accused may escape prosecution due to mental incapacity, be this low IQ, an inability to tell right from wrong, or even being in a coma. Would justice be served if an otherwise healthy accused had no memory of the crimes he has, in fact, committed? I have a WIP story in which the MC is an empath who becomes the prime suspect in a string of psychosomatic murders. He begins to suspect he is actually the killer, although he has no memory of committing these crimes. The plot uses the idea of self-induced schizophrenia (or, more properly ‘multiple personality disorder’) as a way for the psyche to cope with severe trauma. In this case the MC is killing whilst in the throes of a psychotic break, with the original personality recoiling in horror from the realisation of what he has done. What takes over is a virtually identical version of himself, but one that lacks knowledge of critical events. These are not repressed memories, they are memories that, in a very real sense, belong to someone else. In the above situation would the old adage ‘ignorance is no defense’ condemn an individual for acts his body has committed?